MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final

Residential Customer Profile
Study – Final Report
October 2, 2015
Prepared for:
The Electric and Gas Program Administrators of Massachusetts
Part of the Residential Evaluation Program Area

Prepared by:
Charles Bicknell
Scott Reeves
Leland Keller
Cadmus
DNV GL

i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................4
Overall Study Goal..................................................................................................................................4
Scope of Study........................................................................................................................................5
Presentation of Results.................................................................................................................................7
Efficiency Program Administrator Territories ........................................................................................7
Premises .................................................................................................................................................9
Participation .........................................................................................................................................10
Program Participation by Sector and Program..............................................................................11
Participation in Multiple Initiatives................................................................................................13
Demographic Profiles.....................................................................................................................17
Maps of Participation Rate ............................................................................................................25
Maps of Low-Income Program Participation.................................................................................29
Maps of Modeled Participation .....................................................................................................31
Maps of Multi-Initiative Participants.............................................................................................33
Savings..................................................................................................................................................34
Savings by Sector and Program......................................................................................................34
Demographic Profiles.....................................................................................................................37
Maps of Standardized Program Savings ........................................................................................46
Incentives .............................................................................................................................................60
Incentives by Sector and Program.................................................................................................60
Maps of Program Incentive Spending............................................................................................62
Appendix A: Methods .................................................................................................................................73
Data Import and Preparation ...............................................................................................................73
Data Collection .....................................................................................................................................73
PA Data Field Mapping.........................................................................................................................73
Premises Mapping................................................................................................................................73
Program Data Mapping to Premises ....................................................................................................75
Special Modeling ..................................................................................................................................76
Behavioral Model...........................................................................................................................76

ii
New Construction ..........................................................................................................................76
Upstream Lighting Model ..............................................................................................................76
Data Reconciliation...............................................................................................................................81
BCR Measure Mapping ..................................................................................................................82
Recognizing Savings at Measure Level...........................................................................................82
Matching Savings to BCR Gross Totals...........................................................................................83
Recognizing Incentives at Measure Level ......................................................................................83
Demographic Profile Analysis...............................................................................................................83
Appendix B: Supplemental Graphics...........................................................................................................86
Participation in Multiple Initiatives......................................................................................................86
Order of Participation in Multiple Initiatives.................................................................................89
Figures
Figure 1. Total 2013 Residential Electric Program Savings ...........................................................................2
Figure 2. Total 2013 Residential Gas Program Savings.................................................................................3
Figure 3. Electric Efficiency Program Administrator Territories ...................................................................8
Figure 4. Gas Efficiency Program Administrator Territories .........................................................................9
Figure 5. Distribution of Premises Participating in Electric Programs by Sector........................................11
Figure 6. Distribution of Premises Participating in Gas Programs by Sector..............................................11
Figure 7. Multi-Initiative Participants, 2013 ...............................................................................................14
Figure 8. Cross-Initiative Participation Movement.....................................................................................15
Figure 9. Participation Rate in Electric Programs in 2013, Excluding Upstream Lighting...........................25
Figure 10. Participation Rate in All Gas Programs Combined, 2013...........................................................26
Figure 11. Residential Whole House Electric Program Participation Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral .27
Figure 12. Residential Whole House Gas Program Participation Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral .......27
Figure 13. Residential Electric Products Program Participation Rate in 2013, Excluding Upstream Lighting
....................................................................................................................................................................28
Figure 14. Residential Gas Products Program Participation Rate in 2013..................................................29
Figure 15. Residential Low-Income Electric Whole House Participants in 2013 ........................................30
Figure 16. Residential Low-Income Gas Whole House Participants in 2013 ..............................................30
Figure 17. Behavioral – Electric Initiative Participation Rate in 2013.........................................................32
Figure 18. Behavioral – Gas Initiative Participation Rate in 2013...............................................................32
Figure 19. Multi-Initiative Participation Rate in Block Groups, 2013 .........................................................33
Figure 20. Distribution of Electric Savings by Sector and Program.............................................................34
Figure 21. Distribution of Electric Savings by Initiative...............................................................................35
Figure 22. Distribution of Gas Savings by Sector and Program ..................................................................36
Figure 23. Distribution of Gas Savings by Initiative ....................................................................................37

iii
Figure 24. Total 2013 Electric Program Savings Rate, Including Upstream Lighting ..................................48
Figure 25. Total 2013 Gas Program Savings Rate .......................................................................................49
Figure 26. Combined Statewide Savings Rate for All Programs, Electric and Gas......................................50
Figure 27. Residential Electric Whole House Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral..........51
Figure 28. Residential Electric Products Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Upstream Lighting.....52
Figure 29. Upstream Lighting Initiative Savings Distribution in 2013.........................................................53
Figure 30. Electric Behavioral Initiative Savings Rate in 2013 ....................................................................54
Figure 31. Low-Income Electric Whole House Program Savings in 2013....................................................55
Figure 32. Residential Gas Whole House Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral................56
Figure 33. Residential Gas Products Program Savings Rate in 2013...........................................................57
Figure 34. Low-Income Gas Whole House Program Savings in 2013 .........................................................58
Figure 35. Gas Behavioral Initiative Savings Rate in 2013 ..........................................................................59
Figure 36. Distribution of Incentives Paid for Electric Programs ................................................................60
Figure 37. Distribution of Incentives Paid for Gas Programs......................................................................61
Figure 38. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Programs and Sectors in 2013........................................63
Figure 39. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Electric Programs in 2013...............................................64
Figure 40. Residential Electric Whole House Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013...........................65
Figure 41. Residential Electric Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013, Excluding Upstream
Lighting........................................................................................................................................................66
Figure 42. Upstream Lighting Incentive Spending in 2013 .........................................................................67
Figure 43. Residential Electric Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013, Including Upstream
Lighting........................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 44. Low-Income Electric Whole House Program Incentive Spending in 2013.................................69
Figure 45. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Gas Programs in 2013.....................................................70
Figure 46. Residential Gas Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013........................................71
Figure 47. Residential Gas Whole House Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013 ................................71
Figure 48. Low-Income Gas Whole House Program Incentive Spending in 2013.......................................72
Figure 49. Two-Initiative Participation, Excluding Behavioral ....................................................................86
Figure 50. Three-Initiative Participation, Excluding Behavioral..................................................................86
Figure 51. Four-Initiative Participation, Excluding Behavioral....................................................................87
Figure 52. Two-Initiative Participation, Including Behavioral.....................................................................87
Figure 53. Three-Initiative Participation, Including Behavioral ..................................................................88
Figure 54. Four-Initiative Participation, Including Behavioral ....................................................................88
Figure 55. Five-Initiative Participation, Including Behavioral .....................................................................89
Tables
Table 1. Programs and Initiatives Included in Study.....................................................................................5
Table 2. PA Premises by Fuel ......................................................................................................................10
Table 3. PA Electric Program Participating Premises as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013.....................12
Table 4. PA Gas Program Participating Premises as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013...........................12

iv
Table 5. Electric PA Behavioral Initiative Participants as a Percentage of Total in 2013............................13
Table 6. Gas PA Behavioral Initiative Participants as a Percentage of Total in 2013..................................13
Table 7. Most Common Lead Initiatives for Multi-Initiative Participants, Excluding Behavioral ...............16
Table 8. Most Common Lead Initiatives for Multi-Initiative Participants, Including Behavioral................16
Table 9. HES - HEAT Loan Interaction Effects..............................................................................................17
Table 10. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in Electric Programs, Excluding
Upstream Lighting.......................................................................................................................................19
Table 11. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in All Gas Programs...........................19
Table 12. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Whole House
Electric Program (Excluding Behavioral).....................................................................................................20
Table 13. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Low-Income Whole House
Electric Program..........................................................................................................................................21
Table 14. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Electric Products
Program, Excluding Lighting........................................................................................................................22
Table 15. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Whole House Gas
Program.......................................................................................................................................................23
Table 16. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Low-Income Whole House Gas
Program.......................................................................................................................................................24
Table 17. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Gas Products
Program.......................................................................................................................................................24
Table 18. Electric Program Gross Savings as Percent of Total in 2013 .......................................................35
Table 19. Gas Program Gross Savings as Percent of Total in 2013.............................................................36
Table 20. Demographics of Block Groups by Average Savings in Electric Programs, Excluding Upstream
Lighting and Behavioral Initiatives..............................................................................................................39
Table 21. Demographics of Block Groups by Average Savings in All Gas Programs...................................39
Table 22. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Electric Residential Whole House
Program, Excluding Behavioral ...................................................................................................................40
Table 23. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Electric Low Income Whole House
Program.......................................................................................................................................................41
Table 24. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Electric Residential Products Program,
Excluding Lighting .......................................................................................................................................42
Table 25. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Residential Whole House
Program, Excluding Behavioral ...................................................................................................................43
Table 26. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Low Income Whole House
Program.......................................................................................................................................................44
Table 27. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Residential Products Program..45
Table 28. Electric PA Program Incentive Spending as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013........................61
Table 29. Gas PA Program Incentive Spending as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013..............................62
Table 30. Order of Participation in Multiple Initiatives, Excluding Behavioral...........................................90
Table 31. Order of Participation in Multiple Initiatives, Including Behavioral............................................91

1
Executive Summary
The Residential Customer Profile Study provides a summary of energy efficiency program participation,
gross savings, and incentive spending for the Residential and Low-Income sectors across all program
administrators (PAs) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This report presents findings by sector
and program for calendar year 2013. Results are based upon an analysis of program records that have
been merged with U.S. Census Bureau data and demographic data from the American Community
Survey at a U.S. Census Block Group level.
This study was not intended to be, and should not be misconstrued as, an attempt to audit program
tracking records. However, gross energy savings and incentive spending data compiled for this study
were compared to data in the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) models that support efficiency program reporting
to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; savings were within +/- 1% and incentive spending
was within +/- 4%.
By joining records from electric and gas programs at the premises level, and then aggregating data to
the block group, this study provides the first statewide view of the residential and low-income program
impacts across all PAs including geographic analysis. In addition to illustrating broad geospatial trends
and distributions, this study provides insight into patterns of participation in multiple initiatives.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the distribution of electric and gas energy savings in the Residential
customer class (including the Low-Income sector) across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These
maps show the average savings per premises served by PAs at the block group level. Although data from
municipal utilities were not included in this study, savings may be shown in block groups that are served
by municipal utilities for two reasons: Upstream Lighting initiative savings were distributed to all block
groups with residential households and some block groups include both households served by a
municipal utility as well as households served by a PA.

