An Estimate of Direct Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)
Employment in 2011 Supported by Mass Save
Energy Efficiency Programs
A Study by the New England Clean Energy Foundation
Completed for Program Administrators at:
Berkshire Gas
Cape Light Compact
Columbia Gas of Massachusetts
National Grid
New England Gas Company
NSTAR Gas and Electric
Unitil
Western Massachusetts Electric Company
Research Team:
Steve Weisman, Peregrine Energy Group, Inc.
Fran Cummings, Peregrine Energy Group, Inc.
John Snell, Peregrine Energy Group, Inc.
Bruce Ledgerwood, Independent Consultant
Art Willcox, Independent Consultant
Kevin Doyle, Principal, Green Economy
2
Table of Contents
I.
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………….4
II.
Executive Summary with Purpose and Goals of the Study…………………………………..6
III.
Mass Save Residential Energy Efficiency Programs (1 – 4 Unit and
Multifamily)………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
A. Program Overviews………………………………………………………………………………………8
1. General Descriptions………………..................................................................8
2. Delivery Methods……………………………………………………………………………………9
3. Funding Sources and Expenditures………………………………………………………..13
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment……………………………………….14
C. Findings: Employment Associated with Residential Programs…………………….19
IV.
Low Income Residential Energy Efficiency Programs (1 – 4 Unit and
Multifamily)………………………………………………………………………………………………………21
A. Program Overviews…………………………………………………………………………………….21
1. General Descriptions…………………………………………………………………………….21
2. Delivery Methods………………………………………………………………………………….22
3. Funding Sources and Expenditures………………………………………………………..23
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment……………………………………….25
C. Findings: Employment Associated with Low-Income Programs…………………..27
V.
Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs (Direct Install and Large
Retrofit)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29
A. Program Overviews…………………………………………………………………………………….29
1. General Descriptions…………………………………………………………………………….29
2. Delivery Methods………………………………………………………………………………….33
3. Funding Sources and Expenditures………………………………………………………..35
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment Impacts………………………….37
C. Findings: Employment Associated with the Direct Install and Large Retrofit
Programs…………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
VI.
Profiles of the Energy Efficiency Workforce in Action……………………………………….45
A. Residential: Next Step Living……………………………………………………………………….45
B. Low Income: Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD)………………48
C. C&I Direct Install: RISE Engineering……………………………………………………………..51
3
VII.
Project Manager Contact Information………………………………………………………………54
VIII.
Appendices and Attachments……………………………………………………………………………55
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
National Grid Electric Large C&I Program Installers of Record…………………….56
NSTAR Electric Large C&I Program Installers of Record……………………………….58
National Grid Natural Gas Large C&I Program Installers of Record………………61
National Grid C&I Project Expediters…………………………………………………………..62
C&I Technical Assistance Service Providers (Partial Listing)…………………………63
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (NSTAR Gas
and Electric)………………………………………………………………………………………………..64
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (National
Grid)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………65
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Columbia
Gas)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Cape
Light)….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….67
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Berkshire
Gas)….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………68
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (WMECO)……69
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (New England
Gas Company)…………………………………………………………………………………………….70
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (National Grid)……71
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (NSTAR Gas and
Electric)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….72
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (Columbia Gas)…..73
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (WMECO)……………74
Low Income Program Assumptions and Calculations…………………………………..75
Residential Program Survey Instrument………………………………………………………76
4
I. Acknowledgements
This research effort would not have been possible without the engaged participation of dozens
of people throughout the energy efficiency community in Massachusetts. We would like to
extend our gratitude to everyone who helped us develop methodologies, and who shared
information about their energy efficiency processes and workforce deployment.
First thanks goes to our study’s funders; the collective Program Administrators (PAs) from
Berkshire Gas, Cape Light Compact, Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, National Grid, New England
Gas Company, NSTAR Gas and Electric, Unitil, and Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
We especially acknowledge Lisa Shea from NSTAR Gas and Electric and Lynn Westerlind from
National Grid, who represented the Program Administrators and provided leadership, guidance
and assistance. Thanks to Jodi Hanover from Rich May, whose help was essential.
The contribution of Ralph Prahl, research evaluator to the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency
Advisory Committee was invaluable. Ralph’s questions, suggestions and edits greatly improved
made the final report.
We were fortunate to have an excellent research team, and we thank Steven Weisman, Fran
Cummings and John Snell from Peregrine Energy Group; and independent researchers Bruce
Ledgerwood, Art Willcox, and Alix Monestime. Kevin Doyle from Green Economy selected the
team and served as the Foundation’s project manager.
Most importantly, we would like to thank the many people whose advice and information was
essential, including:
The members of Mass Save’s Residential Energy Efficiency Management Committee
The members of Mass Save’s Commercial and Industrial Management Committee
David Fuller, Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development
John Wells and David MacLellan, Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.
Elliott Jacobson and Rita Carvalho, Action, Inc.
Larry Masland, Department of Energy Resources
Dennis DeGrazia, Construction Energy Services, Inc.
Frank Gundal, NSTAR Gas and Electric
Mark Churchill, NSTAR Gas and Electric
Liping Ren, NSTAR Gas and Electric
Katelyn Mazuera, NSTAR Gas and Electric
Charles Olsson, NSTAR Gas and Electric
Polly Field, NSTAR Gas and Electric
John Walsh, NU/WMECo
Matt Zenni, New England Gas
Andrea Dickson, National Grid
Jean Mangini, National Grid
Monica Tawfik, National Grid
Marie Abdou, National Grid
Vin Graziano and staff, RISE Engineering
Peter Fairbanks and staff, Bluestone Energy
Rebecca Golding, Munro Distributing
5
Phil Moffitt, Cape Light Compact
Steven Finnegan, Honeywell
Jae McAuley, Center for Ecological Technology
Robert Eckel, Conservation Services Group
Rick Giles, Conservation Services Group
Bill Footer, Conservation Services Group
Geoff Chapin, Next Step Living
Domenic Galdo, Next Step Living
Dave Boettcher, Next Step Living
Michael Plasski, Mass Save
And, representatives from the dozens of independent installation contractors and home
performance contractors who completed our surveys and answered questions.
The accuracy of the workforce estimates in this report are the result of contributions from all of
the professionals above. Any errors or omissions are certainly our own. Thank you to everyone.
Yours,
Andrew Wilson
Executive Director
New England Clean Energy Foundation
6
II. Executive Summary
This New England Clean Energy Foundation research study was commissioned by the energy
efficiency program administrators from NSTAR Gas and Electric, National Grid, New England Gas
Company, Cape Light Compact, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Unitil, Columbia Gas,
and Berkshire Gas. The purpose of the study was to estimate the number of direct full-time
equivalent (FTE) workers involved in implementing the energy efficiency activities of the Mass
Save program in calendar year 2011.
By studying a single year in detail, using data provided by utilities about actual energy efficiency
installations, the program administrators hope to contribute to the growing literature that is
accurately characterizing and sizing the energy efficiency workforce. In addition, these research
results will help the program administrators highlight and celebrate the work of hundreds of
professionals, skilled laborers, and support staff throughout Massachusetts whose success is
largely responsible for the Commonwealth’s reputation as a national energy efficiency leader.
The research results reported here are expected to be included in the three-year energy
efficiency plan submitted to the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council by the
collective utilities listed above.
Using the methodologies described in detail in this report, the NECEF study team estimates that
a minimum of 2,212 direct “full time equivalent” (FTE) workers in selected labor categories were
employed across Massachusetts in 2011 to deliver energy efficiency services through Mass Save
and some related programs. Specifically, the 2011 workforce included at least:

773 direct FTE workers associated with Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs;

834 direct FTE workers associated with other Mass Save Residential Programs, and;

605 direct FTE workers associated with Commercial/Industrial Programs.
Beyond the overall numbers, the report is often able to break down the workforce into labor
categories - providing information on the distribution of workers across administrative,
management, auditing, installation, and other groupings.
Our minimum estimate of 2,212 direct FTEs does not capture all workers involved in these
energy efficiency programs in 2011. We focused on employment at vendors and contractors for
most residential, and all Commercial/Industrial programs; and therefore generally did not
include the two categories of internal energy efficiency utility and government positions. We
were able to perform a more comprehensive analysis for the Low Income Program, resulting in
an employment estimate that includes those two categories. If the categories had been
included across the board, and found to be in roughly the same proportion to the overall
workforce as in the Low-Income Program analysis, the total estimated 2011 Mass Save
workforce would rise to approximately 2,500 direct FTEs.
7
It’s important to note that this NECEF research effort is not an “economic impact” study. There
is a growing literature of research that seeks to quantify not only narrowly defined direct jobs,
but the overall economic and job creation impact of energy efficiency investments. The result of
these studies is often a determination of “number of jobs created per million dollars spent” as a
way of expressing the job creation “return” on the energy efficiency “investment”.
These studies typically use economic and workforce models to estimate direct, “indirect” and
“induced” job creation throughout “value chains” that include not only direct energy efficiency
design and installation work; but also the jobs supported at manufacturers, distributors and
retailers when their windows, insulation material, lighting, equipment and other goods are
purchased and delivered for energy efficiency work.
Many of these studies also include estimates of the added economic and job creation impact
that is generated when citizens and businesses receive reduced energy bills. Spending less on
energy leaves them with newly available money that can be spent on other kinds of goods and
services, creating an additional economic impact.
Such studies are valuable and important, but the NECEF research effort described in this report
is pointedly not an “economic impact” study, nor was it designed to be. The purpose and goal
of this study does not extend beyond estimating and characterizing the number of direct FTE
workers involved in delivering a specific set of Mass Save energy efficiency results in the single
year of 2011.
Finally, to give some context to the workforce estimates for 2011, this report also includes:

Detailed descriptions of specific Mass Save energy efficiency programs;

Appendices listing the company names of many of the primary employers involved in
delivering Mass Save energy efficiency services to homes and businesses;

Case study descriptions of representative Mass Save work assignments prepared for us
by three leading energy efficiency providers: Action for Boston Community
Development (ABCD), RISE Engineering, and Next Step Living.
Taken together, the information and appendices included here provides important information
for researchers and the public, but of particular value to those in the workforce development
and training community in Massachusetts who are interested in local sources of “green jobs”.
8
III. Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
(1 – 4 Unit and Multifamily)
A. Program Overviews
General Descriptions
1 – 4 Unit Program
The Three Year Plan for Energy Efficiency for 2010-12, dated October 29, 2009,
describes the Residential 1 – 4 Unit Program as follows (p. 146):
The program is committed to a comprehensive whole-house approach and
seeks to maximize both electric and gas energy savings (including fuel neutral
incentives). The program plans to fully integrate the RCS/Mass Save and Gas
weatherization programs, so that customers experience one program as
opposed to multiple offerings. Through the intake process, the customer‘s
primary heat source will be identified. The purpose of the screening is to steer
customers using natural gas for space heating to the gas Program
Administrators and customers using electric, oil or propane for space heating to
the electric Program Administrators. Exceptions to this guideline may occur
(e.g., specialized high bill complaints, community outreach programs, and/or
prior mutual agreements), and in these cases, the electric Program
Administrators will seek to negotiate in good faith with the gas Program
Administrators to achieve a resolution that serves the best interest of the
consumer, maximizes savings opportunities on a fuel-neutral basis, and allows
the overseeing Program Administrator to claim savings.
The program is committed to achieving maximum program success and deeper
energy savings. This is a significant leap forward, making distinctions between
programs indiscernible to consumers. The program clearly defines the process
and expectations of the customers up front and identifies those customers
interested in investing in controlling their future energy costs.
In 2011, the Mass Save® Home Energy Services program provided energy efficiency
services and incentives for residents of buildings with 1-4 units. Mass Save is sponsored
by Massachusetts’ gas and electric utilities and energy efficiency service providers,
including: Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, The Berkshire Gas Company, Cape Light
Compact, National Grid, New England Gas Company, NSTAR Gas and Electric, Unitil, and
Western Massachusetts Electric Company. The program is facilitated by several different
Lead Vendors, varying by geographic area and utility or energy efficiency service
provider.
The Home Energy Services program provided a Home Energy Assessment with on-site
customer-specific information at no cost to the customer including free installation of
9
“instant savings measures” such as CFLs and showerheads. In 2011, the Program offered
free air sealing and an incentive of 75 percent of the installed cost of contractorinstalled insulation, up to $2,000.
Multifamily Retrofit Program
As described on page 181 of the Three Year Plan 2010-2012, Multifamily Retrofit
Program design was based upon the following guiding principles:
Participants will initiate a request for all program services through one party,
without the need to directly contact multiple program administrators or
multiple parties within the same program administrator. Throughout the project
life cycle, the participant will have access to a single point-of contact that will
facilitate all programmatic communication and coordination.
Eligibility for program measures and services will be based on cost-effectiveness
and will not be restricted by the rate class associated with the meter(s) for the
facility.
The program is structured to ensure that participants are provided with a whole
building, fully integrated offering targeting both gas and electric end-uses. While
on-site, however, all opportunities, regardless of fuel source, will be identified
and documented for the customer.
All efforts required to deliver a fully integrated gas and electric offering to a
participant (the audit will be offered for propane and oil end-uses, however, at
this time incentives will be provided only for gas and electric measures),
regardless of service territory or rate class, will be performed in a manner that
will result in a seamless customer experience, thus mitigating the potential for
customer confusion and lost opportunities. The cornerstone of the program
design involves the services of a Multifamily Market Integrator who will provide
project management services to ensure the seamless delivery of the program.
Delivery Methods
1 – 4 Unit Program
The Mass Save® Home Energy Services program was delivered primarily through
insulation and other weatherization contractors. Contractors could choose one of two
options for working in the Mass Save Home Energy Services program: as a Home
Performance Contractor (HPC) or as an Independent Installation Contractor (IIC). The
key differences between the two were in the range of services the contractor provided,
how customers were acquired, and the qualifications required for each.
10

Home Performance Contractors. Home Performance Contractors (“HPCs”)
performed home energy assessments and installed air sealing and insulation
measures, consistent with Mass Save standards and using software provided by
the Lead Vendor. HPCs were responsible for doing their own marketing and sales
and acquiring their own customers. Work was not assigned to HPCs by Mass
Save Lead Vendors.

