Proposal

Evaluation of the Impact of Heat Pump Use in Vermont

1/21/2015

Submitted to: Vermont Public Service Department

Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. Energy Futures Group, Inc. Steven Winter Associates, Inc.

50-2 Howard St., Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com i

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 UNDERSTANDING OF RESEARCH GOALS AND ISSUES ...... 3

3 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED APPROACH ...... 5

4 DETAILED WORK PLAN ...... 7

4.1 TASK 1: PROJECT KICKOFF & WORK PLAN ...... 7 4.1.1 Deliverables ...... 7

4.2 TASK 2: IMPACT EVALUATION ...... 7 4.2.1 Electric Billing Analysis ...... 7 4.2.2 Delivered Fuel Billing Analysis ...... 10 4.2.3 Load Calculations ...... 12 4.2.4 Field Monitoring (Optional) ...... 15 4.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 18 4.2.6 Net-to-Gross Analysis ...... 19

4.3 TASK 3: PROCESS EVALUATION ...... 20 4.3.1 In-depth Interviews with Market Actors ...... 20 4.3.2 Participating Customer Surveys ...... 21

4.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ...... 23

4.5 SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES ...... 25

4.6 BUDGET ...... 26

5 DESCRIPTIONS OF SIMILAR PROJECTS ...... 28

5.1 NMR GROUP ...... 28

5.2 ENERGY FUTURES GROUP ...... 30

5.3 STEVEN WINTER ASSOCIATES ...... 31

6 QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRMS ...... 34

6.1 NMR GROUP ...... 34

6.2 ENERGY FUTURES GROUP ...... 35

6.3 STEVEN WINTER ASSOCIATES ...... 35

7 QUALIFICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ...... 37

7.1 NMR GROUP ...... 37

7.2 ENERGY FUTURES GROUP ...... 39

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs ii

7.3 STEVEN WINTER ASSOCIATES ...... 40

8 MANAGEMENT AND STAFF STRUCTURE ...... 41

9 REFERENCES ...... 43

10 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE ...... 44

APPENDIX A SAMPLE REPORT ...... A1

APPENDIX B RESUMES ...... B1

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs iii

Tables TABLE 3-1: OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS ...... 6 TABLE 4-1: LOGGER PLAN ...... 18 TABLE 4-2: MARKET ACTOR INTERVIEWS ...... 20 TABLE 4-3: BUDGET ...... 27 TABLE 9-1: NMR REFERENCES ...... 43 TABLE 9-2: EFG REFERENCES ...... 43 TABLE 9-3: SWA REFERENCES ...... 43

Figures FIGURE 4-1: HEAT PUMP INSTALLATIONS ...... 14 FIGURE 4-2: EXAMPLE DATA WITH BOTH HEAT PUMP AND DISPLACED OIL SYSTEM OPERATING ...... 16 FIGURE 4-3: EXAMPLE DATA WITH OIL SYSTEM OPERATING ALONE ...... 17 FIGURE 4-4: SCHEDULE & DELIVERABLES ...... 25 FIGURE 8-1: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ...... 42