2
Figure 1. Total 2013 Residential Electric Program Savings

3
Figure 2. Total 2013 Residential Gas Program Savings

4
Introduction
The Residential Customer Profile Study is an ongoing effort to collect, compile, analyze, and report upon
the effects of the Program Administrator’s (PA’s) energy efficiency programs across the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. The objective of the study, launched in 2014 at the request of the Massachusetts PAs
and the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC), is to provide stakeholders and other interested
parties with a greater understanding of the performance of the combined residential sector programs.
The results of this first iteration of the study, using data on the 2013 programs, are based upon the
analysis of a newly created database of program tracking records. The development of the database
required several thousand hours of labor to merge files from each of the PAs and multiple
implementation vendors, information from independent databases developed with different rules and
structures, and third-party data. Maintaining this database will continue to be a significant undertaking;
however, the benefits to PAs and stakeholders are numerous and will grow. The database now contains
program tracking data, billing data, and public data from sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the
U.S. Postal Service. Although this report is limited to data from calendar year 2013, future studies will
expand upon the analysis provided to identify trends over time, illustrate cumulative participation
density, and investigate other topics that require longitudinal data for proper analysis.
Overall Study Goal
The Residential Customer Profile Study presents a statewide view of residential and low-income
efficiency program participation, savings, and incentive spending. This is the first analysis integrating and
presenting residential program effects across PA territories for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To achieve this result, customer information system (CIS) data, billing data, and program tracking data
for each PA’s portfolio of residential programs are compiled in a single repository. Tracking records for
both gas and electric programs are merged to develop a single set of residential participating premises.
Measure-level participation records are associated to unique premises to establish geographic locations
for program impacts. Through analysis of these integrated data, the Residential Research Area
Evaluation Team1
(RRAET) develops summaries of participation, savings, and incentives paid for
programs across all PAs. Using geographic information system (GIS) analysis, participation, savings, and
incentive spending patterns are summarized at the U.S. Census Bureau Block Group level for
presentation in maps.2
1
Cadmus is the prime contractor of the RRAET, which conducted the Residential Customer Profile Study.
Additional RREAT team contractors include NMR, DNV GL, Navigant, and Tetra Tech.
2
Block groups are divisions within census tracts, generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people.
They do not always contain residential premises. Block group borders never cross over state, county, or census
tract boundaries but may cross the boundaries of any other geographic entity. (United States Census Bureau.
“Geographic Terms and Concepts – Block Groups.” Accessed online August 31, 2015:
www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html).

5
The RRAET also imports demographic data from the U.S. Census (2010) and the American Community
Survey (ACS).3
With these data, analysis on demographic characteristics are presented for multiple tiers
of participation and savings for the electric and gas programs
Scope of Study
All data presented are associated with the portfolio of energy efficiency programs and initiatives for the
residential customer class served by the Massachusetts PAs billed on residential and low-income tariffs.4
Data are analyzed and reported at the program level for both the residential sector and low-income
sector. This study covers the programs and initiatives as implemented by the PAs statewide, listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Programs and Initiatives Included in Study
Sector Program Initiative
Electric
Residential Products Lighting
Residential Products Consumer Products (Appliances)
Residential Products Cooling & Heating Equipment (COOL SMART)
Residential Whole House Behavior/Feedback (Behavioral)
Residential Whole House Home Energy Services (HES)
Residential Whole House Multi-Family Retrofit (Multifamily)
Residential Whole House New Construction (RNC)
Low-Income Whole House Low-Income New Construction (LI NC)
Low-Income Whole House Low-Income Single Family Retrofit (LI SF)
Low-Income Whole House Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit (LI MF)
Gas
Residential Products High Efficiency Heating Equipment (HEHE)
Residential Whole House Behavior/Feedback (Behavioral)
Residential Whole House Home Energy Services
Residential Whole House Multi-Family Retrofit (Multifamily)
Residential Whole House New Construction
Low-Income Whole House Low-Income Single Family Retrofit
Low-Income Whole House Low-Income Multi-Family Retrofit
3
ACS Survey data used in this study comes from the ACS 5-year estimates based on survey responses collected
in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
4
Program tracking records were not excluded from analysis if the participant account could not be found in
Residential billing tables. For such participants where an account record was not available for the premises,
these participation records were associated to an account identified as Unknown. Buildings billed on a
commercial tariff are therefore likely to be associated to the Unknown account.

6
As noted in the Executive Summary, the purpose of this study is to illustrate broad geospatial trends and
distributions as well as patterns of participation in multiple initiatives. The database developed for this
study is not intended to mimic or represent every detail of program implementation. Data compiled into
the Residential Customer Profile Study database comes from different sources at different periods in
time relative to other filings and reports. In some cases, data have been obtained directly from
implementation contractors before the PAs had developed and submitted final 2013 reconciled records.
The statewide gross energy savings and incentive spending data used in this study were compared to
data in the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) models that support efficiency program reporting to the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; savings were within +/- 1% and incentive spending was
within +/- 4%.
One area of particular note for understanding this analysis relative to other data sources and reports is
the approach for calculating the count of program participants. This study accounts for residential
customers, including those living in condominiums and other multifamily buildings, at the premises
level. Premises are defined as locations with a unique service address, including the first line and
secondary address line (where provided).5
Lastly, since actual premises are not known for purchasers of bulbs through the Upstream Lighting
initiative, participation, savings, and incentives were allocated to the census block group level using a
model. The records used in this study are compiled from PAs, program implementers, and other third-
party sources. Rules for determining premises counts, participation years, and project completions were
developed for internal consistency in this analysis and may vary from those used by PAs in separate
reports and filings.
5
By this definition of premises, multiple units in a building with unique secondary address lines are treated as
unique premises. For example, “123 Oak Street, Apt 2,” “123 Oak Street” (with no secondary address), and
“123 Oak Street U1” are each unique premises with different Cadmus PremiseIDs. However, a building with
only one service address for electric service and gas service (where provided), regardless of the number of
units, would be treated as a single premises. For example, if an apartment building is served by a master
electric meter and a master gas meter and the service address is the same for both electric and gas service,
that building would receive only one unique Cadmus PremiseID.

7
Presentation of Results
The following pages present program participation, gross savings, and incentive payments at the sector,
program, and PA levels. Maps and other geographic analysis of program participation, savings, and
incentive spending are presented at the U.S. Census Block Group level. All savings reported are for the
primary fuel savings—the electric and gas savings that are directly targeted by programs—and do not
include secondary fuel savings or savings in oil, propane, or wood.
Efficiency Program Administrator Territories
The maps in Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the territories where each PA delivers energy efficiency
programs.6
Readers may want to refer to these maps when viewing subsequent maps of participation,
savings, and incentive payments to distinguish PA service territories. In these maps, areas served by
municipal electric and gas utilities are shown in a dark green.
Figure 3 illustrates electric efficiency PA territories in Massachusetts.7
In this map, Eversource Eastern
Massachusetts (Eversource-East) is labeled with its former name “NSTAR.” Eversource Western
Massachusetts (Eversource-West) is labeled as “WMECo.”
6
Note that territories where a particular PA delivers energy efficiency programs do not always overlay exactly
with that PA’s distribution service territory.
7
MassGIS Data, http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-
geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/pubutil.html, Accessed online January 27, 2014, and
http://www.capelightcompact.org/library/2011/05/MassachusettsEEPAMap.pdf. Accessed online January 30,
2014.