Independent Installation Contractors. Independent Installation Contractors
(“IICs”) performed air sealing and insulation work in compliance with clearly
documented standards that are provided by the program. IICs did not perform
home energy assessments (aka energy audits) in the Home Energy Services
program; instead, these were performed by Lead Vendors. Work was assigned to
IICs by the Lead Vendor, based on a merit-based allocation program. IICs could
pre-qualify customers, “tag” them, and refer them to the program. If an IIC hads
appropriately tagged a customer, the weatherization work for this customer was
then be assigned to that IIC after the home energy assessment had been
completed. “Tagging” normally involved a formal process, with a form that must
be completed.
There were basic requirements for all contractors who worked in the Mass Save
Home Energy Services program. Specific requirements could vary for each Lead
Vendor and Program Administrator/Utility/Energy Efficiency Service Provider, and
these requirements were spelled out in the Participation Agreement that the
contractors sign with the Lead Vendor.
Mass Save had established the following general requirement guidelines:
i. Insurance: All contractors must have in place and maintain the coverage
specified in the participation agreement. Normally the Lead Vendor and the
Program Administrator/Utility/Energy Efficiency Service Provider must also
be listed as certificate holders on the policies (except for Worker’s
Compensation). An example of the types and amounts of coverage required
is listed below, but be aware that these could change.
–
–
–
–
Worker’s Compensation as required by law
Comprehensive General Liability for bodily injury, personal injury,
property damage and contractual liability, $1,000,000 per
occurrence/$2,000,000 in the aggregate
Excess/Umbrella Liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 in the
aggregate
Comprehensive Automobile Liability on all cars/trucks used by in
connection with work in amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit.
11
ii. Licenses
–
Massachusetts Unrestricted Construction Supervisors License (CSL) or
Insulation Contractor Supervisors License (ICSL)
–
–
Registration as a Home Improvement Contractor (HIC) in Massachusetts
Sheet Metal License (if applicable)
iii. Certifications
–
–
–
–
MA State Lead Safety Certificate
All Energy Specialists required to have BPI Building Analyst certification.
Each Crew Chief must be certified through one of the following
pathways:
 Boot Camp Authorization + Combustion Safety Training (Boot Camp
Authorization requires Basic and Advanced Air Sealing Authorizations
+ Advanced Insulation Authorization)
 Boot Camp Authorization + BPI Building Analyst Certification (Boot
Camp Authorization requires Basic and Advanced Air Sealing
Authorizations + Advanced Insulation Authorization)
 BPI Crew Chief Certification
 DOE Weatherization Crew Chief Certification
BPI Envelope Specialist: One person in the organization must have
obtained BPI Envelope Specialist certification. This requirement applies
to both HPCs and IICs.
iv. Background checks
Policies vary by Lead Vendor and by Program Administrator/ Utility/Energy
Efficiency Service Provider. Generally, most or all of the checks listed below
required. Additional background information may also be required.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Identification Verification/Eligibility to Work in the Country
Criminal History Background Checks
Sex Offender Registry Search
Residential Address Verification
Employment History Verification
Motor Vehicle Driving Record Check
Employees Previously Terminated or Removed from Work for Lead
Vendor, Utility, or Energy Efficiency Service Provider (PA) for Cause
Drug Screening
v. Equipment: At minimum, the following specialized equipment will be
necessary, along with normal equipment and tools such as trucks, ladders,
power and hand tools, etc.
–
Blower door
12
–
–
Insulation blower
Combustion safety testing equipment
vi. Weatherization Boot Camp
–
–
Crew Chiefs must complete all requirements for the following
designations of the Weatherization Boot Camp: Basic and Advanced Air
Sealing, Basic and Advanced Insulation. (Boot camp training subsidized
by utilities and energy efficiency service provider, and cost to contractors
in Mass Save Home Energy Services program is nominal.)
Crew Chiefs must also complete Combustion Safety Training and be able
to perform combustion safety testing to BPI standards; this requirement
includes all IICs, not HPCs alone.
Independent Installation Contractors (IICs) were assigned work by Lead Vendors.
When an IIC referred a customer to Home Energy Services, any resulting insulation
work would be assigned to that IIC through a “tagging” process. Unaffiliated
customers (i.e., those referred to the program and not “tagged” by a participating
IIC) were assigned on a rotational basis.; The quality of each IICs work and customer
service over time would affect the amount of work the IIC was allocated.
Multifamily Retrofit Program
During 2010, the PAs selected a Multifamily Market Integrator to help provide a
more fully integrated and statewide consistent experience for multifamily customers.
This role was designed to ensure a seamless customer experience for participants
regardless of the fuels, rates and service territories involved in a project. The
Multifamily Market Integrator acted as the conduit through which participant
questions were directed to ensure that participants did not need to directly contact
multiple parties during the project lifecycle. The Multifamily Market Integrator
worked with other multifamily implementation vendors to facilitate the delivery of
program services.
The PAs selected RISE Engineering to be the Multifamily Market Integrator. RISE
received incoming phone call inquiries and assigned each job to the appropriate
Multifamily Program provider.
NSTAR Gas and Electric subcontracted 100% of its residential multifamily electricity
and gas account services to Conservation Services Group (CSG), but provided most of
its commercial multifamily electricity and gas account services in-house with
assistance from pre-approved consultants as required.
National Grid subcontracted 50% of its residential multifamily electricity and gas
account services with CSG and the other 50% with RISE; and National Grid
subcontracted 100% of its commercial multifamily electricity and gas account
services with its commercial gas vendor RISE Engineering. The Multifamily Program
13
providers performed energy assessments and provided project management services
for each development that requested energy efficiency services. Pre-approved
independent contractors performed most of the installation work. Building owners
and managers could use their own contractors and get reimbursed at the preapproved program measure rates, provided that they had Program Administrator
approval through documenting their qualifications prior to the installation.
Funding Sources and Expenditures
Program funds provided by program administrators come out of the approved energy
efficiency budgets. These budgets are funded by utility bill surcharges for energy
efficiency and with other funds that the State decides to apply to these programs. The
following funds were paid to participating customers for rebates and other incentives for
energy efficiency as reported by the PAs in 2011:
Participant Incentives
Mass Save & Gas
Weatherization
Multifamily
Retrofit
Electric Utilities
Cape Light Compact
National Grid (electric)
NSTAR (electric)
Unitil (electric)
Western Mass Electric
Electric Sub-Total
$4,604,347
$11,145,110
$9,367,748
$454,087
$1,751,170
$163,885
$4,974,158
$3,969,309
$3,120
$75,957
$27,322,462
$9,186,429
$288,397
$1,444,776
$6,738,418
$75,825
$2,107,393
$42,598
$7,582
$36,284
$1,554,951
$25,841
$903,503
$0
$10,697,408
$2,528,162
$38,019,870
$11,714,591
Natural Gas Utilities
Berkshire Gas
Columbia Gas
National Grid (gas)
New England Gas
NSTAR (gas)
Unitil (gas)
Natural Gas Sub-Total
TOTAL
These incentives for participants are summarized in column 1 of each of the following
tables. The funds are presented in separate tables for the Low Income and other
residential programs. In addition to incentives, the PAs also incurred other program
14
expenses, as shown in column 2, for total PA expenditures in column 3. In addition to
Participant Incentives, the other categories of PA costs1 are:
 Program Planning and Administration
 Marketing and Advertising
 Sales, Technical Assistance (including Home Energy Assessments) & Training
 Evaluation and Market Research.
The figure for co-pays for the non-low-income residential programs includes an
estimate of the 25% of insulation costs that must be paid by participating customers
themselves, and the $10/fixture co-pay for lighting fixtures in common areas of multifamily buildings. However, these are not necessarily all the co-pay or other costs
incurred by participating customers.2
1
2
3
4
5
Incentives to
Customers
Other PA
Expenses
Total PA
Program Costs
Customer
Co-Pays
Total
Residential Programs:
1-4 Unit
$
Multifamily
Non-Low-Income
$
38,019,870 $ 21,334,297 $
59,354,167 $
11,714,591
3,941,396
15,655,987
49,734,461
$ 25,275,693 $
75,010,154 $
9,540,000 $
68,894,167
90,000
15,745,987
9,630,000 $
84,640,154
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment
In this section, we describe the methodology for our analysis of the number of full-time
equivalent workers that have been associated with the delivery of Residential 1 – 4 Unit
and Multifamily Retrofit Energy Efficiency Programs.
This section summarizes our approach for non low-income residential retrofit program
workforce results. For 1-4 family homes, we combine the Mass Save Home Energy
Services program with the Gas Weatherization Program, even though they have been
1
As explained elsewhere, the employees of the PAs are included in the estimates of FTE for the Low
Income programs, but not for other programs. Employees of PA contractors are included in this report for
Lead Vendors and other implementation contractors, but not for other contractors (e.g., marketing,
evaluation).
2
The figures for customer co-pays are not reported by the PAs but have been estimated for the same
measure categories, which we have analyzed for the associated employment. There may be additional
customer costs for additional measures such as HVAC system replacements, hot water heaters, duct
insulation and refrigerators and other appliances, and additional costs for “pre-weatherization”
requirements such as ventilation.
15
tracked separately for some utility reporting purposes.3 For larger buildings, we analyze
the Multifamily Retrofit Program.
The most reliable data with which to start estimating employment was in most cases the
count of measures installed, such as homes insulated or fixtures replaced.4
Step 1: Identify measure categories for analysis. We estimated the employment
associated with the installation of the following categories of measures:
For 1-4 Unit Buildings, we considered:


Insulation and air sealing
Home energy assessments, including installation of “instant savings measures”
(ISM) during the assessments
For Multifamily Buildings, we considered:



Insulation and air sealing (and other shell measures)
Lamp replacements
Fixture replacements
Insulation and air sealing are lumped together as a single type of measure, since they
were most often installed together in 2011 at the same time by the same crew, and
there were very few homes which received only air sealing or only insulation, even
though they are incentivized differently.
We also analyzed the employment associated with window replacements using HEAT
loans, as described below. Since the employment was small, it was included under the
category “insulation and air sealing” for purposes of this report.
Home Energy Assessments (or energy audits) were analyzed as a category, and include
not only the time for the energy audit itself, but also the time to install “instant savings
measures” (ISMs) during the audit, such as CFLs, aerators and showerheads.
The following categories were not included in FTE estimates for 1-4 unit residential
buildings, for reasons listed below:




3
HVAC system replacements
Electric hot water heaters
Duct sealing and duct insulation
Refrigerator replacement
The Gas Weatherization program was essentially merged into the Mass Save Home Energy Services
Program during 2010 and 2011, such that its employment effects are not distinguishable for purposes of
this report.
4
This is a different approach than that used for the low-income analysis, presented in a subsequent
section, which began with expenditures and average measure costs to estimate number of measures
installed. This difference was driven both by the availability of measure count data from the PAs and by
the limited availability of expenditure data tracked at the measure level.
16
For multifamily buildings, the following categories of measures were not included in FTE
estimates:



HVAC system replacements
Aerators
Showerheads
HVAC measures were not included in the analysis for non-low-income buildings, since
information was unavailable at the time this work was done on the extent to which
HVAC installations were done on an “early retirement” basis or would have been
replaced without the programs, then the employment levels would not have been
substantially affected for HVAC installers.5
The resulting categories were:

1-4 Unit Buildings



Insulation and Air Sealing
Home Energy Assessments (including installation of ISM “instant savings
measures” during the assessments)
Multifamily Buildings6



Insulation and Air Sealing (and other shell measures)7
Lamp replacements
Fixture replacements.
Step 2: Determine quantity of units installed in 2011: For insulation of 1-4 family
homes, the PAs provided data indicating that approximately 15,326 homes were
insulated in 2011 through the Mass Save Home Energy Services program for 1-4 family
homes and the Gas Weatherization Program. The following summarizes the residential
customers who received insulation through the Mass Save or Gas Weatherization
programs in 2011:
5
To the extent that HVAC system replacements displace standard efficiency equipment, these are likely to
have limited employment effects. On the other hand, the HVAC measures that were not analyzed for this
report could be expected to generate some employment given that: (1) there are at least some early
replacements and (2) efficient HVAC equipment may be somewhat more labor intensive to install than
standard equipment.
6 For multifamily buildings, the mix of measures was less comprehensive than for the low-income
multifamily program, and most of the installation activity was in lighting and insulation, so we analyze
fewer measure categories than for low income.
7
The multifamily programs do not provide weatherization or shell measures to buildings using fuel oil or
other deliverable fuels.
17
Homes Insulated in 2011
Electric Utilities
Cape Light Compact
1,016
National Grid (electric)
3,208
NSTAR (electric)
2,546
Unitil (electric)
117
Western Mass Electric
139
Electric Sub-Total
7,026
Natural Gas Utilities
Berkshire Gas
122
Columbia Gas
908
National Grid (gas)
New England Gas
NSTAR (gas)
Unitil (gas)
Natural Gas Sub-Total
TOTAL
6,152
61
1,024
33
8,300
15,326
For multifamily buildings, we collected detailed 2011 data on the quantity of units
installed for each measure type in 2011. NSTAR Gas and Electric data was used as the
basis for this step since it combined all non-low-income multifamily buildings served in
2011 regardless of the account status of the customer (residential or commercial,
electric or gas). NSTAR Electric represented 57% of 2011 expenditures by electric PAs
on the non low-income multifamily retrofit program, and NSTAR Gas represented 30%
of equivalent statewide gas expenditures. We assumed that the mix and quantity of
measures installed was the same for the rest of the PAs. For lighting measures, the
units were bulbs or fixtures. For the shell measures in the gas multifamily program, the
units were mostly square feet of insulation and hours of air sealing time, which we
aggregated into units served using assumptions from the low-income multifamily
analysis.
Step 3: Determine “time-to-install” FTE productivity factors: For each measure type,
productivity is expressed as the average number of measures installed in a year by one
FTE employee. We conducted a survey of the Mass Save Home Energy Services®
Independent Installation Contractors (“IICs”) and Home Performance Contractors
(“HPCs”), which showed an average productivity factor of 38 insulation installations for
the year 2011 per FTE employed in the field as insulation installers, weighted by the
number of homes insulated by each IIC respondent.8 For multifamily buildings, we
8
In 2011, most of the air sealing activity was conducted as an integral part of an attic insulation job, not as
a separate activity as in 2008, so we do not count air sealing technicians separately. We invited all 74 IICs
and 14 HPCs that were operating as part of the program at the end of 2011 to take the survey, with a
combined response rate of 33% of the companies. The respondents reported a total of 8,097 homes
insulated, which is 53% of the total homes insulated by Mass Save in 2011.
18
assumed the same productivity factors as were determined by our research for lowincome multifamily program or for the Commercial & Industrial program. For fixture
measures, we used RS Means data on labor costs and rates for fixture types
representative of the NSTAR Gas and Electric mix of actual fixtures replaced in 2011 to
calculate a weighted average of 1.3 person-hours per fixture, which was approximately
consistent with the productivity factor developed separately for the low-income multifamily analysis.
Step 4: Calculate FTE for each measure type. To calculate the level of employment for
IIC and HPC activities other than energy auditing, the quantity of units is divided by the
respective FTE productivity factor. For energy auditors and PA vendors, the most
reliable method was to simply collect FTE data directly from the companies.
9

IIC and HPC Employees. For the Home Energy Services program, we divided the
15,326 homes insulated by the productivity of 38 homes per FTE to yield the
average number of installers of insulation and air sealing during 2011 (403).9 10

For back office, sales, and project management functions, the IIC survey showed an
average of one FTE employed in office or management roles for every 3.3 installers,
a rate which we applied to the IIC and HPC installers to estimate the number of such
contractor office employees (123) in 2011.

Energy Auditors and Lead Vendor Employees. To determine the number of energy
specialists performing Home Energy Assessments and associated scheduling and call
center activities and other Lead Vendor activities for 1-4 unit buildings, we collected
data on staff levels at the end of 2011 from all the Lead Vendors (CSG, RISE, CET and
Honeywell). In addition, we collected data from HPCs on the number of energy
specialists performing Home Energy Assessments. We asked these companies to
separate their energy specialists or energy auditors from other employees such as
call center operators and managers. This provided reliable figures for the number of
auditors/assessors without reliance on productivity assumptions from survey
research.

Multifamily Contractor Employees. To calculate the FTE of field installers, the
number of homes insulated and the number of lamps and fixtures replaced were
divided by the respective FTE productivity factor. For back office, sales, and project
We also included in the insulation category 6 field workers installing efficient windows through the
HEAT Loan portion of the program. Our estimate was based on data provided by the program vendor that
456 loans were provided for replacement windows in 2011, with an average loan volume for windows of
$8,534. Therefore, the number of field installers for the Home Energy Services program is estimated to be
409, as reported in the next section.
10
Average 2011 employment levels were not the same as the FTE employed at the end of the year; the
number of actual field employees reported by our survey respondents to be working on Mass Save at
year-end (274) was 16% higher than the 2011 average calculated based on number of homes and
productivity (235).
19
management functions, we used the same assumption as for the analysis of lowincome multifamily programs (i.e., contractor administrative staff can support 8
field workers).