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 1

1 Introduction NMR Group, Inc. (NMR), Energy Futures Group, Inc. (EFG), and Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA), collectively referred to as the Team, are pleased to submit this proposal to the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) to conduct an evaluation of heat hump use in Vermont. The Team understands the importance to the PSD that this study provides an independent, rigorous, and timely evaluation of the CEED Cold Climate Heat Pump, GMP Heat Pump Rental, and Cold Climate Heat Pump (CCHP) Upstream programs. The Team has considerable experience and expertise, described as follows, in performing process and impact evaluations of heat pump programs. We bring the knowledge and insights gained from our prior collective experience to this evaluation. The bullets below highlight the key strengths of our team and our approach. • Proficiency in measuring the impacts of heat pump programs. The Team provides nationally recognized evaluation experience in heat pump programs. NMR and EFG are currently evaluating the Efficiency Maine Low-Income Multifamily program, which installed over 1,000 ductless heat pumps (DHPs) in electrically-heated multifamily properties. In addition, NMR is leading a team to evaluate the Connecticut Home Energy Solutions programs, which include DHPs as a key program measure. These impact evaluations primarily relied on electric billing analysis, similar to the scope proposed for this study. In addition, the Maine study required the collection of electric billing data and/or release forms directly from program participants. EFG supported the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) field monitoring study of heat pumps in nine New Hampshire homes, which measured electric impacts and calculated fuel displacement. Lastly, SWA is completing a study that includes field monitoring of ten ductless heat pumps located in New England (including eight in Vermont) for the US DOE. For this evaluation, we propose a unique monitoring strategy that not only tracks electrical impacts but also quantifies displaced fossil fuel usage; few other studies have obtained this critical data. • Expertise in providing actionable research. In addition to robust impact evaluations, the Efficiency Maine and Connecticut HES studies also entail comprehensive process evaluations, which have yielded key findings and strategic recommendations to help guide program design and implementation. In addition, our team’s knowledge of the heat pump market in the northeast is unparalleled. EFG was instrumental in designing the GMP heat pump program and has contributed to four recent NEEP activities in support of heat pumps: the DHP meta-study, the development of a cold climate ASHP specification (both of which will be prominently featured in the upcoming Better Building by Design Conference), a heat pump market assessment (to which SWA also contributed), and the New Hampshire study mentioned above. • A track record of successful collaboration. NMR and EFG are currently collaborating on several projects, including the Efficiency Maine study as well the evaluation of the

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 2

Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund. EFG and SWA have recently collaborated on NEEP’s Air-Source Heat Pump Market Strategies Report and a cold climate heat pump specification in addition to partnering on green building and home energy rating initiatives for two decades. At the core of our success is our ability to draw on our cross competencies among team members. By working across organizations, we offer a unified team approach that leverages the strengths of all three organizations. • Senior staff with unparalleled experience in evaluation. All of our senior staff members are accomplished in the key elements of effective process and impact evaluations for heat pump programs: in-depth interviews, survey research, energy billing analysis, on-site audits, field monitoring, market assessments, and technical analysis. These skills are critical to designing, implementing, and reporting on robust evaluation studies. • A dedicated local and regional presence. As outlined above, our team has conducted several evaluation studies involving heat pump programs in New England. In addition, our team is entirely located in New England: Richard Faesy from EFG is located in Vermont, Tom Mauldin from NMR is located in Maine, NMR’s headquarters are located in Somerville, MA, and SWAs’ office is located in Norwalk, CT. This local presence will simplify communication between the PSD and our Team and allow for face-to-face meetings as required. • A history of strong performance. Our Team has a history of providing independent, objective, and state-of-the-art research on time, on budget, and with a high degree of client satisfaction. We encourage the PSD to contact our references.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 3

2 Understanding of Research Goals and Issues The Team understands that the primary goal of this project is to evaluate the performance and savings associated with Vermont’s heat pump programs. The evaluation will accomplish the two main objectives of the PSD for this project, which are as follows: 1) Process Evaluation – To examine the design, delivery, and implementation of the programs, assess the experience and satisfaction of both market actors and participating customers, and understand how customers use heat pumps and perceive their benefits 2) Impact Evaluation – To measure and verify the energy usage impacts, including both electricity and fossil fuels; estimate peak summer/winter electric demand impacts achieved through the programs; estimate the impact on Vermont’s aggregate system load factor; and compare results to other published studies The results of our Team’s work will provide the PSD with valuable information about what is working well, what is not working well, and what could work better in the future—both in the field (at the applied level) and overall (at the program level). With the emergence of “cold climate” models, ductless heat pumps have become viable for northern tier states. Consequently, over the past several years this rapidly emerging technology has been incorporated into energy efficiency programs in the Northeast. Recent studies of ductless heat pumps, as summarized by the NEEP DHP meta-study report led by Team member EFG, have found that while heat pumps deliver energy savings, they often provide lower energy savings than anticipated due to a variety of reasons, including energy efficiency ratings developed for warmer climates, site-specific house conditions, inadequate controls for integration with existing heating systems, and occupant behavior. In particular, there has been concern that DHPs may contribute to additional electrical loads in the summer and winter, though recent studies have only found evidence of marginal load building. Because heat pumps typically displace rather than replace existing heating systems, it is a challenge to estimate energy savings when the existing heating system is not electric. Furthermore, most studies have relied on energy modeling instead of directly measuring displaced fuel use in order to estimate overall energy savings. SWA recently found that several common energy modeling software packages inaccurately estimate heat pump usage. In addition, where field monitoring has been attempted, sample sizes have been small, estimating bulk fuel deliveries has been challenging, and the use of wood stoves complicates the ability to estimate energy and cost savings. Lastly, two evaluation studies led by NMR have found program realization rates of approximately one-half, suggesting that programs are over-estimating savings from DHPs. We have designed a rigorous approach for this study that learns from prior research in order to provide robust savings results to the PSD. In particular, our impact evaluation approach relies on billing analyses, rather than modeling, to estimate the impacts on electric usage and demand as