8
Figure 3. Electric Efficiency Program Administrator Territories

9
Figure 4 illustrates gas efficiency PA territories in Massachusetts.8
In this map, Eversource Gas is labeled
with its former name, “NSTAR.” Liberty Utilities territory is labeled as “New England Gas.”
Figure 4. Gas Efficiency Program Administrator Territories
Premises
Cadmus developed a custom database to support this project, populated with data from each PA’s
customer records. From these customer records, Cadmus was able to develop a singular resource for
reporting on program activity by premises across multiple initiatives and programs within a given PA
territory and across PAs for both fuels. For more detail on the union of these records, see the
description of methods in Appendix A: Methods.
Table 2 shows the count of unique premises served by PAs that could be geolocated in the Total
Premises column. Additional columns illustrate the count of premises that were identified as
participating in electric programs and gas programs from the program tracking data. The combined total
of premises is shown in the row “Both Fuels,” which considers all premises served by a PA for at least
8
MassGIS Data, http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-
geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/pubutil.html, Accessed January 27, 2014, based on MDPU data of
April 23, 2008.

10
one fuel. The Both Fuel values are based on the union of electric and gas premises records and not the
sum of these individual values.
Table 2. PA Premises by Fuel
Fuel
Total
Premises
Participating
Premises
without
Behavioral
Behavioral/
Feedback
Premises
Total
Participating
Premises
Premises
Participation
Rate without
Behavioral
Total
Premises
Participation
Rate
Electric 2,696,911 168,661 938,997 1,030,615 6% 38%
Gas 1,472,309 70,480 478,307 519,833 5% 35%
Both Fuels 2,798,764 200,523 1,275,088 1,410,742 7% 50%
The total number of premises served by either electric or gas PAs is slightly higher than the total count
of electric PA premises because some gas premises are not served by electric PAs. The column
“Participating Premises without Behavioral” shows the total of premises for all opt-in programs; the
Behavioral initiative is excluded because of its opt-out format. The count of Total Participating Premises
includes all opt-in initiatives as well as the Behavioral initiative; however, the effect of some premises
participating in both Behavioral and other initiatives causes the total to be less than the sum of the two
subtotals.
Participation
The program participation counts presented in this report are based on counts of unique premises in the
program tracking data, rather than count of unique accounts or customers, as described in Appendix A:
Methods.9
The approach for counting participating premises is applied consistently across programs and
PAs. Although people actually choose to participate in efficiency programs, it is the premises that
receives energy efficiency services or treatments in most residential programs. The premises treatment
remains, even when occupants move somewhere else.10
Therefore, multiple service premises in the
billing data and tracking data associated to a unique account are represented as unique premises in the
database. More discussion of identifying unique premises and counting participating premises is
provided in Appendix A.
9
The implication of this methodology for establishing premises is that a single premises may have several
accounts if many PA premises identifiers were provided for a given building. Individually metered units
typically are counted as unique premises, even if they are apartments in a building. A building with master-
metered electricity and gas may count as only one premises, though there may be dozens of individual
dwelling units there.
10
The term premises, though appearing plural, is also correctly used to refer to a single location. The term
premise refers to the basis for an argument.

11
Program Participation by Sector and Program
Figure 5 shows the share of participation in each electric efficiency program in 2013 as a percentage of
the electric programs’ total of 1,030,615 participating premises.
Figure 5. Distribution of Premises Participating in Electric Programs by Sector
Figure 6 shows the share of participation in each gas efficiency program in 2013 as a percentage of the
gas programs’ total of 519,833 participating premises.
Figure 6. Distribution of Premises Participating in Gas Programs by Sector

12
Approximately 11% of electric PA accounts and 10% of gas PA accounts are served on low-income tariffs.
The low-income participation rates shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 are consistent with the share of
customer accounts associated with customers on low-income tariffs statewide.
Table 3 illustrates the contribution of each PA toward the statewide total count of 168,661 participating
premises in all electric programs, excluding Behavioral. Table 4 shows the contribution of each PA
toward the statewide total count of 70,480 participating premises in all gas programs, excluding
Behavioral. Whole House program data are shown excluding Behavioral initiative participation in order
to provide clear impacts of the other program totals, which could otherwise be obscured by the high
participation count of the Behavioral initiative. The counts of unique premises in the electric and gas
Behavioral initiative are shown separately in Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 3. PA Electric Program Participating Premises as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013
Programs
Cape Light
Compact
Eversource-
East
Eversource-
West
National
Grid
Unitil Total
Low-Income 0.5% 3.2% 0.9% 6.5% 0.1% 11.1%
Low-Income Whole
House
0.5% 3.2% 0.9% 6.5% 0.1% 11.1%
Residential 5.2% 29.6% 4.8% 48.9% 0.4% 88.9%
Residential Products 2.2% 9.0% 2.2% 15.1% 0.2% 28.8%
Residential Whole
House
2.9% 20.6% 2.6% 33.8% 0.2% 60.1%
Total 5.7% 32.8% 5.6% 55.4% 0.5% 100.0%
Table 4. PA Gas Program Participating Premises as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013
Programs
Berkshire
Gas
Columbia
Gas
Eversource
Liberty
Utilities
National
Grid
Unitil Total
Low-Income 0.2% 0.9% 0.8% N/A 2.1% 0.0% 3.9%
Low-Income Whole
House
0.2% 0.9% 0.8% N/A 2.1% 0.0% 3.9%
Residential 2.0% 17.1% 19.0% 1.4% 56.1% 0.4% 96.1%
Residential Products 1.1% 7.3% 5.8% 0.8% 23.6% 0.2% 38.7%
Residential Whole
House
1.0% 9.8% 13.2% 0.6% 32.6% 0.2% 57.4%
Total 2.2% 18.0% 19.8% 1.4% 58.2% 0.4% 100.0%
Note: Participant data from Liberty Utilities Multifamily and Low-Income Multifamily initiatives are not included in
the Whole House program data. Although Liberty Utilities did provide program records, these were not available in
a format supporting measure-specific installations at specific premises.

13
The distribution of unique premises in the Behavioral initiative is shown separately in Table 5 and Table
6 for electric and gas programs, respectively.
Table 5. Electric PA Behavioral Initiative Participants as a Percentage of Total in 2013
Programs
Eversource-
East
Eversource-
West
National Grid
Behavioral 20.1% 11.3% 68.6%
Table 6. Gas PA Behavioral Initiative Participants as a Percentage of Total in 2013
Programs Eversource National Grid
Behavioral 20.3% 79.7%
Participation in Multiple Initiatives
This study is the first to identify patterns of specific unique premises participating in multiple initiatives
across programs for different fuels. Cadmus identified a total of 15,386 premises that participated in
two or more initiatives in 2013, excluding the Behavioral initiative. This group of multi-initiative
participating premises represents 7.7% of the total of 200,523 premises that opted to participate in any
initiative, inclusive of both fuels.
Figure 7 shows the distribution of premises that opted to participate in multiple core initiatives (which
could be either electric or gas initiatives or both). These participation numbers do not count Behavioral,
Community, HEAT Loan, or Lighting initiatives. Applying these filters illustrates participation actions
consumers have chosen to take and avoids double-counting participants. Lighting is excluded because
participation is not known at the premises level.

14
Figure 7. Multi-Initiative Participants, 2013
Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of and movement of participants from one program to other
subsequent programs. The width of the ribbon at the “Starting Initiative” on the left is proportional to
the number of participants in that initiative that subsequently participated in one of the initiatives on
the right. Date records in the program tracking data used to identify the participation date (and
therefore Starting Initiative below) were chosen to be consistent with the date PAs recorded
participation events. The date field, however, may represent an invoice date or payment date, rather
than the actual installation date. Consequently, although these representations are the best available
approximations of cross-program participation, the actual sequence of participation could vary.11
Note
that a given premises participating in more than two initiatives will be represented in more than one
ribbon leading from the starting initiative to various subsequent initiatives.
11
See Appendix B: Supplemental Graphics for additional detail on the frequency of combinations and order of
initiatives for multi-initiative participation.

15
Figure 8. Cross-Initiative Participation Movement
Table 7 shows the frequency with which the different initiatives are the first in a sequence for multi-
initiative participants without regard to Behavioral program exposure. The HES initiative is the most
common lead initiative for customers participating in multiple initiatives without considering premises
chosen for Behavioral treatment. Although the HES initiative is the most common single point of entry
to the residential efficiency programs for multi-initiative participants, it represents only 35% of all lead
initiatives for the 15,386 premises that participated in multiple initiatives.

16
Table 7. Most Common Lead Initiatives for Multi-Initiative Participants, Excluding Behavioral
Lead Initiative Frequency as Lead Initiative
HES 35%
COOL SMART 25%
HEHE 21%
Appliances 14%
LI-SF 2%
Other 3%
A second analysis of the patterns in multiple-initiative participation is shown in Table 8, which considers
the records of premises that were enrolled in the Behavioral initiative through either their electric or gas
PA. Including the Behavioral participation records, a total of 58,906 premises were identified that
participated in two or more initiatives in 2013. This group of multi-initiative participating premises
represents 4.2% of the total of 1,410,742 premises that participated in any initiative, inclusive of both
fuels. The analysis demonstrates that 77% of customers received Behavioral program treatment before
enrolling in an efficiency program. This indicates only that Residential sector participants are more likely
than not to have received Behavioral program treatment before enrolling in another initiative.
Table 8. Most Common Lead Initiatives for Multi-Initiative Participants, Including Behavioral
Lead Initiative Frequency as Lead Initiative
Behavioral 77%
HES 7%
COOL SMART 7%
HEHE 5%
Appliances 3%
Other 2%
The likelihood of HEAT Loan participants to participate in other initiatives besides HES was investigated
based on the rationale that receiving a loan for HES measures might enable or encourage customers to
do more to improve their home energy efficiency. As shown in Table 9, 41% of those customers who did
receive a HEAT Loan also participated in other initiatives, whereas 59% participated only in HES in 2013.
This engagement is higher than the baseline of customers who did not receive a HEAT Loan, where 9%
participated in other initiatives in 2013.