Multifamily Vendor Employees. We collected data on actual staff levels at the end
of 2011 from two Vendors, CSG and RISE, representing PAs with over 60% of the
budget for the non low-income Multifamily Retrofit Program. This included staff
associated with the “MA multifamily Market Integrator” function as well as energy
audit functions. We did not include vendor staff data for field installation functions,
which in turn included weatherization, electrical and mechanical specialists, since
they were covered by the estimates described above. This data also covered some
subcontractor installers as well as vendor employees. We added 3 auditors and 2
office personnel as a conservative estimate for employees of other PA vendors.
C. Residential Study Findings (non low income)
We estimate that 958 full-time equivalent workers were associated with the delivery of
the Residential 1 – 4 unit and Multifamily Retrofit Programs in 2011. This includes an
estimated 834 FTE employees for the 1-4 unit Program, plus 124 FTE for the Multi-family
Retrofit Program. Each of these categories of results will be described below.
Mass Save 1 – 4 unit Program
In 2011, approximately 834 full-time equivalent workers were associated with the
delivery of residential retrofit programs for 1-4 unit buildings. As summarized in the
table below, this number includes:
11

167 employees of Lead Vendors and HPCs doing home energy assessments,

409 employees of IICs (insulation contractors) and HPCs doing field installations of
insulation and air sealing,11

135 employees of Lead Vendors (CSG, RISE, CET and Honeywell) and HPCs providing
call center, scheduling and other activities for the Mass Save Home Energy Services
program for 1-4 family homes, including overseeing Home Energy Assessments, and

123 employees of IICs (insulation contractors) and HPCs providing management and
office support.12
This number includes an estimate of 6 FTE installing efficient windows through the HEAT Loan portion
of the program, as described above.
12
For the non-low-income programs, we did not estimate the number of FTE providing program
management and “oversight” at the PAs or state agencies or NGOs.
20
Home Energy Services Program
(1-4 Units)
Auditors
Field
Installers
Office
(Vendors)
Office
(Contractors)
Total FTE
167
409
135
123
834
Estimated Employees (FTE)
The average number of homes insulated by each IIC and HPC through Mass Save in 2011
was approximately 270. Most of the IICs did not limit their work to the Mass Save
program; IICs also performed an average of 60 low-income Weatherization Assistance
Program (“WAP”) weatherization projects and an average of 47 additional insulation
projects outside of the PAs’ efficiency programs (i.e., as part of construction and
renovation projects, without rebates). For the group of survey respondents as a whole,
the 47 homes insulated without program funding equaled 17% of the number insulated
through the Mass Save program. This suggests that in addition to the FTEs employed by
IICs and HPCs to implement the Mass Save Home Energy Services program for 1-4 family
homes, there may have been a significant number of additional FTEs employed
insulating Massachusetts homes outside of the Mass Save program.
The number of IIC insulation contractors who perform a relatively large number of
installations has increased in the period from 2008 through 2011, with at least five
contractors doing 500 or more homes through Home Energy Services in 2011. The
average contractor responding to our survey employed 12 FTEs in 2011, including field
and office personnel.
Multifamily Retrofit Program
Approximately 124 full-time equivalent workers were associated with the Multifamily
program. This includes 83 field installers working on insulation and lighting measures,
as presented in the table below.
Residential Non-Low-Income
Multifamily Program
Auditors
Field
Installers
Office
(Vendors)
Office
(Contractors)
Total FTE
Multifamily Employees:
Shell
30
8
Fixture/Lamp replacements
53
13
Program Vendors
Subtotal, Non-L-I Multifamily
12
12
8
83
8
21
124
21
IV.
Low Income Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
(1 – 4 Unit and Multifamily)
A. Program Overviews
General Descriptions
Low Income 1 – 4 Unit Program
This program was offered to residential customers living in one- to four-unit dwellings who
were at or below sixty percent (60%) of the state median income level. The objective of this
program was to “increase energy efficiency and reduce the energy cost burden for incomeeligible customers through education and the installation of electric, oil, and gas energy
efficiency measures to achieve deeper and broader energy savings.”
As described in the Three Year Plan submitted in October 2009 (p. 210),
This program piggybacks on the current DHCD low-income energy efficiency
program. Once customers are deemed eligible, they will receive an in-home
energy assessment from their local Network agency. The Network agency will
then arrange for weatherization and other services to be installed by a qualified
contractor. Savings will be deepened by installing additional efficiency
measures, to the extent cost-effective, such as indirect water heaters with
heating systems, exterior doors, front load clothes washers, smart strips, and
repairs to make efficiency measures possible. Other measures will be
investigated, such as solar water heaters and usage monitoring systems. In
addition, a change in rules as a result of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) makes it possible to spend more federal money in
each home which will allow Program Administrator funding to help address
more items on the cost effective priority list for each customer. Savings will be
distributed more broadly by treating additional homes, including mobile homes
(including contractor training if needed) and rental homes where tenants pay
for heat. As a final step the Network agency will perform a final quality
assurance inspection to ensure that all work is performed to program
guidelines.
Low-Income Multifamily Program
The objective of this program was to “deliver energy efficient products and services directly
to the dwellings of residential customers living in facilities with five or more units on the
low-income rate or of eligible income-eligible residents living in multifamily non-institutional
facilities with five or more units owned or operated by a non-profit entity or a public
housing authority, by addressing the informational, economic, institutional, and technical
barriers that have historically made the low-income multifamily market a “hard to reach”
22
sector in order to help eligible participants lower their energy bills.” The program aimed to
broaden participation and achieve deeper savings per participant by integrating gas and
electric measures into a single program.
This program was designed to minimize or eliminate co-payments, integrate gas and electric
program delivery, and integrate funding across all sectors that serve low-income multifamily
facilities to the greatest extent possible. Eligibility for program measures and services would
be based on the established program cost-effectiveness test, which included agreed nonenergy benefits, and would not be restricted by rate class associated with the meter(s) for
the facility to the greatest extent possible. The program was structured to ensure that
participants were provided with a “whole building”, fully integrated offering targeting both
gas and electric end uses. While on-site, all opportunities, regardless of fuel source, would
be identified and documented for the customer. All efforts to deliver a fully integrated offer
to a participant would be performed in a manner that will result in a seamless participant
experience.
Based on the outcome of the screening process, the appropriate technical resources were
assigned to conduct a whole building (fuel blind) assessment. The audit firms used for the
market rate program also served the low-income sector, along with the current Network
agencies who served the low-income multifamily market. If the same firms were not
available, the auditor(s) performing the services were required to have, at a minimum, the
same qualifications (i.e. training, certification, etc.) as the market rate program auditors.
The LEAN Lead Vendor would attempt, through the screening process, to identify all
resources required for the assessment; however, there could be instances where additional
expertise was required and therefore more than one site visit was necessary. Technical
assessments, benchmarking, and engineering studies would be conducted as needed. At
the time of the assessment, education would be provided to participants and instant saving
measures would be installed, as appropriate and authorized by the customer.
Delivery Methods
Low-Income 1 – 4 Unit Program
The Low-Income 1 – 4 Unit Program piggybacked on the current DHCD low-income energy
efficiency program. Once customers were deemed eligible, they received an in-home
energy assessment from their local Network agency. The Network agency then arranged for
weatherization and other services to be installed by a qualified contractor. This program
achieved deeper savings by installing additional efficiency measures, to the extent costeffective, such as indirect water heaters with heating systems, exterior doors, front load
clothes washers and repairs to make efficiency measures possible. Other measures were
investigated, such as solar water heaters and usage monitoring systems. In addition, a
change in rules as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) made it
possible to spend more federal money in each home, and this provided Program
Administrators with funding to help address more items on the cost effective priority list for
each customer. Savings were distributed more broadly by treating additional homes,
23
including mobile homes (including providing contractor training if needed). As a final step,
the Network agency completed a final quality assurance inspection to ensure that all work is
performed to program guidelines.
Low-Income Multifamily Program
Assessments: The program conducted building assessments by qualified auditors to
determine cost effective energy efficiency work and to provide owners information on
recommended energy efficiency upgrades. In most cases the assessments were
comprehensive audits that examined the building envelope, mechanical systems and
motors, ventilation, lighting, etc. The identified efficiency opportunities were then screened
through the utility cost effectiveness test, leading to a prioritized list of project
specifications. Where opportunities existed to combine cost effective energy efficiency
work with building renovations, the assessments were more limited in scope.
Contractors: The Program used vendors that were already established in the 1-4 unit
Program or through contracts with the Program Administrators as much as feasible. This
system allowed the Program to minimize the administrative costs of bidding and selecting
contractors, while at the simultaneously ensuring market rate pricing. Prior to work
commencing, the contractor and a Program representative visted the site to determine the
best approach and feasibility for the work. An applicant’s preferred contractor could be
used if the contractor met all program insurance and licensing requirements. Contractors
already selected by an Applicant, such as when the prescriptive measure was part of a
custom project and the project had been independently bid out by the Applicant, could be
used as long as their pricing met the Program’s cost-effectiveness test.
Inspections: After the specified work was completed by the assigned contractor, all work
was inspected by the Program.
Funding Sources and Expenditures
Program funds provided by Program Administrators came out of the approved energy
efficiency budgets. These budgets were funded by utility bill surcharges for energy
efficiency and with other funds that the State decided to apply to these programs. The
following funds were paid as reported by the PAs in 2011:
24
Participant Incentives
Low-Income
Single Family
Retrofit
Low-Income
MultiFamily
Retrofit
$1,567,195
$7,387,759
$3,003,570
$324,261
$1,538,845
$13,821,631
$114,855
$2,458,826
$4,152,244
$75,641
$177,657
$6,979,224
$85,728
$1,029,895
$4,882,131
$112,806
$1,472,048
$76,815
$7,659,424
$21,481,055
$120,621
$165,500
$3,337,004
$72,671
$2,114,488
$189,601
$5,999,885
$12,979,109
Electric Utilities
Cape Light Compact
National Grid (electric)
NSTAR (electric)
Unitil (electric)
Western Mass Electric
Electric Sub-Total
Natural Gas Utilities
Berkshire Gas
Columbia Gas
National Grid (gas)
New England Gas
NSTAR (gas)
Unitil (gas)
Natural Gas Sub-Total
TOTAL
These incentives for Low Income participants are summarized in column 1 of the
following table. In addition to incentives, the PAs also incurred other program
expenses, as shown in column 2, for total PA expenditures in column 3. In addition to
Participant Incentives, the other categories of PA costs13 are:




Program Planning and Administration
Marketing and Advertising
Sales, Technical Assistance (including Home Energy Assessments) & Training
Evaluation and Market Research.
The table also includes in Column 4 funds deployed by state and federal agencies,
including stimulus funds, and expended in 2011. Most of these government funds were
invested in the Low Income program for 1-4 family buildings. There were no co-pays
required from low-income customers.
13
As explained elsewhere, the employees of the PAs are included in the estimates of FTE for the Low
Income programs, but not for other programs. Employees of PA contractors are included in this report for
Lead Vendors and other implementation contractors, but not for other contractors (e.g., marketing,
evaluation).
25
1
2
3
4
5
Incentives to
Customers
Other PA
Expenses
Total PA
Program Costs
Government
Total
Low Income Programs:
1-4 Unit
$
Multifamily
Subtotal, Low Income $
21,481,055 $
8,710,960 $
30,192,015 $
12,979,109
4,195,626
17,174,735
34,460,164
$ 12,906,586 $
47,366,750 $
44,705,535 $
44,705,535 $
74,897,550
17,174,735
92,072,285
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment
This section describes the methodology for our analysis of the number of full-time
equivalent workers associated with the delivery of Low Income Residential Retrofit
Programs in 2011. The methodology included the following steps:
Step 1: Identify measure categories. Each of the two low-income programs, covering 14 unit buildings, and multifamily buildings, has several sub-categories of expenditures,
mostly associated with different efficiency measures. Through interviews with lowincome program managers, 15 activity or measure types were selected for both the gas
and electric end uses in 1-4 unit and multifamily building types.

1-4 Unit Buildings









Multifamily Buildings






14
Insulation and Air Sealing
Heating System Replacement
HVAC Repair
HVAC Clean, Tune, and Evaluate (CTE)
Refrigerators
Lamp replacements
AMP Audits
Oversight14
Electric Audits
HVAC
Shell
Lamp replacements
Fixture/Lamp replacements
Refrigerators
This Oversight category includes an estimate of employment at the PAs and state agencies. This
category of employment was estimated for the low income programs, but not for the other programs,
due to the nature of the joint oversight of the low-income programs, and based on the availability of
appropriate data inputs.
26

Oversight.
Step 2: Tabulate expenditures for each measure type. Figures on actual 2011
expenditures15 were used to determine the breakdown between gas and electric, and
between 1-4 unit and multifamily building (MFB) units. Further detailed allocations to
the full 15 activity or measure types (sector groups) were based on comprehensive 2011
expenditure reports from NSTAR Gas and Electric/ABCD, partial expenditure allocation
reports from NGRID/Action, and estimates based on the other utility companies’
respective shares of the statewide totals.
Step 3: Determine delivered unit costs. The calculation of costs per unit differed for the
following categories:

Insulation and Air Sealing: ABCD and Action weatherization costs (roughly 80% of
the statewide total) were used to develop a statewide cost per unit for insulation
and air sealing. It was assumed that this factor would not appreciably differ
whether in 1-4 unit or MFB buildings. This resulting factor was applied across the
entire 2011 Insulation and Air Sealing expenditures.

HVAC work (replacement; repairs; and, clean/tune/evaluate): Based on review of
ABCD, Action, and DHCD 2011 information, and in depth interview with ABCD
Program Manager.

Refrigerators: Based on ABCD information.

Lamps and fixtures: Information reported by major installer of actual installations
delivered to ABCD over a three month period in 2012. The data covered 55
measures installed during this period. This sample period is assumed to be typical
for the electrical MFB work statewide.
Step 4: Determine quantity of units installed in 2011: The number of units of each
measure type is calculated by dividing 2011 expenditures by the unit cost.
Step 5: Determine “time-to-install” FTE productivity factors: For each measure type,
productivity is expressed as the average number of measures installed in a year by one
FTE employee:

15
Insulation and Air Sealing: Actual 2011 material and labor expenditures for ARRA
funded work reported to DHCD were divided by the estimated average
Weatherization project cost reported by ABCD and Action. The ARRA reports
included how many FTEs were employed to expend this amount of money. It was
assumed that this resulting productivity factor would not appreciably differ whether
in 1-4 unit or MFB buildings. This resulting factor was applied across the entire 2011
Insulation and Air Sealing expenditures for both 1-4 and MFB buildings.
These cost figures were based on the spreadsheets submitted to the EEAC by the PAs, including a sheet
entitled “Electric Summary Comparison Table: Quarterly and Year to Date Preliminary Results, Program
Year 2011.”
27

HVAC work (replacement; repairs; and, clean/tune/evaluate): Based on author’s
experience managing heating system programs for 4 years, with January 2012
confirmation interviews with two high producing HVAC firms, and comparison with
R.S. Means research.

Refrigerators: Based on interview with statewide operator of low-income
refrigerator program.