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 4 well as delivered fuel usage. Our Team is fully cognizant of the obstacles inherent in collecting and analyzing delivered fuel data and has developed a comprehensive plan to overcome them. The two billing analyses will be supplemented by field monitoring of both heat pumps and existing heating systems. The monitoring approach—described in more detail in the work plan— involves customers turning off their heat pumps for short periods of time to measure baseline conditions. In this way, the Team can assess both electrical and fossil fuel impacts. Lastly, the process evaluation builds off our team’s extensive experience conducting process evaluations and market research for the northeastern DHP market. Our team has established relationships with DHP manufacturers as well as local distributors and contractors, which will improve the information garnered through the market actor interviews.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 5

3 Overview of Proposed Approach Our proposed approach draws upon the Team’s extensive experience developing effective work plans, conducting process and impact evaluations in numerous jurisdictions, and developing evaluation reports that both document proven results and identify opportunities to enhance program effectiveness. The Team’s previous experience confirms that the most useful and effective program evaluations are those that integrate the following: 1) Rigorous review of program design and implementation as well as assessment of the program’s effect on the market 2) Statistically valid sample design and robust survey development and implementation 3) Extensive data gathering and detailed quantitative analysis 4) Independent and comprehensive documentation of the energy savings for the programs being evaluated Our Team’s proven evaluation experience, combined with the integrated approach described above, sets the standard for process and impact evaluations in the energy efficiency industry. The Team strongly believes that a successful evaluation is built on robust and concrete data. To this end, all data collection instruments and sampling plans will be carefully developed and subjected to review by the appropriate PSD staff and other interested parties. The Team will develop plans to overcome common evaluation issues, such as coordination with the implementation team, participants being unfamiliar with the evaluation process, as well as respondent fatigue. Below, we briefly describe the main tasks proposed for this study. Process Evaluation. In order to examine the design and delivery of the program, the Team will conduct a total of 15 in-person or telephone interviews with market actors involved in the Vermont heat pump programs, including program staff, distributors, installation contractors, and manufacturers. In addition, the Team will conduct telephone surveys with about 70 participating customers from the CEED and GMP programs, as well as in-person interviews with the 12 CCHP Upstream program participants whose homes receive on-site audits. Impact Evaluation. The Team proposes to conduct an impact evaluation that will quantify energy, demand, and environmental impacts. We will conduct an analysis of electric and delivered fuel billing data in order to estimate energy and demand impacts. In addition, we propose to calculate heating and cooling loads and monitor the usage of both heat pumps and existing heating systems for a full one-year period. Lastly, we will compare the study results to other heat pump evaluations. Table 3-1 provides an overview of the data collection tasks proposed and the elements of the evaluation to which each task contributes. The Team has a clear understanding of what can

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 6 realistically be accomplished through the evaluation, and therefore has designed a plan to deliver the maximum value to the PSD within the available budget.