17
Table 9. HES - HEAT Loan Interaction Effects
Heat Loan
Yes No
Multiple Programs 41% 9%
HES Only 59% 91%
Demographic Profiles
Demographic analysis presented in this report uses the ACS demographics, which provide data
representing census block group populations based on a survey of a representative sample. Although
the block group demographic data cannot describe specific participant demographics, they yield
information about the geographic areas where participation rate values are relatively high or relatively
low.
The following tables present demographic data for block groups with participating premises in electric
and gas efficiency programs (Table 10 through
Table 17) based on ranked order of participation rate or average savings rate. The process of ranking the
block groups, sorting them into quintiles and computing demographic factors associated with each
quintile or category, is outlined below and described in more detail in Appendix A: Methods.
These tables do not support inferences about individual premises or block group demographic
characteristics from the aggregated data. This bias of applying characteristics of a large population to
individuals in the population is known as the “ecological inference fallacy.” The ecological inference
fallacy might lead a reader to believe that the block groups in Quintile 1 with a high participation rate in
a certain program all share the same demographic characteristics as aggregated for the category.
However, there may be substantial variation in these characteristics for the block groups within a
category and for the households within a block group.
To illustrate the demographics of block groups with participating premises for a given program, census
block groups are segmented using premises participation data by:
 Counting the number of unique PA premises in each block group (by fuel), based on the
comprehensive set of geocoded PA billing and CIS data.
 Counting the number of participating premises in each block group, based on PA program-
tracking data.
 Identifying block groups with no participants to handle in a separate category.
 Eliminating block groups that had no qualifying PA premises. This analysis is fuel-specific, as the
count of premises served by electric PAs in a block group may be different than the count of
premises served by gas PAs in a block group.

18
 Computing the participation rate for each block group, a proportion based on the count of
qualified PA premises in each block group for the given fuel.
 Ranking the block groups from highest to lowest by Average Participation Rate.
 Partitioning the set of block groups with participating premises into five quintiles. Quintile 1
represents the category with the highest participation rate.
Then, for each category (in rows), the demographic factors were calculated based on the characteristics
of the block groups in that category, as described in Appendix A: Methods.
The following tables present demographic data for categories of block groups based on their ranking by
the “Average Participation Rate” in electric and gas efficiency programs. The Average Participation Rate
for an entire category is computed as the average of the Average Participation Rate value computed for
each of the block groups within the category. Block groups that contained premises that were eligible
for programs but had no participants are shown in a separate category called “No Participants.” Each of
the following tables includes a final row that provides the statewide sum of field values in the project
database. The Count of Block Groups represents the total number of qualified block groups that were
served by one or more PAs for a given fuel. The Count of Premises represents the category’s total
number of qualified premises served by one or more PAs for a given fuel (but does not include premises
served only by municipalities).
Given the ranking of data by average participation rate in descending order, these tables can be used to
identify correlations to trends (or absence of trends) in the various demographic data fields provided.
The first pair of tables are a combination of all participants in any program at the fuel level. Table 10
illustrates the aggregated demographics of block groups in which at least one premises participated in
an electric initiative. Table 11 shows the aggregated demographics of block groups in which at least one
premises participated in a gas initiative. Both tables include Behavioral program participants in the
“Count of Participating Premises.” The tables that follow illustrate demographics of categories of block
groups with participants in specific programs.
The data supporting Table 10 are based do not include effects from the Upstream Lighting initiative
because individual and block group level participation was not modeled for that initiative. Excluding
lighting savings from this analysis removes potential errors from the model distribution and leaves this
analysis based purely on the known savings from opt-in programs.

19
Table 10. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in Electric Programs, Excluding Upstream Lighting
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do Not
Speak English
Well
Quintile 1 68.3% 894 501,864 337,588 $78,205 17% 8% 17% 53% 3%
Quintile 2 56.6% 894 509,468 288,405 $62,874 25% 13% 32% 65% 6%
Quintile 3 43.9% 894 520,775 226,992 $65,077 25% 12% 32% 65% 6%
Quintile 4 24.5% 894 551,452 134,931 $65,560 29% 17% 45% 73% 9%
Quintile 5 7.2% 894 597,887 42,699 $59,101 29% 23% 43% 61% 7%
No Participants 0.0% 138 15,458 0 $75,259 19% 11% 24% 54% 3%
Statewide 38.9% 4,608 2,696,904 1,030,615 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%
Table 11. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in All Gas Programs
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do Not
Speak English
Well
Quintile 1 73.4% 900 288,306 210,397 $86,482 15% 9% 19% 58% 3%
Quintile 2 51.6% 900 289,370 149,326 $70,064 22% 16% 34% 64% 6%
Quintile 3 36.0% 900 285,240 102,604 $65,217 26% 17% 41% 70% 7%
Quintile 4 17.7% 900 274,544 49,119 $64,784 26% 18% 35% 66% 7%
Quintile 5 2.7% 900 322,928 8,387 $54,887 31% 13% 34% 65% 6%
No Participants 0.0% 224 11,921 0 $63,205 26% 13% 25% 49% 4%
Statewide 34.6% 4,724 1,472,309 519,833 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

20
Table 12 shows the demographics of block groups with participants in the Residential Whole House program. The quintile aggregate median
household income values are higher because low-income customers are not treated through this program. Median household income is highest
for Quintile 1 and declines steadily in the remaining categories as the participation rate declines. Similarly, median household income
demographics are lower in Table 13 because it exclusively serves low-income customers. The percentage of population with income less than
200% of poverty is highest for Quintile 1 of block groups with the highest participation rate. This percentage steadily declines and the median
household income value steadily rises for the remaining ranked quintiles.
Table 12. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the
Residential Whole House Electric Program (Excluding Behavioral)
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English
Well
Quintile 1 11.6% 840 475,033 51,433 $88,972 14% 10% 18% 57% 3%
Quintile 2 4.6% 840 506,963 23,071 $80,796 16% 6% 18% 59% 3%
Quintile 3 3.2% 840 507,599 16,036 $67,962 22% 9% 27% 62% 4%
Quintile 4 2.0% 839 526,738 10,513 $58,672 29% 15% 40% 66% 7%
Quintile 5 0.8% 839 545,069 4,156 $48,085 40% 26% 56% 71% 11%
No Participants 0.0% 410 135,502 0 $48,293 36% 31% 48% 60% 11%
Statewide 4.0% 4,608 2,696,904 105,209 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%

21
Low-Income Whole House Electric Program
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 3.5% 638 327,614 12,502 $48,903 37% 15% 46% 71% 10%
Quintile 2 0.8% 638 358,321 3,005 $58,392 29% 10% 34% 67% 7%
Quintile 3 0.5% 638 408,001 2,009 $63,931 25% 11% 30% 62% 6%
Quintile 4 0.3% 638 395,066 1,184 $68,874 22% 11% 28% 61% 5%
Quintile 5 0.2% 637 524,323 753 $73,034 21% 16% 30% 58% 5%
No Participants 0.0% 1,419 683,579 0 $78,411 20% 19% 31% 62% 5%
Statewide 0.7% 4,608 2,696,904 19,453 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%

22
The data supporting Table 14 are based on the COOL SMART and Appliances initiatives. They do not include effects from the Upstream Lighting
initiative because individual and block group level participation was not modeled for that initiative.
Residential Electric Products Program, Excluding Lighting
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 4.4% 831 482,933 19,709 $95,398 12% 4% 10% 51% 2%
Quintile 2 2.6% 831 511,561 13,477 $77,004 17% 7% 18% 58% 3%
Quintile 3 1.8% 831 537,135 9,601 $66,641 22% 11% 28% 63% 4%
Quintile 4 1.1% 830 511,613 5,469 $57,403 30% 19% 46% 71% 7%
Quintile 5 0.4% 830 533,833 2,118 $44,014 44% 32% 65% 74% 13%
No Participants 0.0% 455 119,829 0 $58,293 31% 20% 40% 59% 10%
Statewide 1.9% 4,608 2,696,904 50,374 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%

23
This section presents demographic data for quintiles of block groups with participating premises in gas efficiency programs in Table 15 through
Table 17.
Table 15. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Whole House Gas Program
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 11.4% 872 237,490 25,110 $95,971 12% 9% 16% 58% 3%
Quintile 2 6.0% 871 281,750 16,812 $79,432 17% 11% 22% 60% 4%
Quintile 3 4.3% 871 300,006 12,941 $68,852 21% 12% 29% 63% 5%
Quintile 4 2.9% 871 311,528 9,034 $59,183 28% 16% 39% 67% 6%
Quintile 5 1.3% 871 316,402 3,859 $44,606 42% 22% 57% 74% 12%
No Participants 0.0% 368 25,133 0 $54,247 32% 23% 36% 54% 8%
Statewide 4.8% 4,724 1,472,309 67,756 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