Lamps and fixtures: Based on report from major installer of electrical measures
delivered to ABCD over three month period in 2012. The report covers 55 measures
installed during this period. This work sample is assumed to be typical for the
electrical MFB work statewide.
Step 6: Calculate FTE for each measure type. To calculate the level of employment
involved for each measure type, the quantity of units is divided by the respective FTE
productivity factor. The product is the number of FTE generated by a given expenditure
for a measure type. For example, the number of MFB lighting fixture units installed is
13,058, and the installer productivity factor is 1,540 units per year, so the total FTE in
this case was 13,058/1540, or 8 FTEs. For back office, administrative and management
functions, we assumed that contractor administrative staff can support 8 field workers.
All of the workforce needs are counted in “full time equivalents” (FTEs). Each FTE
represents the equivalent of one person working full-time in the job category. Readers
should understand that the number of FTEs in any category is not the same as the
number of individual people employed. Since many people work part-time, by
assignment only, or on job activities that are not related to residential energy efficiency,
the number of people employed is actually larger than the number of FTEs. We did not
estimate how many individual full-time and part-time workers are employed, as
opposed to how many FTEs are required.
C. Low Income Residential Study Findings
Almost 775 full-time equivalent workers were associated with the delivery of Low
Income Residential Retrofit programs in 2011. This number includes employees of the
Program Administrators, DOER, and low Income consultants, who planned, managed,
supported, and evaluated these programs. The greatest number of these workers was
engaged in insulating and air sealing 1 – 4 unit buildings, with 266 FTE installers in the
field statewide, along with other labor categories.
The following table summarizes our results.16
16
For this tabulation, we have combined measure types so there is just one category for HVAC and one
for lighting. We have combined managers and administrative assistants into a single category for office
workers.
28
Auditors
Field Installers
Office
(Agencies, PAs,
DOER, and
LEAN)
25
25
266
80
16
11
13
25
32
9
7
5
FTE in Low-Income Programs
1-4 Unit Employees:
Insulation and Air Sealing
HVAC
Refrigerators
Lamp replacements
AMP Audits
Other/overlap
Oversight and Adm
Subtotal, 1-4 Unit
Multifamily Employees:
Shell
HVAC
Refrigerators
Fixture/Lamp replacements
Other/overlap
Oversight and Adm
Subtotal, Multifamily
Total, Low Income
Office
(Contractors)
Total FTE
33
10
23
71
50
387
149
66
4
22
14
4
19
1
4
54
652
8
61
23
25
48
8
121
447
197
74
773
29
V.
Commercial and Industrial EE Programs
(Direct Install and Large Retrofit Programs)
A. Program Overviews
General Descriptions
The Commercial and Industrial (“C&I”) energy efficiency programs offered today by
Massachusetts Program Administrators (“PA”) are the latest generation of a series of
offerings by electric and gas utilities in the Commonwealth that have been evolving
since formal energy conservation and demand side management programs were
launched in the 1980s.
Within the context of the current three year plans, these electric and gas utility
programs are integrated and defined by the size of the customer electric accounts and
whether the energy conservation measures (“ECMs”) installed are classified as either
“prescriptive” or “custom”. Prescriptive measures are pre-approved for installation as
replacements for specific existing technology based on cost effectiveness tests
completed by the program administrators. Custom measures require additional analysis
to confirm project cost and determine the energy reductions generated and incentives
that can be provided.
Our analysis of direct employment in 2011 from utility energy efficiency programs that
targeted C&I customers focuses on two of these programs: the Direct Install Program
and the Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings. These are both “but for” programs.
This means that the availability of utility incentives and related support likely
accelerated the installation of more efficient equipment and systems to replace older,
less efficient equipment and systems that otherwise would have remained in service.
Both of these programs are described in detail below.
With the permission and agreement of the PA representatives and the Energy Efficiency
Advisory Council consultant representative, this study does not examine the new
construction program (described in the utility three year plans as the Lost Opportunity
Program). It was decided that energy system replacements supported by the Lost
Opportunities Program are an integral part of building renovations or new construction
that would occur anyway; in these cases, utility incentives influence which equipment is
selected (i.e., incrementally more energy efficient products), but do not substantively
increase the labor associated with installations. Therefore, we agreed collectively that
including the work hours engaged in Lost Opportunity Program projects in our total
count of direct employment from C&I programs is not appropriate, though we recognize
that there was some technical support provided by the PAs (e.g for building simulations)
that are not being captured in the total.
30
Direct Install Program
The Direct Install Program (“DI Program”) targeted customers with an electric demand
of 300 kW or less. Total customers participating in this program in 2011 numbered
5,670 electric customers and 1346 natural gas customers. This set of customers
included the smallest businesses on the low end and larger commercial establishments
or even elementary schools on the high end, though customers in this group are defined
not by their physical size, but by the amount of electrical energy the equipment and
systems they employ are consuming at a given time. In this sense, 300 kW customers
are quite large.
Program offerings were largely prescriptive and included both electrical ECMs and
natural gas ECMs. The Program goal was to give these customers easy access to
installation of these pre-approved measures at controlled prices and to provide financial
incentives to encourage customers to proceed with installations. In some cases, PAs
also offered on-bill financing for the customer share of the installation as an additional
incentive to participate.
To describe the Direct Install Program as it existed in 2011, we quote from the DI
Program description that begins on page 255 of the Three Year Plan for 2010-12, dated
October 29, 2009:
The primary objective of the C&I Direct Install Program is to provide cost-effective,
comprehensive electric and gas retrofit services to business customers on a turnkey
basis using the same delivery model throughout the Commonwealth.
Some Program Administrators offer on and/or off-bill financing options to help
customers finance their share of the cost of installing improvements. Program
Administrators offer incentives ranging from 35% to 80%.
With the direct install model, Program Administrators solicit competitive bids for
the labor and materials costs of installing improved lighting equipment, lighting
controls and, in some cases, improved refrigeration measures for walk-in coolers.
Through a turnkey process, a single contractor conducts an audit to identify better
lighting options and installs recommended measures. These vendors market the
program, perform audits at customers‘ facilities, offer recommendations to
customers, complete audit forms and questionnaires, purchase lighting materials
from a supplier also selected through a competitive bid process, install measures,
input data into a database, and prepare progress reports for the Program
Administrators on a regular basis.
The program is primarily marketed by the direct installation contractors directly to
the customers on lists of eligible customers provided to them by the Program
Administrators. Contractors use direct mailings and telemarketing, as well as
specialized targeted efforts for hard-to-reach market segments, such as customers
in economic development zones and ethnic neighborhoods, and outreach through
31
neighborhood business associations. Trade allies, industry stakeholders, suppliers
and company field personnel also inform customers about the program‘s benefits
and incentive mechanisms. In addition, small business customers with high-bill
complaints may be referred to the program as a way for them to reduce their
electric and gas usage.
Targeted electrical end uses include, but are not limited to: lighting and lighting
controls, HVAC equipment, water heating, VSDs and refrigeration. A variety of
other electric end uses may be served through a custom approach. Targeted gas
end uses may include, but not be limited to: heating system controls, commercial
dishwashing - water heating and potentially building envelope.
Recommended electric technologies include energy-efficient fluorescent ballasts,
lamps, and fixtures; hard- wired and screw-in compact fluorescent systems; high
intensity discharge systems; LED lighting and occupancy sensors; energy
management systems; and refrigeration measures such as evaporator fan controls,
efficient evaporator fan motors, automatic door closers and door heater control
devices for walk-in coolers. To create greater depth and appeal for the program,
customers are offered the opportunity to install non-prescriptive lighting and other
comprehensive energy efficiency measures through the custom approach.
Recommended gas technologies include programmable thermostats, pre rinse spray
valves, pipe insulation, and potentially some weatherization and infiltration
measures. Other identified gas measures may be served through a custom
approach to include EMS and Hood controls.
Measures installed were more likely to be electricity saving, given the profile of energy
use in commercial buildings, and included lighting upgrades, refrigeration
improvements, simple controls, and drives. For natural gas customers, measures
installed could include pipe insulation, devices that reduce use of hot water, and
programmable thermostats.
We observed that, for our purposes of calculating work hours and total direct
employment for the Direct Install Program, the labor required for both natural gas and
electricity measure installations is relatively straightforward and predictable. The
importance of this will become apparent in the C&I study methodology described
below.
Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings (Large Retrofit Program)
The Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings (“Large Program”) targeted larger customers
with electric demand that exceeds 300 kW. In 2011, 2038 electric customers and 2166
natural gas customers participated in this Program. These customers could receive the
same prescriptive measures through this program as were installed through the DI
program, though the incentives provided were lower. The Large Program also
supported a wide array of custom projects for both natural gas and electrical savings.
32
Each of these custom projects had to be evaluated to ensure that, the installation would
result in sufficient energy reduction and system benefit to justify receiving a utility
incentive for the installation.
The Three Year Plan for 2010 – 2012 describes this program, beginning on page 231, as
follows:
This program focus[es] on comprehensive gas and electric energy efficiency
opportunities associated with mechanical, electrical, and thermal systems in existing
commercial, industrial, governmental and institutional buildings. It provides
technical assistance and incentives to encourage retrofitting of equipment that
continues to function, but is outdated and inefficient, and can be replaced with a
premium efficient product.
The program provides technical assistance (to identify and quantify opportunities)
and financial incentives based on a percentage of project costs (both material and
labor) to make equipment removal and replacement attractive to building and
business owners in terms of conventional business payback requirements.
Electric Program Administrators will harmonize their retrofit offerings into a
consistent core set statewide of prescriptive and custom offerings, incentives, and
supportive services. Gas Program Administrators will similarly organize their
programs into prescriptive and custom offerings and align them into a consistent set
of services and incentives. All gas and electric retrofit programs will be organized
under a single program name, using application forms and other program materials
that are the same, except for information pertaining to the individual Program
Administrator brand identifiers, contact information, etc.
Financial incentives cover a portion of the total installed project costs, typically by
providing up to 50% of labor and equipment costs, or by incentivizing the installed
costs down to the equivalent of a fixed payback period. Financial incentives may
also include co-funded engineering and commissioning studies and/or design
incentives covering a portion of incremental architectural and design costs for
efficiency improvements.
Program Administrator staff, trade allies and project administrators perform most
sales, marketing, program administration, and implementation functions. In
addition, outside contractors are retained for technical review of applications, onsite energy analysis, technical and design assistance for comprehensive projects,
project commissioning services, and the actual measure installations, including turnkey services.
The [Technical] Services component of the program provides technical support
matched to the specific needs and capabilities of each commercial or industrial
customer. Services may include walk-through audits, detailed energy-efficiency
studies for buildings or building components, and specialized technical studies, such
33
as studies of industrial process improvements and compressed air projects. In
general, study proposals will be assigned to, and performed by, TA consultants who
have been selected as preferred vendors through a competitive procurement
process by the Program Administrators. TA consultants will be assigned based on an
assessment of their expertise with the technology area under consideration.
Targeted end uses include, but are not limited to, lighting and lighting controls,
motors and drives, HVAC equipment, energy management systems, compressed air
and unique industrial processes. Gas end uses include: building envelope and
glazing, commercially sized heating and water heating equipment, system and
building controls. Any commercially available energy efficiency technology may be
considered through a custom application. Fully integrated and comprehensive gas
and electric approaches will be taken to ensure the capture of all cost-effective
achievable technical potential.
Recommended technologies include efficient lamp technologies, efficient lighting
fixtures, lighting controls, efficient motor drive systems, efficient HVAC systems,
CHP, compressed air systems, heat recovery, steam systems, industrial process
systems and controls, building controls, demand controlled ventilation, Energy
Recovery Ventilation Units (―ERVs), advanced gas technologies, dehumidification
and humidification. Solar hot water, advanced cooling systems and other emerging
technologies may also be addressed.
In the context of this integrated electricity and natural gas efficiency program, some
individual custom measures resulted in both natural gas and electrical savings. In
general, the incentives provided by the Large Program made the difference in whether
projects proceed or not.
Delivery Methods
Direct Install Program
Delivery method details varied somewhat from utility to utility for the DI Program in
2011. NSTAR Gas and Electric, National Grid, and Cape Light Compact selected a small
number of delivery companies through a competitive process that establishes unit costs
for each of the prescriptive measures installed. These designated delivery companies
provided maximum available incentives to customers for installation of measures and
complete the bulk of all the installations in this market sector. In same cases, these
delivery companies were awarded geographical territories to serve.
The NSTAR Gas and Electric DI Program contracted with AECOM Energy, Northern
Energy Services, Prism Consulting, Inc., Rise Engineering, and TNT Energy, LLC. National
Resource Management, which specializes in refrigeration system controls, was also one
of the NSTAR Gas and Electric installation companies.
34
National Grid used AECOM, Northern Energy Services, and Prism Consulting, Inc. Again,
National Resource Management provided refrigeration controls. Cape Light Compact
selected Rise Engineering for DI Program delivery. WMECO and Unitil had more open
programs, allowing a larger number of delivery companies to participate in the DI
Program and serve their customers.
As noted earlier, measures installed under the DI program were prescriptive. Program
activity was driven by the electrical measures installed, with a smaller number of
prescriptive gas measures being bundled in on the margin, though based on our
conversations with the direct installation companies, installation of gas measures has
been increasing.
Large portions of the workforce employed by the direct installation companies that
participated in the DI Programs, and likely many of the companies themselves, would
probably not exist without these utility programs. As noted earlier, these companies
provided turn-key services, serving as the sales force for the PAs to this market sector,
having responsibility for identifying prospects, specifying projects, calculating savings to
ensure that ECMs will pass a cost effectiveness test, calculating incentives to be
provided, determining net cost to the customer, closing the deal, and tracking the
project through its completion.
Most of these companies did not employ installation labor. They subcontracted field
installation work to individuals or companies with the necessary trade licenses
(generally electrical). They were paid for each measure installed based on per unit fees
bid to the PAs and covered all their internal costs for administration, sales, and project
management based on the difference between what they pay to have field installations
completed and what they are paid themselves.
Profit was achieved in this program by working efficiently and by beating the bid cost for
labor in the unit pricing. The result of this approach was that the faster that field labor
could complete installations at acceptable quality, the higher the margin that could be
achieved. Viewed another way, this cost structure increases the amount of work
completed (i.e. productivity) for every labor dollar spent, thereby resulting in fewer
labor hours needed to install program ECMs than would be the case if labor costs were
paid on an hourly basis.
Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings
For the most part, as noted above, the Large Program was an open, market-based
program for both electric and gas utility customers. There were no program restrictions
on who did the installation work, though all work was required to meet performance
standards established by the program administrators.
There were over 250 separate Contractors of Record for National Grid’s Large Program
electric customer installations in 2011. See Appendix A for a listing of contractors
participating in this Program. NSTAR Gas and Electric’s Large Program electric customer
35
database also identifies nearly 250 companies as the installation vendors for the
program. See Appendix B for a listing of contractors participating in this Program.
National Grid’s natural gas customer program identified some 80 different companies as
the Vendor for 189 projects. See Appendix C for a listing of these contractors.
The Contractors of Record identified by the PAs were a combination of building owners,
specialized technology contractors, energy services companies, and the firms that
delivered the Direct Install programs. Some installed these measures themselves and
others subcontracted the installations to other contractors and vendors. What they had
in common is that these installed projects were being driven by incentive funds.
National Grid also selected a set of companies it called “Project Expediters” or “PEX”
that functioned in a similar manner to the designated installation companies in the DI
Program (and in fact, many of these same companies were involved as PEX). These PEX
tended to focus on the same measures installed through the DI Program (i.e. largely
lighting), though the lighting solutions they developed could be more customized to
meet the needs and interests of a customer. They also served as a general contractor
where there were additional energy efficiency opportunities. Where a large customer
requested assistance with developing measures, National Grid could provide the list of
qualified PEX or even provide a referral to an individual company. And in addition, with
their designation as an official Project Expediter, these companies could direct market
themselves to utility customers. See Appendix D for a list of National Grid Project
Expediters.
In addition to installation companies, there was another workforce of engineers and
technical specialists directly under contract to the electric and natural gas PAs that
provided technical assistance to customers. As described earlier in discussion of
Program services, these companies provided a range of technical support, at the whole
building or building system level, to help identify potential projects and quantify savings
that would result. In this way, they supported the program marketing effort. These
companies were also used to confirm that projects installed were performing as
designed. For example, the National Grid natural gas company’s Large Program
completed 786 such studies in 2011, most of which were quite small, but collectively
cost $359,000. Categories and counts for this work were: energy assessments, 288;
custom review, 215; post inspections, 101; custom audit, 86; TA study, 59; and special
consultations, 59. A partial list of companies that provided technical assistance services
to PAs is attached as Appendix E.
Funding Sources and Expenditures
Both C&I programs were funded by a combination of utility incentives and customer
share payments. In the Direct Install program, measures installed and the incentives
provided were treated either as electric or natural gas.
36
For the Large Program, some installed measures received both an electric utility
incentive and a gas utility incentive if there were both electricity and natural gas savings
associated with the installation; but this combined incentive was typically capped at