Table 3-1: Overview of Data Collection & Analysis Number of Energy Billing Process Impact Interviews Data Evaluation Evaluation or Homes Gross Net Visited Savings Savings Market Actor Interviews 15 X X Participating Customer Surveys 82 min. X X Electric Billing Analysis All Participants X Delivered Fuel Billing Analysis Est. 50 X Load Calculations 20 X Field Monitoring (Optional) 10 X

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 7

4 Detailed Work Plan This section describes our approach to the project, including a description of the tasks that will be implemented to develop a work plan and conduct the process and impact evaluations. The project deliverables, schedule, and budget are also outlined in this section.

4.1 Task 1: Project Kickoff & Work Plan The evaluation will commence with a kickoff meeting at the PSD’s offices in Montpelier. In an effort to reduce travel-related costs, only Tom Mauldin from NMR (the project director) and Richard Faesy from EFG will attend in person; other attendees will participate via conference call. The purpose of this meeting will be to clarify and refine the scope of work, review the schedule and deliverables, identify priorities, discuss expectations, and establish contract and communication protocols. During the meeting, the Team would also like to review the program structures, discuss the setup of the program databases, make initial data requests, and receive available program documents. Before the meeting, the Team will provide a meeting agenda. Based on the issues discussed at the kickoff meeting, the Team will produce a work plan detailing the agreed upon scope, schedule, and deliverables for the project. The plan will provide detailed task-by-task descriptions of the scope of work, including the sample design, methodological approach, data requirements, implementation steps, and quality assurance and review procedures associated with the evaluation activities. The Team will submit a draft work plan to the PSD. After review and comment by the PSD, the Team will submit a final work plan for approval.

4.1.1 Deliverables Deliverables include the following: kickoff meeting and agenda, draft work plan, and final work plan.

4.2 Task 2: Impact Evaluation For the impact evaluation, the team will undertake a series of tasks to quantify the energy impacts of heat pumps in Vermont. These tasks include billing analyses of electric usage and delivered fuel usage as well as on-site visits to calculate loads and conduct field monitoring.

4.2.1 Electric Billing Analysis We propose to analyze the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data for the CEED Heat Pump, GMP Heat Pump Rental, and CCHP Upstream programs. We anticipate obtaining the electric billing data for participants from each of these three programs from the PSD.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 8

4.2.1.1 Electric Usage Impacts Consistent with the Whole-Building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol from the Uniform Methods Project, 1 the Team proposes a pooled fixed-effects regression approach to estimate the weather-normalized change in electricity usage due to the installation of the heat pumps for the CEED and GMP rental programs, using the following regression equation form:

Uit= αi+ β1*Hit+β2*POSTt+β3*POSTt*Hit+β4*Cit+β5*POSTt*Cit+φt +εit where, for each participant “i” and usage period “t,”

• Uit = average daily electric usage during the pre- and post-treatment periods.

• αi = average daily non-weather-sensitive baseload usage for each participant in the pre- treatment period. • β1 = average daily usage per heating degree day (HDD) in the pre-treatment period.

• Hit = average daily base 60 HDDs.

• POSTt = a dummy variable that is 0 in the pre- period and 1 in the post- period.

• αi + β2= average daily non-weather-sensitive baseload usage in the post-treatment period. • β1 + β3= average daily usage per HDD in the post-treatment period. • β2 = average daily baseload usage change. • β3 = heating usage change per HDD. • β4 = average daily usage per cooling degree-day (CDD) in the pre-treatment period.

• Cit = average daily base 70 CDDs. • β 4 + β5= average daily usage per CDD in the post-treatment period. • β5 = cooling usage change per CDD.

• φt = 0/1 indicator for each month. This dummy variable is added to the model to control for exogenous factors specific to each month.