24
Table 16. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Low-Income Whole House Gas Program
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 1.7% 308 83,741 1,077 $50,641 36% 17% 46% 69% 10%
Quintile 2 0.6% 308 101,286 633 $55,979 30% 13% 38% 70% 8%
Quintile 3 0.4% 308 110,157 476 $57,079 29% 12% 36% 67% 8%
Quintile 4 0.3% 307 120,862 365 $65,787 24% 11% 31% 68% 6%
Quintile 5 0.2% 307 176,422 318 $66,353 24% 12% 32% 60% 6%
No Participants 0.0% 3,186 879,841 0 $71,647 22% 15% 30% 62% 5%
Statewide 0.2% 4,724 1,472,309 2,869 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%
Table 17. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Participation in the Residential Gas Products Program
Category
Average
Participation
Rate
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Count of
Participating
Premises
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
< 200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living
in MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units
Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That Do
Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 5.7% 813 207,642 9,797 $93,210 13% 9% 16% 55% 3%
Quintile 2 2.9% 813 272,836 7,926 $81,893 16% 11% 21% 59% 3%
Quintile 3 2.0% 813 284,822 5,546 $70,739 20% 13% 28% 64% 4%
Quintile 4 1.2% 813 285,670 3,449 $61,346 26% 15% 38% 68% 6%
Quintile 5 0.6% 813 321,885 1,732 $48,723 38% 19% 53% 75% 10%
No Participants 0.0% 659 99,454 0 $48,738 37% 22% 45% 60% 10%
Statewide 2.1% 4,724 1,472,309 28,450 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

25
Maps of Participation Rate
The following maps illustrate the participation rate within each block group, a ratio of the count of
participating premises divided by the number of residential premises in each block group served by the
PAs. Participation data include initiatives from all sponsoring PAs. Towns served by municipal electric or
gas utilities appear gray, and block groups around them may be served by a combination of PAs and the
municipal utility. In these border block groups, the split share of premises served by PAs can cause
mapped participation rates to appear abnormally high (red) or low (white or blue).
Figure 9 below shows the total participation rate within each block group for all electric programs
combined for the residential and low-income sectors combined. The data supporting this map exclude
the Upstream Lighting initiative because individual and block group level participation was not modeled
for that initiative. Excluding lighting savings from this analysis removes potential errors from the model
distribution so this analysis is based purely on the known savings from opt-in programs.
Figure 9. Participation Rate in Electric Programs in 2013, Excluding Upstream Lighting
Figure 10 shows the total participation rate within each block group for all gas programs combined. Gray
areas of this map indicate areas where gas service is not available. Service may not be provided to all
residential premises in some block groups; this may be more likely for the block groups in white or blue
situated on the perimeter of PA service territory. White areas of the gas maps indicate block groups in
townships where gas is reportedly available, but no gas premises participated in any programs. The

26
availability of gas in a township does not necessarily mean that gas is available to the bulk of residential
customers living there.
Figure 10. Participation Rate in All Gas Programs Combined, 2013
Data supporting the maps in Figure 11 and Figure 12 include the Multifamily initiative, which has the
potential of strongly affecting the participation rate for block groups where participants live. Particularly
for large buildings, a participation event focused on one building with many premises can generate a
concentrated high program participation or savings rate for the block group. Analysis of the Multifamily
and Low-Income Multifamily initiatives for both electric and gas found that only the electric Multifamily
program produced a significant influence on the concentration of high participation rate block groups
shown in the corresponding Whole House program participation maps.

27
Figure 11. Residential Whole House Electric Program Participation Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral
Figure 12. Residential Whole House Gas Program Participation Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral

28
Figure 13 shows the participation rate in the Residential Electric Products program without the
Upstream Lighting initiative.
Figure 13. Residential Electric Products Program Participation Rate in 2013,
Excluding Upstream Lighting

29
Figure 14. Residential Gas Products Program Participation Rate in 2013
Maps of Low-Income Program Participation
The low-income programs are directed toward a population that is impossible to isolate at the block
group level because the complex qualification criteria do not match any census or ACS demographic
characteristics available. The maps in Figure 15 and Figure 16 show data as a count of participants per
block group because the population of qualifying premises in the block group is not available to support
standardizing the data.

30
Figure 15. Residential Low-Income Electric Whole House Participants in 2013
Figure 16. Residential Low-Income Gas Whole House Participants in 2013

31
Maps of Modeled Participation
Behavioral and Upstream Lighting initiatives are unique in that participation in these initiatives cannot
be isolated to specific participation events at known premises. Customers are selected for Behavioral
program treatment and may opt out. Their level of engagement or participation is not known at a
premises level. The Upstream Lighting initiative, given its design and targeting of distributors, benefits
customers who are not tracked from the point of purchase, and its impacts are not known at the
premises level. To include impacts of these initiatives in the analysis for this study, Cadmus had to make
certain assumptions about how to identify the premises or block groups that these initiatives would
affect, as described below.
For the Behavioral initiative, reported savings were distributed to the premises that were listed in the
vendor tracking data as treatment participants and did not opt out of the initiative. A premises was
counted as a participant if tracking data included adequate address information to match to the table of
known premises addresses or to locate the premises on a map using the standardized address. Cadmus
calculated the block group participation rate as the number of participating premises receiving
treatment divided by the number of unique premises for that fuel served by any PA in that block group.
The participation rate for each block group is shown in Figure 17 for the electric initiative and in Figure
18 for the gas initiative. National Grid, Eversource-East, and Eversource-West had an active electric
Behavioral initiative in 2013. Therefore, white areas in Figure 17 show no participation in Unitil and Cape
Light Compact territories. Only National Grid and Eversource Gas offered a gas Behavioral initiative in
2013. Therefore, white areas in Figure 18 show no participation in Columbia Gas, Liberty Gas, and Unitil
territories.

32
Figure 17. Behavioral – Electric Initiative Participation Rate in 2013
Figure 18. Behavioral – Gas Initiative Participation Rate in 2013

33
For the Upstream Lighting initiative, Cadmus did not attempt to model participation at the premises
level; instead, the modeling process distributed initiative sales, savings, and incentives to block groups
as described in Appendix A: Methods. The results are shown in the Savings section below.
Maps of Multi-Initiative Participants
Figure 19 shows the locations of premises that participated in more than one efficiency initiative
(electric or gas) at the block group level as a fraction computed by the number of multi-initiative
participants divided by the total number of premises served by a PA in each block group. Community
programs were not included in this analysis because this initiative feeds participants into Home Energy
Services. Behavioral initiatives were not included in this analysis because participants do not typically
opt in to participate. Block groups that appear white are areas where no premises participated in two or
more core initiatives. Block groups that appear gray are areas where PAs do not provide gas service and
no premises participated in two or more core initiatives.
Figure 19. Multi-Initiative Participation Rate in Block Groups, 2013

34
Savings
Cadmus tracked gross savings of initiative participation events to the premises level. In this section, the
maps show program savings aggregated across the state and mapped at the block group level.
All savings values reported here are gross savings, developed from rolling up premises-level savings
reported in the program tracking data or deemed savings drawn from the BCR model files provided by
PAs, as appropriate.
Savings by Sector and Program
Figure 20 illustrates the share of total gross savings achieved for in 2013 by all electric programs,
including the effects of Upstream Lighting and Behavioral initiatives.
Figure 20. Distribution of Electric Savings by Sector and Program

35
Data in Table 18 illustrate the contribution of each PA toward the 2013 statewide electric gross savings
totals in the project database by sector and program.
Table 18. Electric Program Gross Savings as Percent of Total in 2013
Programs
Cape Light
Compact
Eversource-
East
Eversource-
West
National Grid Unitil Total
Low-Income 0.3% 2.6% 0.5% 2.3% 0.0% 5.8%
Low-Income Whole
House
0.3% 2.6% 0.5% 2.3% 0.0% 5.8%
Residential 2.9% 31.6% 6.8% 52.5% 0.5% 94.2%
Residential Products 1.9% 21.8% 5.6% 34.7% 0.4% 64.3%
Residential Whole House 1.0% 9.8% 1.1% 17.8% 0.1% 29.9%
Total 3.2% 34.2% 7.3% 54.8% 0.5% 100.0%
Figure 21 illustrates the share of total electric gross savings statewide from each core initiative.
Figure 21. Distribution of Electric Savings by Initiative
4.2%
2.1%
58.1%
9.5%
3.9%
1.8%
14.7%
3.1%
0.2%
2.5%
Appliances
CoolSmart
Lighting
HES
Multifamily
RES New Construction
Behavioral
LI-MultiFamily
LI-New Construction
LI-Single Family

36
Figure 22 illustrates the share of total gross savings achieved for in 2013 by all gas programs, including
the effects of the Behavioral initiative.
Figure 22. Distribution of Gas Savings by Sector and Program
The data in Table 19 illustrate the contribution of each PA toward the 2013 statewide gas gross savings
totals in the project database by sector and program.
Table 19. Gas Program Gross Savings as Percent of Total in 2013
Programs
Berkshire
Gas
Columbia
Gas
Eversource
Liberty
Utilities
National
Grid
Unitil Total
Low-Income 0.4% 2.0% 2.4% 0.1% 4.3% 0.1% 9.3%
Low-Income Whole
House
0.4% 2.0% 2.4% 0.1% 4.3% 0.1% 9.3%
Residential 1.6% 9.5% 16.3% 0.8% 62.2% 0.3% 90.7%
Residential Products 0.8% 5.0% 3.8% 0.5% 15.7% 0.2% 25.9%
Residential Whole
House
0.8% 4.5% 12.6% 0.4% 46.4% 0.1% 64.9%
Total 2.0% 11.6% 18.7% 0.9% 66.4% 0.4% 100.0%
Note: Savings from Liberty Utilities Multifamily and Low-Income Multifamily initiatives are not included in the
Whole House program data. Although Liberty Utilities did provide program records, these were not available in a
format supporting measure-specific installations at specific premises.