50% of the project cost. Technical services could likewise be cost shared by electric and
gas utilities depending on whether the source of savings was electric or gas, with the
customer also providing a share of the cost (which was forgiven if the customer
proceeded with an installation as a result of the recommendations).
Program funds provided by program administrators for the DI and Large Program come
out of the approved Commercial and Industrial energy efficiency budgets. These
budgets are funded by utility bill surcharges for energy efficiency and with other funds
that the State decides to apply to these programs.
2011 C&I Program Participant Incentives Provided by Program Administrators17
Program
Administrators
Electric Utilities
Direct Install
Program
Cape Light Compact
National Grid (electric)
NSTAR (electric)
Unitil (electric)
Western Mass Electric
Electric Sub-Total
Large Retrofit
Program
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,280,710
10,502,333
16,104,911
1,062,798
3,825,993
33,776,745
$
$
$
$
$
$
436,193
27,287,022
17,996,187
852,073
2,579,159
49,150,634
$ 2,716,903
$ 37,789,355
$ 34,101,098
$ 1,914,871
$ 6,405,152
$ 82,927,379
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,571
29,209
146,563
82,035
3,850
263,228
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,791
1,412,901
5,482,829
113,435
919,093
113,867
8,142,916
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Natural Gas Utilities
Berkshire Gas
Columbia Gas
National Grid (gas)
New England Gas
NSTAR (gas)
Unitil (gas)
Natural Gas Sub-Total
TOTAL $ 34,039,973
17
102,362
1,442,110
5,629,392
113,435
1,001,128
117,717
8,406,144
$ 57,293,550 $ 91,333,523
Source: 2011 Statewide EEAC Reports for Electric and Gas, Q4-11, Report B
37
Total Investment in Installed Measures by PAs and Customers in 201118
Incentives to
Customers for
Projects
Customer Share
of Project Cost
Direct Install
$
34,039,973
$
14,588,560
$
Large Retrofit
$
57,293,550
$
85,940,325
$ 143,233,875
$
91,333,523
$ 100,528,885
$ 191,862,408
Total
Commercial and Industrial
Programs:
48,628,533
B. Methodologies for Assessing Direct Employment
Our analysis of Direct Employment from the DI and Large Programs has relied primarily on
sets of information requested and received from the utility program administrators.
While we knew that the PAs focus primarily in their record keeping on energy savings that
result from investments they are making through incentives and other services provided, we
learned through a series of meetings and discussions with selected PA staff that the larger
PAs also tracked the individual measures installed, by Program and, sometimes, by vendor.
Securing this detailed information was essential to our study.
We asked PAs to provide data sets listing specific equipment installed in 2011, with counts,
for each of the Programs for each PA. Information the PAs provided in some cases also
identified participating vendors, the specific projects and measures each installed, whether
measures were prescriptive or custom, and the total dollars spent on projects including both
utility incentives and customer share.
To supplement this primary data source, we spoke with selected installation companies and
engineering firms participating in the Programs and with selected utility company managers
deeply involved in the C&I programs. The information gleaned from these conversations
was essential to our understanding of how the Programs operate and who is doing the work.
Together, these sources provided details on what was installed through the Programs, how
much field time is usually required to complete different types of installation projects, and
what the “back office” labor component is for specialized installation companies that service
large numbers of utility customers.
Direct Install Program (electric)
With permission and agreement from the supervising PAs of this study, we used NSTAR
Electric’s Direct Install Program results for 2011 as our initial data set. We were
subsequently directed by NSTAR Gas and Electric to RISE Engineering, one of the active
18
Customer Share assumes 30% for Direct Install program and average of 60% for Large Retrofit program
38
Direct Install installation companies and the only one that employs its own electricians to
install ECMs, for assistance with estimating the time required to install different measures.
Our researchers worked from the assumption that if we could use the NSTAR Gas and
Electric DI Program data set and our conversations with RISE Engineering to arrive at a
typical “time-to-install” (or productivity factor) for the many measures installed through in
the DI Program, we could extrapolate these times to the measures installed by all PAs and
calculate the total work hours involved for the entire DI Program in 2011. This process is
described in more detail below.
The NSTAR Gas and Electric DI Program tracks almost 50 electricity saving measures that
were installed through the program, some of them each being an amalgamation of multiple
sizes and types of equipment. A list of these measures is provided below.
While the great majority of the installed measures were lighting retrofits of one sort or
another, the time required to remove existing lighting and install replacement equipment
could vary significantly with the location of the lighting and the type of equipment being
installed. Similarly, while some lighting controls (occupancy sensors) were installed where
no such switching previously existed (e.g. in ceilings), requiring new wiring, other wallmounted controls replaced existing manual switches and did not need to be wired.
This “time-to-install” information was applied to the list and count of installed measures to
calculate the number of “installation man days” devoted to installing each measure for all
participating NSTAR Electric customers in 2011.
Our next step was to apply our NSTAR Gas and Electric calculation methodology to the DI
Program results received from the other PAs. Because all the DI Programs of the PAs are
harmonized under the current three-year plan and the profiles of businesses participating in
the Programs were likely to be the same, we could assume that similar measures had been
installed by all DI Programs. Where this was the case and the installed measures could be
matched with the NSTAR Gas and Electric measure lists, we could easily calculate the
installation man-days.
In cases where the level of detail in installation descriptions provided by some PAs was less
“granular” than what was received from NSTAR Gas and Electric, we had to assign
installations to one measure category or another. In other cases, where the data was more
granular than the NSTAR Gas and Electric data, we made some assumptions and aggregated
data within single measures. When we found that the data received from National Grid did
not align well with the NSTAR Gas and Electric measure descriptions, National Grid
suggested that we engage Munro Distributing, a major supplier of program materials to PAs
across Massachusetts, to help match the installed products with the NSTAR Gas and Electric
measure descriptions. With their assistance, we were able to closely correlate these two
sources.
At the end of this process we were able to apply our “time-to-install” information to nearly
all of the reported electric DI Program measures.
39
NSTAR Gas and Electric Direct Install Program Measures with Counts of Measures
Installed in 2011
PRODUCT
MEASURE ID
10
21
22
23
25
31
32
34
41
43
51
52
54
55
56
57
61
63
64
70
80
83
85
10A
30A
30B
30C
41A
64A
81A
81B
82A
82B
BEVG
EMSB
LGHT
LGTC
MOTR
REFC
REFG
SNCK
SPRAY_VALVE
T-STAT
T-STAT-HP
TUNE
VSDH
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Re-lamp/Re-ballast with HP/RW T-8 or T-5 Lamp/Ballast Systems
Compact Fluorescent Fixture - Hard Wired (Long Tube CFL and Biax are Eligible)
Compact Fluorescent Fixture with 2 (or more) Lamps
Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Fixture (Long Tube CFL and Biax are Eligible)
CFL lamp only
LED Exit Sign
High Efficiency 3 Lamp Fluorescent Fixtures - 2X4
High Efficiency Recessed Fluorescent 2 Lamp Retrofit Kits - 2X2 or 2X4
Advanced Recessed Fluorescent Fixtures - 2X4, 1X4, or 2X2
Industrial / Commercial Fluorescent - 4 ft. and 8 ft. Fixtures
Vapor Tight Fluorescent - 4 ft. and 8 ft. Fixtures
Pulse Start Metal Halide Lamp and Electronic Ballast Kit
Pulse Start Metal Halide Fixture with Electronic Ballast (eHID)
High Lumen Vaportight Fluorescent Fixture
High Pressure Sodium Fixture
High Intensity Fluorescent Fixture (HIF) less than or equal to 207 Watts
High Intensity Fluorescent Fixture (HIF) greater than 207 Watts
Remote Mounted Occupancy Sensor
Occupancy Controlled Step Dimming System
Occupancy Sensor - Wall Mount (FL)
Metal Halide Specialty Lighting Hard-Wired Fixture with Electronic Ballast
LED Downlight Fixtures - Hard Wired
LED Low Bay - Garage and Canopy Fixtures
LED Outdoor Wall Packs
HP T8/T5 Lamp with Electronic Ballast
High Efficiency 2 Lamp Prismatic Lensed Fluorescent Fixtures - 2X2 or 2X4
High Efficiency 2 Lamp Parabolic Fluorescent Fixtures - 2X2 or 2X4
High Efficiency 2 Lamp Recessed Indirect/Direct Fluorescent Fixture - 2X2 or 2X4
4 FT Industrial Fixture with Reflector with HP T8/T5
Wall Mounted Occupancy Sensors
Integral LED Directional Replacement Lamps - MR16, PAR16, & PAR20
Integral LED Directional Replacement Lamps - PAR30 & PAR38
LED Cooler or Freezer Case Fixtures - 3' & 4' Fixtures
LED Cooler or Freezer Case Fixtures - 5' & 6' Fixtures
Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machine
EMS & HVAC Controls
Lighting Systems (custom)
Lighting Controls
Motor (under 15 hp)
Custom Refrigeration - Controls
Retail Refrigeration
Non-Refrigerated Snack Vending Machine
Spray Valve - Electric Hot Water (SBS Only)
Thermostat Single Stage (SBS Only)
Thermostat Two Stage for Heat Pump (SBS Only)
HVAC Tune-Ups (SBS Only)
Variable Speed Drives (HVAC Systems)
TOTAL
INSTALLED
86,247
2,479
89
206
16,003
2,769
13,570
743
2,784
18,125
324
814
551
759
3
2,211
2,651
5,153
1
3,151
102
2,898
910
358
1,134
3,086
5,991
2,358
350
394
5,082
19,498
29
32
86
81
1,493
46
1,067
214
476
30
17
28
1
44
11
Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings (electric)
A significant proportion of the installed measures in the Large Program are the same
prescribed measures installed by the DI Program. For the NSTAR Gas and Electric program,
the measure tracking made use of the same descriptive categories as the DI Program. That
allowed us to use the same methodology to develop “installation man day” totals for many
of the Large Program measures installed for PAs. Again, there were differences in the detail
of data being captured by some of the PAs, but we were able to calculate labor hours for the
40
prescriptive measures installed for larger utilities that account for most installations
statewide.
That said, our calculations of labor hours generated by the Large Program is complicated
significantly by the large numbers of “custom” projects that were installed through this
Program. These custom projects accounted for a significant fraction of the Program dollars
spent as incentives and, in some cases, an even larger fraction of the total value of
combined utility and customer investment in energy efficiency improvements. For example,
in National Grid’s Large Program in 2011 supported the installation of 373 custom projects
that received $10,964,402 in incentives or 62% of the incentives National Grid paid out
through this program.
Utility recordkeeping for custom projects captures descriptions of a project as a general
category that perhaps includes some indication of the size of the key piece of equipment
and, of course, includes the expected energy savings. It does not capture how anticipated
savings were determined and the assumptions behind them.
The complexity and variability of such custom projects makes determining the workforce
impacts extremely difficult. For example, for the installation of a combined heat and power
system, the data provided to us by the utility PAs tells us nothing about existing conditions
and what the total scope of the project will include (e.g., Is there demolition, rewiring, repiping, transformers, thermal storage, etc.?). Even the size of system components is
unspecified.
Lacking such information about individual projects installed for the Program in 2011, our
researchers developed estimates for minimum labor requirements to complete jobs in
categories that were appropriate to the information provided about installed measures.
Bluestone Energy Services, one of the National Grid Project Expediters and a company that
has developed technical assistance studies in the past for PAs, was particularly generous
with their time in assisting our researchers to understand the labor component of these
complex custom measures Bluestone helped extrapolate total project costs for the majority
of the custom projects in National Grid’s Large Program and provided estimates of labor
breakouts by project for project management, sales, contractor engineering, and, as
appropriate, other specialized hours for different technologies.
As a final step, where individual PAs were not able to provide the level of detail we needed
about measures installed, we relied on their Large Retrofit Program annual incentive
expenditure to estimate labor impacts. We compared this expenditure with the relative
expenditures by PAs that had provided detailed information and extrapolated the jobs
created. We then adjusted job creation totals upward proportionately.
Direct Install Program (natural gas)
With the integration of electric and natural gas into a single DI Program offering, driven by a
customer’s electric utility (unless the natural gas customer is also served by a municipal
electric company), we found that the actual labor associated with the relatively few natural
41
gas measures installed for a customer was usually incremental to the time and cost
associated with being on the job to install electric measures.
Installation companies received unit-based payments for each natural gas measure installed
(e.g. a thermostat, pipe insulation, a hot water savings device), but would not be able to
justify the sales, contractor supervision, travel, deployment, and data management and
invoicing time associated with serving a natural gas customer based on revenue for the
natural gas measures installed. It is our understanding that installation companies involved
in this Program do not have any meaningful additional incremental office or sales-related
labor associated with the installation of gas measures.
The natural gas utilities (Berkshire Gas, Columbia Gas, NSTAR Gas and Electric, National Grid,
New England Gas, and Unitil) were asked to provide lists of measures installed for their
customers on their behalf with quantities and other details, as had been requested from
electric utilities. Information was received from all utilities except one.
Information systems for tracking natural gas installations are, we found, much more variable
utility to utility than is the case for the tracking of electric measures by electric utilities.
Nevertheless, because the DI Program natural gas measures have been harmonized, we
were able to generate counts of measures that account for most of the natural gas
customers served by the Direct Install Program.
As with the electric DI Program measures installed, “times-to-install” were calculated for
natural gas measures tracked and reported to us. Again, we worked with RISE Engineering to
establish these “times-to-install”. And as with the electric measures, installation man-days
have been calculated using the RISE estimates.
Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings (natural gas)
The Large Program for natural gas customers is a market-based program in the same way
that the Large Program for electric customers is. There are no designated installation
companies. Projects include installed measures that have both electricity and natural gas
savings, as well as custom installations (which are any natural gas measures that are not
prescriptive) that only save natural gas. Again, for the natural gas Large Programs, as was
the case with the electric Large Program, there are some of the same DI Program
prescriptive measures installed; but the Large Program installations completed for natural
gas customers are predominantly “custom”, meaning that each project must be specified
and priced by a contractor and the anticipated energy saved analyzed and approved by the
PA to ensure the project is cost effective and to calculate the available incentive.
Our methodology for determining workforce impacts in this case was the same as for the
other analysis completed for C&I programs. We requested counts of measures installed
under this program from all natural gas utilities (Berkshire Gas, Columbia Gas, NSTAR Gas
and Electric, National Grid, New England Gas, and Unitil). All but one PA provided
information.
42
We analyzed measures installed to aggregate similar installations and simplify our counting,
and we tried to identify similarities in measures installed by different PAs to model our
calculations. Again, we consulted with individuals knowledgeable about field installation of
these measures to help determine “time-to-install” estimates. We then used this
information to calculate total labor time required and workforce impacts for installations.
We would again like to thank RISE Engineering for their assistance.
As the last step of this process we looked at incentive payments by PAs from whom we did
not receive measure installation counts and extrapolated FTE for these PAs using relative
payments by PAs that did provide measure counts.
C. Commercial and Industrial Study Findings
Using the methodologies described above, our researchers have developed the following
estimates of workforce impacts from the two commercial and industrial programs that were
included in this investigation. The combined workforce impact for these commercial and
industrial programs totaled at least of 605 full time equivalents (FTEs).
In general, we believe that these estimates undercount the total workforce impacts from
the programs. For the Direct Install Program which had many installations for the smaller
C&I customers, there may have been instances where productivity was reduced below the
installation rates cited by our respondents. Servicing smaller customers requires more
frequent job set ups and breakdowns and more travel time between installation work,
compared to working in large office building or a school. Also, relative productivity can vary
different DI program installation contractors. For the Large Program, undercounts are
attributable to issues we identified in the methodology section: our difficulties getting
complete descriptions and counts of all measures installed, as well as uncertainties about
the specific labor needs for the more complex custom measures installed through the Large
Program for both electric and natural gas customers. That being said, we believe that the
order of magnitude of these findings is accurate.
These findings are presented separately below for each of the two programs.
Direct Install Program
The DI Program had two primary labor components that we have accounted for in this
investigation: field work that was for the most part performed by licensed tradespeople,
primarily electricians; and back office, sales, and project management functions that were
provided by installation companies that were engaged by the PAs. Between these two labor
components, we estimate that at least 193 FTEs were employed as a result of the DI
Program.
a. Field Labor
We estimate that the DI Program installations required in a minimum of 103 full time
equivalent persons being employed in 2011. These individuals were responsible for
installation of both electricity-and natural gas-saving measures. As noted earlier, most of
43
this workforce was subcontractors to the primary installation contractors, though a few of
these companies did have their own field workforce.
b. Back Office, Sales, and Project Management
We interviewed most of the installation companies participating in the DI Program,
including nearly all of the largest such companies. We learned that their DI Program staffing
functions could be classified into five major categories: supervision; data management and
bookkeeping; marketing; energy auditing and sales; and project management, which
included subcontractor management, materials management, and construction oversight.
Based on these discussions and estimates and allocations provided by the installation
companies, we estimate that at least 90 FTEs were employed in 2011 to facilitate DI
Program measure installations.
Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings
As described earlier, the Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings, or “Large Program”, is very
much a market-based and market-driven program. The measures installed and receiving
program incentives are not necessarily prescribed by program guidelines, though they must
meet a program cost effectiveness test. Installed measures are in many cases described as
“custom”, meaning that they are situation-specific solutions or technology applications that
need to be individually designed, engineered, and fitted. Also, the program allows the open
participation of a range of vendors, contractors, manufacturers, etc., requiring only that the
work that is done meets required performance standards for energy savings and measure
life. We estimate that at least 412 FTEs were employed as a result of the Large Program.
a. Field Labor
For the full range of natural gas and electric energy conservation measures installed in 2011
as a result of the Large Program and custom applications, our researchers estimate that a
minimum of 352.5 FTEs was employed in field installation-related work. Given the
complexity of some of these projects, the total workforce employed as a result of this
program likely included design professionals and engineers, construction managers and
supervisors, sales engineers, electricians, plumbers, heating specialists, controls specialists,
software programmers, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, demolition experts, haulers, and
other construction workers.
We believe that this number underestimates the field labor total because the reported
information on many complex, big ticket electric measures lacked sufficient detail to
determine the labor required to complete them. We were forced to estimate labor counts
using wage rates for professionals and licensed trade persons, without knowing the
numbers of lower wage individuals involved in these complex construction projects.
b. Back Office, Sales, and Project Management
44
The description provided for this Program mentions the Project Expeditors or “PEX” that
National Grid engaged to provide more simplified customer access to installation services