• εit = estimation error term. The primary objective of the electric billing data analysis is to assess the change in usage attributable to the heat pump programs. While electricity usage can change due to the program, it also can change due to weather, behavior, and other changes in the home. In the billing analysis, the Team will adjust usage for variation in weather from a normal year to control for the impact

1 Chapter 8: Whole-Building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/53827-8.pdf

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 9 of weather on electricity usage in the pre- and post-installation periods. However, in order to control for other non-program factors that affect electricity use, the Team recommends the development of a comparison group drawn from subsequent program participants. 2 The comparison group would help establish the counterfactual in the evaluation––i.e., what would have happened to the electricity consumption for the treatment group homes had they not participated in the program? The use of a comparison group in the evaluation of the CEED and GMP rental programs would help control for the following factors: • Changes unrelated to the program – While the use of large samples helps average out random non-program changes affecting energy consumption, a comparison group would reflect the trends that do not average out. For example, some homes may have more occupants in the home in the post-installation period compared to the pre-installation period, potentially leading to an increase in electricity consumption. In contrast, some homes may have an opposite change in their household size. A large sample size helps control for these types of random changes. However, if there is a non-random or systematic change from the pre-installation period to the post-installation period, then a comparison group is needed to accurately estimate the change in electricity consumption due to the program. For example, baseline electricity usage is generally increasing over time as people use more electronics and appliances. If this is also true for Vermont heat pump program participants, then the billing data analysis would overestimate the change in electricity usage attributable to the program if no comparison group is used.

• Large changes in weather – While degree day weather adjustment methods such as the Princeton Scorekeeping Method (PRISM) generally work well for controlling changes due to the weather, large changes in weather such as a change of 10% or more in heating or cooling degree days in the pre- or post-program period may introduce a bias in weather adjustment. A comparison group is needed to eliminate these types of biases in the billing analysis.

A differences-in-differences approach will be utilized where the weather-normalized change in usage for the participants will be compared to the weather-normalized change in usage for the comparison group. We will present data on the gross change in kWh used, the net change in kWh used (as compared to the change for the comparison group), and the change expressed as a percentage of pre-treatment usage. We will also analyze the change in electricity usage for baseload, heating, and cooling end uses.

2 We will use data for these customers for the two years preceding program participation to compare their change in usage in the years prior to heat pump installation to the treatment group’s change in energy usage after heat pump installation.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 10

Because the AMI data will be made available to the evaluation contractor by the PSD, in our billing analysis we plan to include a census of all participants in the CEED and GMP programs with sufficient pre- and post-installation data who also pass a screening test for anomalies in usage. However, because the CCHP Upstream program recently launched, there is not sufficient post-installation data to estimate the change in electricity usage as a result of this program. Therefore, the AMI data for the CCHP Upstream participants will instead be utilized to establish baseline performance data for the installed equipment for both the winter heating and summer cooling seasons.

4.2.1.2 Electric Peak Demand Impacts The Team proposes a similar pooled fixed-effects regression approach, using the hourly AMI data, to estimate the coincident peak demand impact on the grid for both summer and winter peaks, resulting from the use of the heat pumps installed through the CEED and GMP Rental programs. For this analysis, the Team plans to use the demand resource on-peak hours for the ISO-NE Forward Capacity Market as the peak hour definitions, unless the PSD requests otherwise. Summer peak demand analysis will be conducted separately for participants who used air conditioning prior to program participation. In addition to the site-level impacts, the Team will also estimate the impact of heat pump use on Vermont’s aggregate system load factor. For the CEED program, the Team will take advantage of the metering data available for the eight homes that have been metered as part of the program. These data will be analyzed and correlated with AMI data and TMY3 weather to determine usage patterns. Similar to the electric usage impact analysis, the Team proposes to construct a comparison group drawn from later program participants to help control for other non-program factors that affect electricity demand during peak periods.

Because the AMI data will be made available to the evaluation contractor by PSD, we plan to include a census of all participants in the CEED and GMP rental programs with sufficient pre- and post-installation data who pass a screening test for anomalies in usage.