37
Figure 23 illustrates the share of total gas gross savings statewide from each core initiative.
Figure 23. Distribution of Gas Savings by Initiative
Demographic Profiles
The following tables present demographic data for quintiles of block groups with participating premises
that experienced savings in electric and gas efficiency programs. The process of defining quintiles and
computing demographic factors associated with each quintile or category is outlined below and
described in more detail in Appendix A: Methods.
Similar to the demographic analysis in the Participation section above, the ACS demographics of census
block group populations were used, not the subset of initiative participants.12
Although specific
participant demographics cannot be inferred from these data, the category demographics yield some
information about the areas where initiative savings rate values are relatively high or relatively low.
To illustrate the demographic factors of block groups with savings for each program, Cadmus segmented
census block groups using savings data by a process very similar to the quintile analysis in the
Participation section:
 Counting the number of unique PA premises in each block group (by fuel), based on the
comprehensive set of geocoded PA billing and CIS data.
12
PAs do not track the demographics of customers who participate in efficiency initiatives.
26%
22%
4%
6%
33%
7%
2%
HEHE
HES
MF
RES New Construction
Behavioral
LI-MultiFamily
LI-Single Family

38
 Summing the energy savings (therms for gas programs and kWh for electric programs) in each
block group, based on PA program-tracking data.
 Identifying block groups with zero savings to handle in a separate category.
 Eliminating block groups that had no qualifying PA premises. This analysis is fuel-specific, as the
count of premises served by electric PAs in a block group may be different than the count of
premises served by gas PAs in a block group.
 Computing the average energy savings rate per premises for each block group based on the
count of qualified PA premises in each block group for the given fuel.
 Ranking the block groups from highest to lowest by average per-premises savings.
 Partitioning the set of block groups with non-zero savings into five quintiles. Quintile 1
represents the category with the highest average per-premises savings.
Then, for each category (in rows), the demographic factors were calculated as described in Appendix A:
Methods.
The following tables present demographic data for quintiles of block groups based on their ranking by
the “Average Savings” in electric and gas efficiency programs. The Average Savings for an entire
category is computed as the average of the Average Savings value computed for each of the block
groups within the category. Block groups that contained premises that were eligible for programs but
had no participants are shown in a separate category called “No Participants.” Each table also includes a
“Statewide” summary row that provides the statewide sum of field values in the project database and
aggregated data for the demographics fields. The Count of Block Groups represents the total number of
qualified block groups that were served by one or more PAs for a given fuel. The Count of Premises
represents the total number of qualified premises served by one or more PAs for a given fuel. The Total
Block Group Savings represents the savings associated with all identified PA premises; it does not
include savings associated to the Unknown Premises, as described in the Methods in Appendix A.
The first tables presented illustrate a combination of all participants in any program at the fuel level.
Table 20 illustrates the aggregated demographics of block groups in which at least one premises
participated in an electric initiative. Table 21 shows the aggregated demographics of block groups in
which at least one premises participated in a gas initiative. Tables that follow illustrate demographics of
categories of block groups with participants in specific programs. The data supporting Table 20 do not
include modeled block group savings effects from the Upstream Lighting initiative or Behavioral
initiative.
Given the ranking of data by savings rate in descending order, these tables can be used to identify
correlations to trends (or absence of trends) in the various demographic data fields provided.

39
Table 20. Demographics of Block Groups by Average Savings in Electric Programs, Excluding Upstream Lighting and Behavioral Initiatives
Category
Average
Savings
(kWh)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(kWh)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 262.4 894 520,298 98,226,935 $86,920 16% 9% 18% 53% 3%
Quintile 2 101.8 894 529,993 53,854,873 $74,245 19% 10% 23% 59% 4%
Quintile 3 69.8 894 526,911 36,687,637 $65,615 24% 11% 32% 66% 6%
Quintile 4 46.4 894 568,210 26,248,358 $57,141 30% 15% 42% 67% 7%
Quintile 5 20.5 894 536,034 11,691,875 $49,323 39% 29% 56% 71% 10%
No Participants 0.0 138 15,458 0 $75,259 19% 11% 24% 54% 3%
Statewide 97.2 4,608 2,696,904 226,709,677 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%
Table 21. Demographics of Block Groups by Average Savings in All Gas Programs
Category
Average
Savings
(therms)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(therms)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 63.3 900 259,465 6,478,476 $89,711 15% 11% 20% 59% 4%
Quintile 2 13.7 900 302,110 4,152,489 $73,574 19% 12% 28% 63% 5%
Quintile 3 9.2 900 296,109 2,718,714 $66,711 24% 15% 35% 66% 6%
Quintile 4 5.7 900 297,327 1,692,127 $64,466 25% 15% 35% 65% 6%
Quintile 5 2.2 900 305,377 672,939 $48,163 37% 19% 47% 69% 9%
No Participants 0.0 224 11,921 0 $63,205 26% 13% 25% 49% 4%
Statewide 17.9 4,724 1,472,309 15,714,745 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

40
The analysis supporting Table 22 is based on block group savings excluding modeled Behavioral program impacts. The actual savings achieved at
the household or block group level from participation in the Behavioral initiative is not available; the savings is only available as a model output
for the entire participating set of accounts.
Table 22. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the
Electric Residential Whole House Program, Excluding Behavioral
Category
Average
Savings
(kWh)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(kWh)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 107.8 840 517,368 47,825,254 $91,514 14% 10% 18% 52% 3%
Quintile 2 36.4 840 536,137 19,658,332 $79,445 16% 7% 19% 58% 3%
Quintile 3 22.6 840 524,287 11,827,661 $67,936 22% 10% 27% 63% 4%
Quintile 4 12.4 839 489,718 6,109,011 $58,126 29% 16% 41% 70% 7%
Quintile 5 3.9 839 493,892 1,901,670 $47,676 40% 23% 56% 73% 12%
No Participants 0.0 410 135,502 0 $48,293 36% 31% 48% 60% 11%
Statewide 33.4 4,608 2,696,904 87,321,927 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%

41
Table 23. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Electric Low Income Whole House Program
Category
Average
Savings
(kWh)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(kWh)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English
Well
Quintile 1 136.0 638 337,275 17,240,963 $49,348 36% 16% 44% 69% 9%
Quintile 2 12.0 638 383,586 4,558,885 $58,754 28% 10% 34% 65% 7%
Quintile 3 6.5 638 403,507 2,591,843 $63,107 25% 11% 32% 63% 6%
Quintile 4 3.4 638 421,972 1,407,888 $68,981 23% 11% 29% 62% 5%
Quintile 5 1.1 637 466,985 493,191 $73,119 21% 14% 29% 60% 5%
No Participants 0.0 1,419 683,579 0 $78,411 20% 19% 31% 62% 5%
Statewide 22.0 4,608 2,696,904 26,292,771 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%
The data supporting Table 24 are based on COOL SMART and Appliances and do not include savings from the Upstream Lighting initiative.
Modeled Lighting savings impacts are attached to the block group but not included here. Excluding lighting savings from this analysis removes
potential errors from the model distribution so this analysis is based purely on the known savings from opt-in programs.

42
Table 24. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Electric Residential Products Program, Excluding Lighting
Category
Average
Savings
(kWh)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(kWh)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English
Well
Quintile 1 35.1 831 486,340 17,498,071 $88,823 14% 5% 13% 52% 2%
Quintile 2 12.6 831 541,705 6,767,026 $78,473 17% 8% 18% 56% 3%
Quintile 3 7.4 831 538,646 3,986,119 $68,193 21% 12% 29% 63% 4%
Quintile 4 3.7 830 492,844 1,848,670 $58,299 30% 19% 45% 71% 7%
Quintile 5 1.1 830 517,540 558,405 $46,088 42% 30% 62% 75% 13%
No Participants 0.0 455 119,829 0 $58,293 31% 20% 40% 59% 10%
Statewide 10.8 4,608 2,696,904 30,658,290 $66,697 25% 14% 33% 63% 6%

43
The following tables present demographic data for quintiles of block groups based on their ranking by the average household savings in gas
efficiency programs. The analysis supporting Table 25 is based on block group savings excluding modeled Behavioral program impacts. The
actual savings achieved at the household or block group level from participation in the Behavioral initiative is not available due to the nature of
the program.
Table 25. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Residential Whole House Program, Excluding Behavioral
Category
Average
Savings
(therms)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(therms)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 18.6 829 259,469 2,924,279 $86,758 15% 10% 21% 63% 3%
Quintile 2 4.1 829 279,056 1,146,722 $76,938 18% 11% 26% 65% 4%
Quintile 3 2.2 828 298,554 668,921 $69,935 21% 12% 29% 64% 5%
Quintile 4 1.1 828 295,727 320,017 $63,531 26% 13% 34% 62% 6%
Quintile 5 0.3 828 278,267 74,950 $51,376 36% 20% 48% 68% 10%
No Participants 0.0 582 61,236 0 $54,617 32% 24% 39% 57% 8%
Statewide 4.6 4,724 1,472,309 5,134,889 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