and program incentives and create a more focuses sales force for the program. The field
services that these PEX offered are accounted for in the field labor totals. But in addition,
they also have the same internal workforce structure and functions that characterized the DI
Program installations contractors, though at a smaller scale because they are involved in a
smaller number of projects, though individual projects may be larger and more complex.
We were able to interview the PEX that were responsible for 79% of the projects completed
by project Expediters in 2011 under National Grid’s Large Program. They estimated that the
workforce supporting National Grid in this program totaled 21 FTEs. Extrapolating this to
the full PEX contingent, there would be a total of 26 FTEs. These same companies indicated
in interviews with our researchers that they were also active in the NSTAR Gas and Electric
Large Program as well. While their role was not formalized in the same way by NSTAR Gas
and Electric, we expect that they employed a like number of staff to generate and support
work receiving NSTAR Gas and Electric Large Program incentives.
Based on this assumption, our researchers estimate that at least 50 FTE back-office, sales,
and project management personnel were employed as a result of the Large Program.
c. Technical Assistance and Support
Both National Grid and NSTAR Gas and Electric have developed networks of Technical
Assistance specialists that have supported this Program. These specialists are usually
degreed or professional engineers either with a larger engineering firm or from smaller firms
or even sole proprietorships. They understand the Program guidelines and requirements
and have created canned deliverables that allow them to cost effectively develop studies
that serve as marketing instruments for the Program or to provide other technical support,
like inspections of completed work. National Grid and NSTAR Gas and Electric reported
spending approximately $1,826,000 for such technical support in 2011. Assuming an
average rate for engineering services of $100 per hour, we have estimated that 9.5 FTEs
were employed providing this technical support for the largest PAs.
45
VI. Profiles of the Energy Efficiency Workforce in Action
Residential 1 – 4 Unit Program: Next Step Living, Boston
This case study offers a window into the daily work performed by one of Mass Save’s larger
residential energy efficiency “Home Performance Contractors” (HPCs). In this profile, you’ll
learn about the process “from A to Z”, as described by the staff at Next Step Living of Boston.
Individual job titles have been noted in bold italics to give a sense of the full range of job titles
involved in just one Mass Save residential assignment. Although some of the positions
described here were not part of the program in 2011 (the year analyzed for this direct
employment impacts study), the case study will help you see just how many workers touch each
Next Step Living residential job.
The case study also demonstrates how the Mass Save residential energy efficiency programs can
help connect homeowners with renewable energy opportunities like home solar power. When
homeowners pursue renewable energy at the residential level, a whole new group of
employment impacts (not studied here) can be generated.
***************************************************************************
Mrs. “Adamson” stops by the Next Step Living table at the Hyde Park Farmer’s Market on
Saturday afternoon, and has a conversation with the Community Outreach Coordinator there,
leaving their name and phone number to be contacted for a no-cost home energy assessment.
The list of people requesting follow up from the farmers market is entered by an Outreach
Analyst, and the Adamsons receive a call from a Customer Service Representative to schedule
their home energy assessment.
As part of scheduling the home energy assessment, the Customer Service Representative
collects the Adamson’s utility account information. This information, along with the date and
time of the scheduled visit, is organized by a Home Energy Assessment Logistics Coordinator
and submitted to the program coordinator, Conservation Services Group, for approval.
A Solar Site Rater analyzes satellite imagery of the Adamsons’ roof in a preliminary screening for
solar potential, determining that their roof may have good potential for solar. The Home Energy
Advisor arrives at their house and carries out the home energy assessment. As part of the
assessment, the Home Energy Advisor verifies the preliminary solar potential, and connects the
Adamsons with a Solar Account Manager to schedule an in-depth assessment for low-to-no-cost
solar.
46
Mr. Adamson also expresses frustration with high oil bills, and upon inspection of the oil boiler
and noticing window air conditioners in several rooms, the Home Energy Advisor recommends
they get more information about a high-efficiency heat pump system. The Home Energy Advisor
organizes the findings near the end of the assessment, sharing a Home Energy report with the
Adamsons that explains the savings potential, incentives, and costs of insulating and air sealing
their attic. The advisor also informs the Adamsons that their oil boiler has a slightly elevated
carbon monoxide level, and should be serviced before they move forward with their insulation
opportunity.
After the assessment, the Home Energy Advisor passes the customer’s interest in getting
information on heating options along to the HVAC Team Coordinator, and submits the details of
the visit to their Energy Assessment Technical Review Coordinator, who reviews it for technical
and program incentive accuracy before passing it along to the Tech Review Logistics Analyst
who scans and enters all the Mass Save paperwork into the NSL IT system.
While Technical Review is occurring, a Weatherization Account Manager contacts the
Adamsons to see if they need any assistance setting up a service appointment for their heating
system. The heating system service is set for Saturday, and the Account Manager schedules a
Combustion Testing Specialist to return early the next week to carry out the necessary followup test to “pass” the heating system. After the heating system passes, the Adamsons receive
and sign their contract for weatherization work. Upon signing, a Weatherization Logistics
Coordinator contacts the Adamsons to schedule their insulation and air sealing. Once the work
is on the schedule, the building permit is pulled by the Permit Coordinator, and the
Weatherization Logistics Support Analyst creates the work folder with the scope of work and
completion paperwork. The day of the work, the Weatherization Team Leader and two
Weatherization Technicians arrive at the home and perform the attic insulation and air sealing.
47
During the work, the Weatherization Field Manager visits the home, and the Safety Manager
stops by as well. Upon completion of the project, the Weatherization Logistics Coordinator
reviews the paperwork for accuracy, and the Invoicing Coordinator enters the information,
issues an invoice to Conservation Services Group, and sends the weatherization bill and
explanation of charges to the Adamsons.
Following the home energy assessment, a HVAC Account Manager contacts the Adamsons and
schedules a HVAC Advisor to provide more information on their heating system options. Upon
receiving more information, the Adamsons decide to install mini-split heat pumps to reduce
their energy bills, and the HVAC Production Manager schedules the installation with the
Adamsons, and performs a post-install quality control visit. Once the install is complete and
certified, the Adamsons pay the remaining balance, and the project is complete.
In addition to these customer-facing roles, field and team managers, Human Resources, IT, and a
variety of other team members make this experience possible for the Adamsons and others.
48
Residential Low Income: Action for Boston Community Development
Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) has a holistic view on energy. The ABCD
Energy Department helps low-income customers to pay for the energy through Fuel Assistance,
Discount Rates and Arrearage Management. ABCD helps our customers to get the most out of
that energy with our conservation programs; NCAP, Weatherization, Heating Systems repair and
replacement. Customers are referred to ABCD Energy from many sources; other ABCD
programs, utilities, state or local agencies, etc. Once a customer has participated in one
program we do our best to have the customer participate in all programs.
75% of all Weatherization customers come to us from the LIHEAP (Fuel Assistance) program.
When applying for Fuel Assistance a customer is asked several key demographics. This
information is stored in a database at ABCD. A Weatherization Program Administrator (WPA)
sorts the data to find customers who have not participated in the program and have a high
priority score. These select customers are contacted by the WPA. An appointment is scheduled
for a Weatherization Auditor to visit the customer. The Auditor does a complete audit of the
home, looking for health & safety issues, weatherization opportunities and testing the heating
system for efficiency. The auditor prepares a work order for health & safety issues and
weatherization measures which is forwarded to a contractor. The contractor sends a crew
(typically a Crew Chief and two Weatherization installers) to install the measures on the Work
Order.
During the installation of measures the Weatherization Auditor will return to ensure that
measures are being properly installed and will deal with any issues that have arisen. When the
installation is complete the Contractor will sign the Work Order and return it to the WPA (email
or fax) with an invoice. The WPA checks the Work Order and Invoice to ensure that they match
and that the Auditor is satisfied with the work. An Auditor will check the job when the
contractor states that it is complete to ensure that it is finished to ABCD standards. At that time
the customer is given information about all ABCD Energy Programs. The WPA prepares the
invoice for approval by the Director of Conservation Services. The invoice is forwarded to
Accounts Payable for disbursement. Monthly and annual reports are prepared by ABCD for all
funding sources.
The remaining 25% of Weatherization customers come from referrals of all sorts. ABCD
programs supply most of these additional referrals. These may be people who have participated
in a NCAP audit, or someone with a specific problem that needs to be dealt with immediately
(an emergency heating system repair as example. Once the customer is contacted by the WPA
the process continues regardless of the source of referral.
Heating system replacement or repair (HeartWAP) is a similar process to the Weatherization
process with key differences. In place of a WPA there is a HeartWAP Program Administrator
(HPA). The Weatherization program is a source for finding inefficient or failing/failed heating
systems that are then referred to HWAP. The HeartWAP auditor serves a similar role as the
Weatherization Auditor, serving as a technical expert as well as project manager. The greatest
49
difference in the two programs is that all heating systems require three bids and approvals from
the funding sources.
The NCAP program also has an administrative outreach function and sends an Auditor to the
home. The Auditor provides an assessment of all major appliances to determine usage.
Refrigerators deemed too inefficient can be replaced. Customers are encouraged to turn in
second refrigerators and old freezers. This leads to the development of a Savings Plan to reduce
electricity usage. Customers also receive compact fluorescent light bulbs and water
conservation materials. The NCAP Auditor also acts as referral for the Weatherization and
HeartWAP programs.
What does the system look like on the ground for a specific residential participant?
Barbara is a typical ABCD Energy customer. She is elderly and lives alone in her single family
home in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Boston. The Weatherization Program Administrator
(WPA) contacted Barbara in March of 2012. An appointment was scheduled for a
Weatherization Auditor to visit the customer on April 3rd. The Auditor did a complete audit of
the home, looking for health & safety issues, weatherization opportunities and testing the
heating system for efficiency.
The Work Order for Barbara’s home was extensive, with Attic Insulation (to R38), Wall Insulation
and extensive Air Sealing. The Heating System was determined to be old and running below
recommended efficiency levels and was referred to the HeartWAP program. The contractor
sent a crew (typically a Crew Chief and two Weatherization installers) to install the measures on
the Work Order. During the installation of measures the Weatherization Auditor returned to
ensure that measures are being properly installed. The contractor suggested adding additional
steam pipe insulation, the Auditor agreed and the measure was installed.
The Auditor returned to check the job on May 2nd, to ensure that it was finished to ABCD
standards. The Contractor signed the Work Order and returned it to the WPA with an invoice on
May 4th. The WPA checked the Work Order and Invoice to ensure that they match, with the
changes noted above, and that the Auditor was satisfied with the work. At that time the
customer was told that her Heating system was to be replaced and she was referred to the
NCAP program. The final invoice for the weatherization was $5,170.91. The project was
reported in the April 2012 reporting cycle for all funding sources. (DOE & NSTAR Gas).
Barbara’s Heating system replacement (HeartWAP) began with a visit from the HeartWAP
auditor on April 4th. The HeartWAP auditor serves a similar role as the Weatherization Auditor,
acting as a technical expert as well as project manager. It was determined that the system had
exceeded its reliable life span and would need replacement. Three qualified contractors were
asked to submit bids, on May 3rd the lowest bid that met the specifications was chosen. The
new Heating system was installed on May 21st and given a satisfactory final inspection on June
6th. The final invoice for the Heating system was $5,100.00. The project was reported in the May
2012 reporting cycle for all funding sources. (DOE & NSTAR Gas).
50
Barbara had her NCAP audit on June 1, receiving installed compact fluorescent lamps, a TLC kit
(which provides energy saving water and maintenance tools). Her appliances were checked and
her fridge was found to meet the efficiency criteria! The project was reported in the June 2012
reporting cycle for all funding sources. (NSTAR Electric).
51
Commercial and Industrial Direct Install Program: Rise Engineering
This case study offers a window into the daily work performed by one of Mass Save’s larger
commercial and industrial energy efficiency contractors. In this profile, you’ll learn about the
step-by-step process of serving small businesses “from A to Z”, as described by the staff at RISE
Engineering. Some of the job titles and business departments involved have been noted in bold
italics to give a sense of the full range of people involved in just one Mass Save commercial and
industrial assignment. The major people and business departments involved have also been
summarized at the end of the case study.
***************************************************************************
As the Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) energy contractor for the Cape Light Compact (CLC),
RISE Engineering markets and works with small and medium-sized non-residential energy
consumers on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard to help them reduce energy use and costs.
The following outline describes the step-by-step process that goes into connecting and working
with these program participants. For this case study, we’ve used the example of ongoing
projects involving the owner of multiple motor inns on Cape Cod. Over the last 1 ½ years, this
small business has been updating facilities with multiple lighting, gas, and VFD pool pump
applications to save energy and money. The process is largely the same for many other small
businesses in the SBDI program.
Step 1: Marketing and Intake
The Cape Light Compact utilizes a variety of outreach and marketing vehicles to introduce its
services to eligible customers. These are supplemented by marketing efforts at the vendor
level. In simplest form, vendor-driven marketing might consist of a direct mail piece, with
collateral materials explaining the program offer, as well as a color brochure on all of the Cape
Light Compact incentive offerings. The letter also has a pre-paid reply card for customers to fill
out and mail in for a free survey.
Within 5 to 7 business days of the letter being sent, the RISE marketing staff contacts those
non-respondent businesses with a follow up telephone call to confirm receipt of letter, to
explain the program, and to solicit the owner or manager’s agreement to proceed with an initial
no-cost energy assessment. For those customers who consent, we collect additional data to
supplement the customer information provided by the utility company Program Administrator,
including confirmation of the contact name, address, phone numbers(s), email address, electric
account numbers with usage histories and gas account numbers.
A file is created and assigned to a Cape-based Energy Specialist to schedule a convenient time
to perform the energy survey for the customer.
52
Step 2: Site visit
Upon arrival at the site, our energy specialist sits down with the owner/manager to review the
program offering and to collect background information concerning the site and its operation.
From there, the Energy Specialist performs a walk-thru survey of the building, collecting
information on the existing hours of operation, square footage, lighting equipment and
mechanical equipment running on gas, electric and oil. The surveyor often takes photos to
backup written notes. Once complete with the data collection phase, the energy specialist
schedules a time to come back to the site with a report to review the recommendations and
program offering applicable to the site.
A typical survey generally takes about an hour. In some instances, we will return to the site with
additional resources to look at specific mechanical equipment or other customized
opportunities to save energy in a cost-efficient way.
Step 3: Data entry and report generation
Upon completion of the site visit, our surveyor submits the data collection sheet to the RISE
administrative assistant responsible for entering and generating the energy proposals for
commonly applied prescribed measures like lighting. The in-house software for these proposals
is supplemented by other templates and tools that are used by an energy analyst to perform
analysis of other possible measures. These tools document the proposed recommendations,
including the total project cost, the applicable incentives and the customer’s share of costs, the
estimated annual energy savings, and the payback on the recommendations.
Step 4: Return to site to review recommendations and follow up
Our Energy Specialist returns to the site at the agreed upon time to review the proposal and
seek the customer’s agreement to proceed with recommended investments. Warranties,
contracting procedures, timelines, and recycling services involved with the scheduling and
installation of the work are discussed in detail. Upon approval and acceptance of the
recommendations, s/he confirms who the main contact person is to schedule work, if other than
owner, and reviews the terms of contract where both the s/he and the owner sign and date the
contract with the owner keeping a copy for their records.
If the customer does not elect to authorize installation at the time of initial proposal
presentation (and many don’t), the Energy Specialist will establish a process for following up
with the customer periodically until final disposition of the proposal is reached.
Step 5: Material ordering, permitting, scheduling of trades to perform install
Once a signed contract to proceed is obtained, the file and contract goes to a Project
Coordinator to assemble the resources necessary to complete the installation and to schedule
the work. In some cases, the work may be subbed out on a turnkey basis to a subcontractor
who will furnish both the material and the labor required to complete the installation. In other
rare cases, the customer may have its own designated distributor or installer (or its own
maintenance staff) that it wishes to have utilized for the installation.
53
For the majority of projects, the materials will be procured by RISE from a local distributor, and
labor will be provided either by in-house trades staff (electricians, technicians) or by
subcontractors who are paid for their labor only. The Project Coordinator works with the RISE
warehouse staff and the selected materials distributor to assemble the materials needed for the
project. Once all materials are on hand, the customer is contacted to schedule a time for the
materials to be delivered to the site. At the same time, the Coordinator is working with either
our in-house staff managers or our selected sub-contractors to schedule the project and secure
any permits required for the work to be done.
Care is taken to minimize disruption to the business while working to maintain a clean and
organized working environment. If any issues arise during installation, the Coordinator is
responsible of addressing the concerns so that the installation can proceed to completion.
Upon completion of and acceptance of the work done, the customers signs a certificate of
completion form confirming they are satisfied with the work that was done, and the “as-built”
documentation goes back to the Project Coordinator for project close-out and invoicing.
All of the old fluorescent lamps and ballasts removed are placed in card boxes and buckets for
removal and proper disposal by the licensed recycling company hired by Cape Light Compact
under this program. Upon completion of the project our project coordinator contacts the
recycling vendor and submits the necessary paperwork on scheduling the pick- up and disposal
of this equipment.
Step 6: Billing to the CLC and customer
Upon completion of the installation, our RISE billing coordinator invoices both the customer and
CLC for their share of the costs for the projects. The customer receives the invoice, net 30 days,
and we bill the CLC on a monthly basis for the all the projects completed under the program.
We also submit payments to the electrical distributor used for purchasing the equipment for
these projects.
Summary of Personnel Involved in Small Business Direct Install Mass Save assignments









Corporate management – achievement of program goals within specified budgets)
Business development/marketing and support staff
Energy Specialists (usually engineering grads or staff with trades/sales experience)
IT staff (database support and development- hardware and software)
Project coordinator/project management
Installers (electricians, mechanical, building envelope, controls technicians – in-house
and subcontractors)
Warehouse/distributor resources
Office support (data entry, invoicing, follow up)
Recycling firm resources
54
VII. Project Manager Contact Information
For information about this study, or to request a presentation to discuss the methodology,
results and/or potential use of this data in workforce development and training efforts,
contact:
Kevin Doyle
Principal, Green Economy
Workforce Development Lead, New England Clean Energy Foundation
125 Summer Street, Suite 1020
Boston, MA 02110
617-500-9996 (office)
617-877-5804 (cell)
[email protected]
www.cleanenergycouncil.org
55
VIII. Appendices and Attachments
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
National Grid Electric Large C&I Program Installers of Record………………………….56
NSTAR Electric Large C&I Program Installers of Record……………………………………58
National Grid Natural Gas Large C&I Program Installers of Record…………………..61
National Grid C&I Project Expediters……………………………………………………………….62
C&I Technical Assistance Service Providers (Partial Listing)……………………………..63
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (NSTAR Gas and
Electric)……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..64
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (National
Grid)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Columbia
Gas)..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Cape Light)…….67
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (Berkshire
Gas)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………68
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (WMECO)………..69
Mass Save Participating Independent Installation Contractors (New England Gas
Company)………………………………………………………………………………………………………..70
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (National Grid)………..71
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (NSTAR Gas and
Electric)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………72
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (Columbia Gas)……….73
Mass Save Participating Home Performance Contractors (WMECO)………………..74
Low Income Program Assumptions and Calculations……………………………………….75
Residential Program Survey Instrument…………………………………………………………..76
56
Appendix A:
NATIONAL GRID ELECTRIC LARGE PROGRAM INSTALLERS OF RECORD
A&M COMPRESSED AIR
A&M ELECTRICAL INC.
ACELA ENERGY GROUP, INC.
ACK SMART
AECOM
AEGENCO
AETNA
AHM ELECTRIC INC
AIR COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING
ALLLAIN AND SON
AMERESCO, INC
AMERICAN DG ENERGY
AMERLUX LLC
ARMARK COMMUNICATIONS INC.
ASACK ELECTRIC COMPANY
ATC INC
ATLAS COPCO
AZTEC ENERGY PARTNERS
B2Q ASSOCIATES INC
BARBIZON
BARRY ELECTRIC
BAYNES ELECTRIC
BEARING SPECIALTY CO
BLUESTONE ENERGY SERVICES, LTD
BOISSONNEAULT ELECTRIC
BRITESWITCH, LLC
BULBS.COM
C.A. SENECAL ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.
CAL SUPPLY
CAPITOL LIGHT
CARDOSA ELECTRICAL
CCMS LIGHTING INC.
CKB ELECTRIC
CLIMATE HEATING AND COOLING
CLS FACILITY SERVICES
COASTAL LIGHTING, LLC
CO-ENERGY AMERICA INC
COMPRESSED AIR TECHNOLOGIES INC
COMPRESSOR ENERGY SERVICES
CONCORD ELECTRIC SUPPLY
CONSTELLATION ENERGY
CORPORATE TENANT INTERIORS
CRAIG GAJEWSKI
CRANNEY COMPANY
CROWE ELECTRIC
CUSTOM ICE INC.
D.R. GUILBEAULT AIR COMPRESSOR, LLC
DELTA MECHANICAL HVAC LLC
DMH ELECTRIC
DR GUILBEAULT AIR COMP
E.B. ROTONDI & SONS, INC.
E2S ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES, LLC
ED ARNIERI ELECTRIC
EDI
ELECTRIC BY DESIGN
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CENTER
ELECTRICAL DESIGN & INSTALLATION, INC.
ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION,
INC.
EMC, LLC
EMCOR SERVICES
ENE SYSTEMS, INC.
ENERCON INC
ENERGY CONSERVATION & SUPPLY INC.
ENERGY CONSERVATION INC (ECI)
ENERGY MACHINERY, INC.
ENERGY MANAGEMENT & CONTROL SERVICES
ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS INC
ENERGY SOURCE INC
ENERGY SYSTEMS DESIGN INC
ENGINEERED SYSTEM PRODUCTS
ERS ELECTRIC
ESCO ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY
E-Z TEST POOL SUPPLIES
FABRIZIO AND ASSOCIATES INC
FACILICO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING
FLOW RITE VALVE SERVICES
FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC
FOREVER MECHANICAL
FRANK P MCCARTIN CO
FRANK ROUNDS CO.
FX WHITE
GATE CITY ELECTRIC
GE AVIATION
GENERAL MILLS
GETTENS/NESCO
GIGLIOTTO ELECTRIC
GORDON M SAVERSE
GOTTA & LAVALLEE ELECTRIC
GREENERU, INC
GREENTECH ENERGY SERVICES, INC
GRILLO ELECTRIC INC
GROOM ENERGY SOLUTIONS
GUARDIAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
GUSTAVO PRESTON
HAMPDEN ZIMMERMAN
HANNON ELECTRIC
HD SUPPLY SOLUTIONS
HOBART ENERGY SERVICES, INC
HOLOPHANE
57
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
HOPE AIR SYSTEMS, LLC
HORIZON LIGHTING & ENERGY SOLUTIONS
HOWSE CORP, INC
HUNTINGTON CONTROLS INC
IANNICIELLO ELECTRIC INC.
ICSC
ILLUMETEK CORP
IMEC
INDEPENDANT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SERVICE CORPORATION
INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS AND COMMUNICATION
INGERSOLL RAND
INPHASE POWER, INC
INTERSTATE ELECTRIC
J&R INDUSTRIAL WIRING
JABA ELECTRIC
JILLSON'S DAIRY SERVICE, LLC
K G COOPER
KEENAN ELECTRIC
KEVIN MACHADO
KLEEBERG MECHANICAL SERVICES LLC
L ROGERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
LABONTE ELECTRIC
LAGRANT ELECTRIC
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN CO
LEBLANC ELECTRICAL SERVICE
LIDCO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS INC
LIGHTING RESOURCES USA INC
LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, INC.
LIME ENERGY
LINC MECHANICAL
LITEMOR
LITTLEFOOT ENERGY CORPORATION
LOCHIETTO ELECTRIC
LSI INDUSTRIES
M.L. SCHMITT INC
MAGNITURE SYSTEMS, INC.
MAJOR ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC.
MARK A WEBB
MBR SERVICES LLC
MCQUAY SERVICE-BOSTON DISTRICT
MEDFORD WELLINGTON SERVICE CO., INC.
MILLIPORE
MUNROE DISTRIBUTING, INC.
NATIONAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS
NATIONAL MAINTENANCE CO
NATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC
NENRG INC
NER DATA CORPORATION
NESCO
NEW ENGLAND ENERGY
NEXAMP
NEXREV INC.
NOBLE CONSERVATION INC
NORTHEAST ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
NORTHERN ENERGY SERVICES INC
NXEGEN, LLC
PHILIPS OPTIMUM
PIONEER VALLEY INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING
PIPER ELECTRIC
POWERHOUSE RETAIL SERVICES
PRECISION TECHNOLOGIES
PREMIER DAIRY SERVICE LLC
PRISM ENERGY SERVICES
PRO CONTROLS, INC
PROCESS COOLING SYSTEMS
RAUL BATTALAS ELECTRIC
REGENCY LIGHTING, INC.
RENAUD ELECTRIC & COMMUNICATIONS INC
RETROCOOL ENERGY INC
RICHARD BROTHERS ELECTRIC
RICHARD SASS ELECTRIC
RINK SERVICES GROUP
RISE ENGINEERING
ROBERT PRIZIO ELECTRIC
ROTH BROS, INC
ROTROCOOL ENERGY INC
SALDO ELECTRIC
SCALES INDUSTRIAL TECH INC
SIEMENS INDUSTRY
SINGLE SOURCE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
SITE CONTROLS LLC
SLYVANIA LIGHTING SERVICES
SSB REALTY LLC
ST GOBAIN CONTAINER
STADELMANN ELECTRIC
STANDARD ELECTRIC
SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION
SYNERGY INVESTMENT, INC.
THE GUTIERREZ COMPANY
TNT ENERGY LLC
TRANE
ULTRA SERVICES INC.
UNITED MECHANICAL
USA TECHNOLOGIES
VENTILATION CONTROL PRODUCTS
VILLA LIGHTING SUPPLY
WEBB PUMP
WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC
WEST MECHANICAL INC
WHEELER MECHANICAL SERVICES
WST MACHNICAL
ZACHARY DUSSEAU
58
Appendix B:
NSTAR ELECTRIC LARGE PROGRAM INSTALLERS OF RECORD
A & M COMPRESSED AIR PRODUCTS
ACELA ENERGY GROUP INC
AECOM ENERGY
AEGIS ENERGY
AETNA CORP.
AHA CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC
AIR SOLUTION & BALANCING LLC
ALLAIN & SON INC.
AMERESCO, INC.
AMERICAN ENERGY MGT
AMERISTAR ENERGY
AMERLUX LLC
ANDERSON INSULATION
ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL
ANTHONY VOZELLA INC
ATLANTIC ENERGY SOLUTIONS INC
ATLAS COPCO
AW CHESTERTON
AZTEC ENERGY PARTNERS INC
BAGNI ELECTRIC
BAKER ENGINEERING
BARBIZON LIGHT OF NEW ENGLAND
BAY STATE AIR
BAYNES ELECTRIC SUPPLY
BCM CONTROLS CORP
BELFONDO
BEST LED LIGHTING
BETH ESRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL
BISHOP ELECTRIC INC
BIZIER ELECTRIC
BLANCHARD ELECTRIC
BLUESTONE ENERGY SERVICES, LTD
BOB PISACRETA
BOSTON LIGHT SOURCE
BREWSTER WHOLESALE CORPORATION
BRITESWITCH LLC
BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEMS
BULBS.COM
CAPITOL LIGHT
CCMS LIGHTING INC
CHAPMAN CONSTRUCTION
CIC ENERGY CONSTRUCTION & SUPP
COASTAL LIGHTING
COMPLETE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
CONSTELLATION ENERGY
COOLING & HEATING SPECIALISTS, INC
COVIELLO ELECTRIC
COX ENGINEERING
CUSTOM ICE INC
CYR ELECTRIC INC
D & R ELECTRIC
DIXON CONSTRUCTION
DMS ELECTRIC
DUNAMIS ENERGY CONSULTANTS
DYNAMIC ENERGY CONTROLS
E2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES
ECHO
EDWARD G SAWYER CO INC
ELAINE CONSTRUCTION
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CTR
ELECTRICAL DYNAMICS INC
EMC LLC
EMCOR SERVICES NORTHEAST, INC
ENERCON, INC
ENERGY CONSERVATION & SUPPLY
ENERGY CONSERVATION, INC
ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
ENERGY SOURCE INC.
ENERGYROI
FABRIZIO & ASSOCIATES
FACILICO ELECTRIC
FALITE BROTHERS
FIRST ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE
FMC TECHNOLOGIES
FORTIN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
FRANK I ROUNDS CO
FRED BORGES ELECTRIC INC
FRISOLI ELECTRIC INC
GALEXC ENERGY CONSERVATION
GALLAGHER ELECTRIC
GEORGE T. WILKINSON
GHILANI ELECTRIC
GLYNN ELECTRIC
GRANITE CITY ELECTRIC
GREEN DOOR
GREENERU
59
GROOM ENERGY SOLUTIONS
GTW INC
GUARDIAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOL
GUSTAVO PRESTON SERVICE CO
GXP AUTOMATION
HANKARD ELECTRIC
HAWES ELECTRIC COMPANY
HAYES PUMP, INC
HD SUPPLY
HOBART ENERGY SERVICES
HORIZON ENERGY SERVICES
HORIZON LIGHTING & ENERGY SERV
HORIZON SOLUTIONS LLC
HUNTINGTON CONTROLS INC
HUSSMANN
IDEAL ELECTRIC CO INC
ILLUMETEK CORP
INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL BURNER SYSTEMS
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL & COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY SERVICES INC