44
Table 26. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Low Income Whole House Program
Category
Average
Savings
(therms)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(therms)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 94.8 308 98,595 583,400 $51,129 35% 15% 42% 72% 10%
Quintile 2 0.9 308 121,222 113,692 $58,050 28% 11% 32% 67% 7%
Quintile 3 0.4 308 126,064 47,005 $57,782 30% 14% 39% 66% 8%
Quintile 4 0.1 307 107,992 14,558 $60,655 28% 13% 38% 66% 8%
Quintile 5 0.1 307 138,595 7,981 $69,920 22% 11% 31% 63% 6%
No Participants 0.0 3,186 879,841 0 $71,647 22% 15% 30% 62% 5%
Statewide 6.3 4,724 1,472,309 766,636 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%
Note: The Average Savings per premises in Quintile 1 is driven by a single project with savings of 27,351 therms in a block group with a single premises.
Without the influence of that block group, the Quintile 1 Average Savings value would be 6.0.

45
Table 27. Demographics of Block Groups by Level of Savings in the Gas Residential Products Program
Category
Average
Savings
(therms)
Count of
Block
Groups
Count of
Premises
Total Block
Group Savings
(therms)
Median
Household
Income
% of Pop
with
Income
<200%
poverty
% of Pop
Living in
MF
Dwelling
% of Pop
Living in
Rental
% of
Housing
Units Built
pre-1970
% of
Households
That
Do Not Speak
English Well
Quintile 1 9.9 813 213,524 1,656,620 $90,801 14% 10% 17% 56% 3%
Quintile 2 4.4 813 267,782 1,162,954 $79,685 16% 11% 23% 61% 4%
Quintile 3 2.8 813 290,454 813,238 $71,171 20% 13% 29% 64% 4%
Quintile 4 1.6 813 297,649 488,381 $62,473 25% 14% 36% 68% 6%
Quintile 5 0.6 813 303,446 185,735 $50,819 36% 20% 51% 73% 10%
No Participants 0.0 659 99,454 0 $48,738 37% 22% 45% 60% 10%
Statewide 3.3 4,724 1,472,309 4,306,928 $67,192 24% 14% 32% 64% 6%

46
Maps of Standardized Program Savings
Maps in this section illustrate how program gross savings are realized statewide when aggregated to the
block group level. The block group savings rate is computed for each block group as the total achieved
savings divided by the number of PA premises in each block group for a given fuel to standardize for
varying block group populations. These maps show variations in density of program and initiative
savings.13
Towns served by municipal electric or gas utilities appear gray, and block groups around them may be
served by a combination of PAs and the municipal utility. In these border block groups, the split share of
premises served by PAs can cause mapped savings rates to appear abnormally high or low.
The maps in Figure 24 and Figure 25 illustrate the summary of Residential sector and Low-Income sector
savings effects from all electric and gas PAs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Whole
House and Products programs combined, including the modeled savings from the Upstream Lighting and
Behavioral initiatives. Figure 26 illustrates these savings combined across both fuels for all programs,
expressed in units of MMBTU/premises. Savings rates in Figure 26 are naturally higher in areas served by
the gas PAs and lower in areas with no service from gas PAs.
The method of mapping aggregated electric savings in Figure 24 and Figure 26, standardized by the
count of PA premises in a block group, can distort the representation of savings from the Upstream
Lighting initiative. The additional presentation of Upstream Lighting savings in Figure 29 is therefore
based on modeled savings at the household level regardless of whether a block group is served by an
electric PA or a municipal electric provider. Outliers with high savings rates per PA premises may occur in
some block groups, specifically in Figure 24 and Figure 26, that have a significant share of premises
served by a municipal electric provider.14
In these block groups, the share of households served by an
electric PA absorb a concentrated savings of the entire block group when standardized on the basis of
savings divided by count of electric PA premises. Electric savings are mapped for the Products program
in Figure 28, excluding Upstream Lighting data, to provide clear insight into the program effects without
the potential distortions associated to the Upstream Lighting model.
Gas maps can also show high savings rate values from concentrated savings reported in the Multifamily
initiative. However, analysis of the savings distribution for electric and gas Multifamily initiatives found
that Multifamily savings are not so heavily concentrated in specific block groups in a way that would
make this initiative responsible for producing most of the highest savings rates observed in block groups
(shown in red) on the electric and gas Whole House savings maps in Figure 27 and Figure 32.
13
The causes or influencing factors for these variations could include demographics or other factors. These can
be investigated in future studies.
14
This distortion effect is limited to these figures of aggregated electric savings standardized by count of PA
premises per block group, and does not affect the demographic tables.

47
It is possible that patterns of savings rates observed in the maps of program savings in this section
correlate to patterns in the building stock, such as percentage of dwelling units in multifamily buildings
in a block group. Geospatial analysis of this type of correlation can be explored in future studies that will
assess savings and participation over time.

48
Figure 24. Total 2013 Electric Program Savings Rate, Including Upstream Lighting

49
Figure 25. Total 2013 Gas Program Savings Rate

50
Figure 26. Combined Statewide Savings Rate for All Programs, Electric and Gas

51
Electric Efficiency Program Savings
The following maps illustrate standardized average savings rate per premises at the block group level for
electric efficiency programs and initiatives. Figure 27 shows the Residential Whole House program
savings without the influence of the modeled Behavioral savings in order to give more clarity to the
impacts of other opt-in Whole House initiatives.
Figure 27. Residential Electric Whole House Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral

52
Figure 28 shows the Residential Products program savings without the influence of the modeled
Upstream Lighting savings in order to give more clarity to the impacts of the Appliances and COOL
SMART initiatives.
Figure 28. Residential Electric Products Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Upstream Lighting

53
Upstream Lighting Initiative
As an initiative with no customer-specific participation and savings data, the Upstream Lighting initiative
savings are associated with the location of each participating retailer. Cadmus modeled each retailer’s
sales territory to distribute initiative savings from the point source retailer location to block groups in
the surrounding areas based on a drive time radius. This model accounted for many consumer shopping
preferences including purchase patterns by retail store type, transportation modes used, and travel time
reported. The model accounted for variations in population density, participating retailer store types,
and geographic variables affecting travel speeds, as described in Appendix A: Methods.
Block groups are shaded in Figure 29 to indicate the modeled geographic distribution of initiative
savings. Block group-level savings are standardized into units of kWh/household to account for
variations in block group populations and for producing accurate standardization in block groups that
are not served by the electric PAs.
Figure 29. Upstream Lighting Initiative Savings Distribution in 2013

54
Electric Behavioral Initiative
Cadmus modeled Behavioral savings at the block group level by adding up the total savings attributed to
participating households in each block group. Household savings calculations are described in Appendix
A: Methods.
Eversource-East, National Grid, and Eversource-West had electric Behavioral initiatives in 2013,
illustrated in Figure 30. Unitil and Cape Light Compact territory shows up as white with no participants.
Figure 30. Electric Behavioral Initiative Savings Rate in 2013

55
Low-Income Program Savings
The map in Figure 31 illustrates savings per block group because the population of qualifying premises in
the block group is not available to support standardizing the data.
Figure 31. Low-Income Electric Whole House Program Savings in 2013

56
Gas Efficiency Program Savings
The maps in this section illustrate the standardized average savings rate per premises at the block group
level for gas efficiency programs and initiatives. Figure 32 shows the Residential Whole House program
savings without the influence of the modeled Behavioral savings in order to give more clarity to the
impacts of other opt-in Whole House initiatives.
The savings mapped in Figure 33 for the Residential Gas Products Program come solely from the High
Efficiency Heating Equipment initiative.
Figure 32. Residential Gas Whole House Program Savings Rate in 2013, Excluding Behavioral

57
Figure 33. Residential Gas Products Program Savings Rate in 2013

58
Low-Income Program Savings
The map in Figure 34 illustrates savings per block group because the population of qualifying premises in
the block group is not available to support standardizing the data.
Figure 34. Low-Income Gas Whole House Program Savings in 2013

59
Gas Behavioral Initiative
Cadmus modeled Behavioral savings at the block group level by adding up the total savings attributed to
participating households in each block group. Household savings calculations are described in Appendix
A: Methods. Only National Grid and Eversource Gas had gas Behavioral initiatives in 2013, illustrated in
Figure 35. Territory served by Berkshire Gas, Columbia Gas, Liberty Utilities, and Unitil appear white on
this map, indicating there were no participating premises in these areas.
Figure 35. Gas Behavioral Initiative Savings Rate in 2013

60
Incentives
This section presents analysis of efficiency program incentive spending.
Incentives by Sector and Program
Figure 36 illustrates the distribution of total incentives paid for each residential electric efficiency
program in 2013.
Figure 36. Distribution of Incentives Paid for Electric Programs