INDUSTRIAL PUMP, INC
INGERSOLL RAND CO
INNCOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES
J&M BROWN
J. C. CANNISTRARO
J.D. GRANT
JCI
JL ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
JM OF NEW BEDFORD CO., INC
JMF SERVICES LLC
JOHN O MAHONY
JOHNSON CONTROLS
JOHNSON ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
JONES LANG LASALLE
JUNCTION, INC
KDN TEMPERATURE CONTROL SERVIC
KINETIC CONTROLS
KUTZ ELECTRIC
L & V GALISE ELECTRICAL
LED LIGHTING SOLUTIONS LLC
LESCO
LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRICAL
LIGHTING EFFICIENT DEVICES LLC
LIGHTING DESIGN GROUP/FSG
LIGHTOLIER
LIGHTS*ENERGY*DESIGN LED
LIME ENERGY
LITEMOR
LITTLEFOOT ENERGY CORP
LONGDEN COMPANY
MCDONALD ELECTRIC
MCQUAY SERVICE
MECHANICAL DESIGN SERVICES
MEDFORD WELLINGTON SERVICE CO
MELINK CORP
MIDLAND CONSTRUCTION
MUNRO DISTRIBUTING INC
NARDONE ELECTRIC CORP
NATIONAL LIGHTING & DESIGN
NATIONAL MECHANICAL
NATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC
NEEDHAM ELECTRIC
NESCO
NEW ENGLAND BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS
NEW ENGLAND ENERGY
NEW ENGLAND LTG
NEWTON ELECTRIC
NEXAMP
NEXREV INC
NORESCO
NORTHEAST ELECTRICAL
NORTHEAST ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
NORTHERN ENERGY SERVICES
NORTHSTAR MECHANICAL, INC
NUZZ ELECTRIC
NXEGEN
OPTIMUM ENERGY
PAULS ELECTRIC INC
PECI
PERRONE ELECTRIC
PHILLIPS DESIGN GROUP
PREFERRED CONTRACTORS
PRISM CONSULTING INC.
QUALITY CONSTRUCTION
RDK ENGINEERS-SEAPORT CTR
RECCO REFRIGERATION ENGINEERIN
REGENCY LIGHTING INC
RETROCOOL ENERGY INC
REXEL
RICHARD WHITE SONS, INC
60
RISE ENGINEERING
ROTH BROS INC
RSA ELECTRIC
S. G. MECHANICAL, INC.
SAPER SYSTEMS
SARTELL ELECTRICAL INC
SAVE THAT STUFF
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AMERICAS IN
SIEMENS
SITE STUFF
SOUSA ELECTRIC
STANDARD ELECTRIC
STAPLES INC
SULLIVAN & MCLAUGHLIN CO, INC
SYLVANIA LIGHTING SERVICES
T. A. SCHNARE
TASTY VENDING LLC
TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICE
TEKNIKOR ENERGY SOLUTIONS LLC
THE CANTON CORP
TIMELY IMPROVEMENTS
TNT ENERGY, LLC
TRANE
UNITED MECHANICAL
USM
VANDERWEIL P, LLC
VARDARO ELECTRIC
VICTORY HEATING & A/C CO
VILLA LIGHTING SUPPLY
WATTSAVER LGHT PROD
WAYNE ELECTRIC & ALARMS
WESCO DISTRIBUTION
WESTON
WIEDENBACH-BROWN CO INC
WILLIAM SLOAN ASSOCIATES
WINSTON BUILDERS
WIREWORKS
WOLFERS LIGHTING
WOODSTONE ENERGY LLC
YALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY
YANKEE TECHNOLOGY INC
Z LIGHTS
61
Appendix C:
NATIONAL GRID NATURAL GAS LARGE PROGRAM INSTALLERS OF RECORD
A&A WINDOW PRODUCTS,
A&M ROOFING & SHEET
ACCELERATE ENERGY
AECOM USA INC
AHO CONTRUCTION INC
AIR SOLUTIONS & BALA
ALARES LLC
ALL CAPE INSULATION
AMERESCO, INC.
AMERICAN BOILER CO
AMERICAN PLANT MAINT
ANCHOR INSULATION
ANDERSON INSULATION
ATLANTIC BOSTON CONS
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESS
AUTOMATED BLDG SYST
AZ CORPORATION
B & R GLASS LLC
B & V TESTING INC
BAKER ENGINEERING
BARROWCLOUGH CONTRAC
BCM CONTROLS CORP
BEDFORD VA MEDICAL
BETH ISRAEL DEACONES
BLUESTONE ENERGY SER
BOSTON PARK PLAZA
BUILDERS SYSTEMS INC
BUILDING AUTOMATION
BURTON LAUNDRY EQUIP
CLSB1, LLC
CROSSWINDS ENTERPRIS
CUSTOM INSULATION CO
CWC BUILDERS INC
DANIELS EQUIPMENT
DEL OZONE
DELLBROOK CONTRUCTIO
DENNIS YARMOUTH REG.
DEPT. OF VETERAN AFF
DNS LLC ALPHA MECHAN
DURR SYSTEMS
ECHOSM
ELLIOTT CONTROLS
EMCOR SERV. NORTHEAS
ENE SYSTEMS INC
FABRIZIO & ASSOCIATE
FALMOUTH HOSPITAL
FMC TECHNOLOGIES, IN
FRANK I ROUNDS CORP
FRASER ENGINEERING
GALEXC
GEORGE T WILKINSON,
HEATING & COOLING SP
HK LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT
HONEYWELL
HOWSE CORPORATION
HUNTINGTON CONTROLS
IBMS
INDUSTRIAL BURNER
JONES BOYS INSULATIO
JP BARTLETT
L&E AMERICA
LEE KENNEDY CO INC
LITTLEFOOT ENERGY CO
LUITEN GREENHOUSE TE
LUNENBURG PUBLIC SCH
MECHANICAL DESIGN SE
NORESCO
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERS
PAGE BUILDING CONST.
PERFORMANCE PIPING
PREHEAT INC
RICHARD WHITE & SONS
RICK ROY CONSTRUCTIO
RISE ENGINEERING
SG MECHANICAL
STEAM TRAPS SYSTEMS
TEKNIKOR ENERGY SOLU
THOMPSON CONSULTANTS
TRETHEWEY BROS.
TRIPLE T CONSTRUCTION
VERTEC CORP
VIKING CONTROLS
WILKINSON
WINDOW SERVICES INC
62
Appendix D:
NATIONAL GRID PROJECT EXPEDITERS
Alliance Energy Solutions
61 Mattatuck Heights Rd.,
Waterbury CT 06705
Atlantic Energy Solutions, Inc.
18 Central Street, Suite 5,
Foxboro, MA 02035
Bluestone Energy Services, LTD
136 Longwater Drive, Suite 103, Norwell, MA 02061
EMC – Energy Management Consultants, Inc.
120 Thadeaus Street, Suite 1,
South Portland, Maine 04106
ENERCON, Inc.
11 Allen Road,
Sturbridge, MA 01566
Energy Conservation, Inc.
P.O. Box 726,
Hanson, MA 02341
ENERGY SOURCE, Inc.
86 Sutton Street, Unit 1R, Providence, RI 02903
Groom Energy Solutions, LLC
96 Swampscott Road,
Salem, MA 01970
Horizon Lighting and Energy Solutions
8 Chaisson Road, Newburyport, MA 01950
J&R Industrial Wiring
97 College Pond Road
Plymouth, MA 02360
NES – Northern Energy Services
78 West Main Street,
Northborough, MA 01532
PRISM Consulting, Inc.
1150 Hancock Street, 4th Floor,
Quincy, MA 02169
RISE Engineering
1341 Elmwood Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910
63
Appendix E:
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICE PROVIDERS (PARTIAL LISTING)
AIR POWER USA INC
ANDELMAN AND LELEK ENGINEERING INC
APPLIED ENERGY ENGINEERING
B2Q ASSOCIATES INC
BOYKO ENGINEERING INC
COMPRESSED AIR TECHNOLOGIES INC
DMI
ENERGY & RESOURCE SOLUTIONS INC
ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC
ENERGY SYSTEMS DESIGN INC
ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS INC
NORTHEAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS
PEREGRINE WHITE JR
RG VANDERWEIL ENGINEERS LLP
WSP FLACK & KUR
64
Appendix F:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(NSTAR GAS AND ELECTRIC)
65
Appendix G:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(NATIONAL GRID)
66
Appendix H:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(COLUMBIA GAS)
67
Appendix I:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(CAPE LIGHT)
Adam T. Incorporated
455 State Road, PMB 303, Vineyard Haven, MA 02568
508-696-3733
www.adamtinc.com
Building Performance Contracting
Box 833, Truro, MA 02666
978-998-9373
[email protected]
Cape Cod Insulation
18 Reardon Circle, S. Yarmouth, MA 02664
508-775-1214
www.capecodinsulation.com
ConserVision Energy
376 Route 130, Suite C, Sandwich, MA 02536
508-833-8384
www.conservtoday.com
Frontier Energy Solutions
502 Harwich Road, Brewster, MA 02631
774-237-0410
www.frontierenergysolutionsllc.com
Insulate 2 Save, Inc.
410 Grove Street, Fall River, MA 02720
508-567-6706
www.insulate2save.net
JM of New Bedford Co.
423 Coggeshall Street, New Bedford, MA 02746
508-992-5770
www.jmofnb.com
McCarthy Construction Co.
PO Box 52, West Dennis, MA 02670
508-280-6964
[email protected]
68
Appendix J:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(BERKSHIRE GAS)
69
Appendix K:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(WMECO)
70
Appendix L:
MASS SAVE PARTICIPATING INDEPENDENT INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS
(NEW ENGLAND GAS COMPANY)
71
Appendix M:
MASS SAVE HOME PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS (NATIONAL GRID)
72
Appendix N:
MASS SAVE HOME PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS (NSTAR GAS AND
ELECTRIC)
73
Appendix O:
MASS SAVE HOME PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS (COLUMBIA GAS)
74
Appendix P:
MASS SAVE HOME PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS (WMECO)
75
Appendix Q:
LOW INCOME PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS
76
Appendix R:
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SURVEY INSTRUMENT
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
This survey is being conducted by the New England Clean Energy Council. You are being invited
to take this survey because your company is an Independent Insulation Contractor (IIC) or a
Home Performance Contractor (HPC) in the Mass Save Home Energy Services Program for 1 to 4
family buildings. Your answers to the following questions will make it possible to estimate the
total number of workers currently employed in the residential insulation business in
Massachusetts. Please enter your email address:*
Please enter your company name (if it's not obvious from your email address):
Phone number:
At the end of December 2011, how many energy auditors did you employ doing Mass Save
Home Energy Assessments, on a full-time-equivalent basis (FTEs)?* [asked only of HPCs]
Please estimate the number of homes (dwelling units) you insulated in 2011 in Massachusetts in
the following 4 categories. Please review all categories before answering. First, the number of
homes through the Mass Save program:*
Second, through the Low Income WAP Weatherization program in Massachusetts:
Third, outside of these programs, in existing homes, without any utility rebates or WAP funds or
other subsidies:
Fourth, as part of major home additions or other new construction:
For the rest of this survey, please consider only your employees who do work supported by the
Mass Save residential program (specifically, the Home Energy Services Program for 1 to 4 family
buildings). -- Please estimate your total price of an "average" Mass Save insulation job
(INCLUDING air sealing), including both what the customer paid plus what the utility program
paid:
77
PLEASE ESTIMATE THE TOTAL MAN-HOURS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS "AVERAGE" MASS
SAVE INSULATION JOB, including all the paid hours such as travel time (and including any air
sealing hours):*
At the end of December 2011, how many people did you employ for Mass Save insulation and
air sealing work, on a full-time-equivalent basis (FTEs), including all the employees on all your
insulation crews?*
If the same crews that do Mass Save work also do other types of work, such as WAP
weatherization or insulating NEW homes or roofing, approximately what % of their time
averaged over the year is spent on the Mass Save work?*
How many personnel do you in employ in office or non-field installation roles to support Mass
Save residential work? These could include employees that work in an administrative or office or
overhead or management capacity. Please provide an estimate of full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees.*