61
Figure 37 illustrates the distribution of total incentives paid for each residential gas efficiency program in
2013.
Figure 37. Distribution of Incentives Paid for Gas Programs
Table 28 shows the contribution of each PA toward the statewide total incentive spending for each
electric efficiency program in 2013, including the incentives paid to retailers in Upstream Lighting
initiative. The Behavioral initiative does not have any incentive values paid. Measures in the Low-Income
program are provided at no cost, rather than paying rebates to participants, so the incentive value is
represented by the vendor cost for the measures invoiced to the PA.
Table 28. Electric PA Program Incentive Spending as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013
Programs
Cape Light
Compact
Eversource-
East
Eversource-
West
National Grid Unitil Total
Low-Income 0.8% 10.8% 2.2% 12.1% 0.3% 26.2%
Whole House 0.8% 10.8% 2.2% 12.1% 0.3% 26.2%
Residential 6.1% 25.2% 4.4% 37.6% 0.5% 73.8%
Products 1.1% 9.0% 2.1% 13.4% 0.1% 25.7%
Whole House 5.0% 16.2% 2.3% 24.2% 0.4% 48.1%
Total 6.9% 36.0% 6.6% 49.7% 0.8% 100.0%

62
Table 29 shows the contribution of each PA toward the statewide total incentive spending for each gas
efficiency program in 2013 by sector.
Table 29. Gas PA Program Incentive Spending as Percent of Statewide Total in 2013
Programs
Berkshire
Gas
Columbia
Gas
Eversource
Liberty
Utilities
National
Grid
Unitil Total
Low-Income 1.1% 6.6% 7.8% 0.5% 18.5% 0.4% 34.8%
Whole House 1.1% 6.6% 7.8% 0.5% 18.5% 0.4% 34.8%
Residential 2.4% 12.5% 11.5% 1.2% 37.1% 0.6% 65.2%
Products 1.1% 5.2% 3.9% 0.6% 16.9% 0.2% 27.9%
Whole House 1.3% 7.3% 7.6% 0.6% 20.2% 0.3% 37.3%
Total 3.4% 19.1% 19.3% 1.6% 55.5% 1.0% 100.0%
Note: Incentive data from Liberty Utilities Multifamily and Low-Income Multifamily initiatives are not included in
the Whole House program data. Although Liberty Utilities did provide program records, these were not available in
a format supporting measure-specific installations at specific premises.
Maps of Program Incentive Spending
Using records from initiative tracking data, measure-level incentives were associated to participating
premises. All premises savings are aggregated to the block group level to support mapping these data.
Cadmus standardized the presentation of incentive spending by the number of PA premises per block
group for each fuel to account for variances in block group populations.

63
Figure 38 illustrates combined incentive spending rate for all electric and gas programs at the block group level. Incentive spending is naturally
higher in areas served by the gas PAs and lower in areas with no service from gas PAs.
Figure 38. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Programs and Sectors in 2013

64
Maps of Electric Program Incentive Spending
Maps of incentive spending data for electric efficiency programs illustrate incentives paid summed up at
the block group level and standardized by the count of electric PA premises in each block group.
Figure 39 and Figure 45 show aggregated incentive spending at the block group level for all programs in
both Residential and Low-Income sectors by fuel. The total incentive spending rate for electric programs
in Figure 39 includes all initiatives listed in Table 28, including Upstream Lighting.
Figure 39. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Electric Programs in 2013

65
Figure 40. Residential Electric Whole House Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013

66
Figure 41. Residential Electric Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013,
Excluding Upstream Lighting

67
The distribution of incentives for the Upstream Lighting program shown in Figure 42 are based in part on
the count of households in each block group to standardize for variations in population density and to
distribute benefits evenly to areas served by municipal electric providers as well as PAs. Additional
details are provided in Appendix A: Methods.
Figure 42. Upstream Lighting Incentive Spending in 2013

68
Figure 43. Residential Electric Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013,
Including Upstream Lighting

69
Low-Income Program Spending
The map in Figure 44 illustrates spending per block group in dollars because the population of qualifying
premises in the block group is not available to support standardizing the data.
Figure 44. Low-Income Electric Whole House Program Incentive Spending in 2013

70
Maps of Gas Program Incentive Spending
Maps of incentive spending data for gas efficiency programs in this section illustrate the average
incentive rate per PA premises. The incentive data are summed at the block group level and
standardized by the number of gas PA premises in each block group. Figure 45 illustrates the combined
total incentive spending paid for all residential and low-income gas programs. No incentives are paid to
participants in the Behavioral initiative.
Figure 45. Total Incentive Spending Rate for All Gas Programs in 2013

71
Figure 46. Residential Gas Products Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013
Figure 47. Residential Gas Whole House Program Incentive Spending Rate in 2013

72
Low-Income Program Spending
The map in Figure 48 illustrates spending per block group in dollars because the population of qualifying
premises in the block group is not available to support standardizing the data.
Figure 48. Low-Income Gas Whole House Program Incentive Spending in 2013

73
Appendix A: Methods
This appendix provides description of the detailed methods that Cadmus used in the process of
acquiring and organizing data for the project database. This includes a description of modelling efforts
required to apply Behavioral and Upstream Lighting initiative impacts at the census block group level.
Finally, this appendix explains the methods used to develop demographic analyses based on the
participation rates and savings rates observed in the program data.
Data Import and Preparation
This section provides a high-level description of the methods applied when merging data records from
files provided by the program administrators (PAs) and program implementers into a Cadmus data
repository, identifying unique participant premises, and reconciling Cadmus’ profiling database against
the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) reports provided by the PAs. These reports were needed to capture
measure-level annual reporting data that supports the program-level reporting.
The majority of the analysis in this project is based on premises-level recording of participation events
for programs with direct measure installation or on-site visits and treatment. Behavioral and Upstream
Lighting initiatives are exceptions to the rule. Impacts of those programs were handled differently due to
the design of those programs and the tracking data available. See the sections for each of these
initiatives under the Special Modeling section below.
Data Collection
Data requests were sent out in April 2014 to each PA to acquire program and customer data for 2013.
Cadmus constructed and populated a database for this study from the files sent in response to the April
2014 request and from other data related to specific programs in the current residential portfolio
evaluation. The database included program-tracking data, customer billing data, and BCR model inputs
for annual reports. The next sections describe the steps taken for merging these data into the database.
PA Data Field Mapping
Relevant fields of data in each of the data source files were mapped to specific fields in the project
database. In a memo sent to the PAs regarding the Task 3a reconciliation milestone,15
Cadmus provided
a workbook with a detailed record of the names or column headings of these specific fields used.
Premises Mapping
Cadmus loaded the database with each electric PA’s customer data records to establish a foundation
premises-address table relationship of unique service premises. The same Task 3a milestone memo
explained the methodology used to establish unique premises identifiers across all PA customer
datasets, a complex process to establish the consolidated premises table. Because this project analysis
15
Cadmus. MA RCPS Task 3a Milestone Complete. Memo to Massachusetts Program Administrators and EEAC
Consultants. September 24, 2014.

74
focuses on premises-level analysis, the integrity of this premises table was essential to the analysis that
followed, as explained below.
To establish the premises table, it was assumed that every premises would have electric service and that
every gas service address would have an electric service provider (some are served by municipal electric
providers). Therefore, the record of premises and addresses served by electric PAs became a foundation
dataset.
The next stage involved pairing gas account records to the electric service premises on an exact address
match or match of at least the first line of the standardized street address. Electric account records were
more likely to contain a second address line for individually metered units in multifamily buildings,
whereas a single gas account may serve an entire multifamily building. This method was used to
establish the foundational data table of unique PremiseIDs:
1. Process all electric and gas customer address records through the SmartyStreets proprietary
platform for cleansing and standardization to U.S. Postal Service (USPS) address format.
2. Designate addresses associated with the most current customer extracts from each PA as the
2013 analysis year. This captured customers’ current status and excluded any historical records
that may no longer be valid.
3. Assign Address IDs to each unique validated address in standard USPS format.
4. Use the electric customer data records to identify all unique electric service premises addresses
and populate the premises table. Assign PremiseIDs and link them to AddressIDs. Premises are
defined by individual unit-level addresses with unique secondary address lines. For example,
“123 Oak Street, Apt 2,” “123 Oak Street” (with no secondary address), and “123 Oak Street U1”
are each unique premises with different PremiseIDs.
5. Join gas customer records to the premises table.
a. Pair gas customer accounts in the premises table to electric account numbers using the only
two reliable resources identifying existing electric-gas account pairings for unique premises:
i. Unitil customer records
ii. HES program tracking records “Sites” tab
b. Pair gas customer addresses that match exactly to electric customer addresses as premises
with unique PremiseIDs.
c. For gas service addresses that do not match exactly, attempt to match the first line of the
gas service address (primary address) to an existing electric service premises primary
address. Successful matches are related to a premises with a PremiseID.
d. For gas service addresses that do not match any existing premises’ first line address, create
a new unique premises.
i. For gas service premises in cities known to be served by municipal electric providers, set
the premises electric provider to Municipality.

MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final

MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final

Similar to MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final (20)

MA_Residential_Customer_Profile_Study_Final