4.2.2 Delivered Fuel Billing Analysis While heat pumps can increase electricity usage and demand for participants who previously used fossil fuels such as fuel oil and propane as their primary heating fuel, heat pumps can offset fossil fuel usage after the installation. In theory, the customers would realize an overall reduction in energy usage and costs by installing energy-efficient heat pumps. In addition, they could also benefit from non-energy impacts such as increased comfort and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Given the prevalence of oil-heating in Vermont (oil heats about one-half of homes) and the likelihood that program participants skew even more toward oil heat given the high oil prices of the past several years, the team proposes to analyze fuel oil delivery data and then use the results to project the change in fuel usage for propane-heated homes. However, if the PSD is interested

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 11 in a propane-specific analysis and if the program tracking database indicates that propane heating represents more than a minor fraction of participants, we can reconsider our proposed approach.3

4.2.2.1 Delivered Fuel Data Collection The Team proposes to collect pre- and post-installation fuel oil delivery data from participants in the CEED and GMP programs to estimate any reductions in fuel oil usage as a result of the program. However, there are several issues that complicate the prospect of collecting oil delivery data from participants, as outlined below: • Only a portion of customers will be responsive to our request to allow access to their delivery data • Some customers may use multiple oil dealers during the period of interest • Only some oil dealers may be willing to share the delivery data for the full pre- and post- program period, particularly during the busy winter season • Every delivery may not completely fill the storage tank • Some customers burn wood as a supplemental fuel In order to encourage cooperation, we plan to offer payments to both customers and oil dealers and will place reminder calls to encourage prompt action. In addition, our plan assumes a substantial level of attrition and our schedule accounts for the time required to receive full data for a sufficient number of participants. Our team will undertake the following steps. Obtain Oil Bill Release Forms from Customers. In order to collect fuel oil delivery data from participating customers, the team will first mail letters on PSD letterhead to all oil-heating CEED and GMP participants (assuming that the tracking databases identify oil-heated homes) requesting that they complete and return an oil delivery release form. Each customer will receive an explanatory letter, the blank release form, as well as a pre-addressed, stamped envelope. Participants will be offered $10 for a returned, completed form. We will place follow-up phone calls to remind customers as needed. We anticipate that approximately 100 of the estimated 200 participants with oil heat will return a completed form. Each of these 100 customers will be mailed a check for $10 after their completed form is received. Obtain Delivery Data from Oil Dealers. In order to introduce oil dealers to the study and to our Team, our first outreach to oil dealers will be through the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association (VFDA), with which team member EFG has a longstanding working relationship. We will request that the VFDA notify its members of this study and forthcoming outreach from our Team. Next, we will mail the fuel dealers a letter on PSD letterhead, along with copies of their customers’ completed release forms, in order to request their assistance in providing oil delivery

3 The Team anticipates that there is an insufficient number of propane-heated homes for a propane billing analysis to produce reliable estimates of the programs’ impact on propane usage.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 12 data. We will offer the oil dealers $25 for the data from the first customer and $5 for each subsequent customer. We will then follow up with the dealers over the phone and via email in order to remind them of our request. Because this is a busy time of year for oil dealers, we anticipate multiple contact requests will be necessary. In order to better understand the delivery data, the release form will ask customers how often their deliveries fill their fuel tank. In addition, we will request that fuel dealers identify partial deliveries. Lastly, we will review the data to identify repeated deliveries of unusual amounts (50 gallons, 100 gallons, etc.) that likely indicate deliveries that do not completely fill the tank. Overall, we anticipate receiving oil delivery data from dealers for approximately 80 participating customers, which we estimate will yield useable data for about 50 participating customers.

4.2.2.2 Delivered Fuel Usage Analysis The fuel oil consumption analysis will be conducted using the following baseload and heating fixed-effects regression model:

Uit= αi+ β1*Hit+β2*POSTt+β3*POSTt*Hit+εit where, for each participant “i” and usage period “t,”

• Uit = average daily fuel oil usage during the pre- and post-treatment periods.

• αi = average daily non-weather-sensitive baseload usage for each participant in the pre- treatment period. • β1 = average daily usage per heating degree day (HDD) in the pre-treatment period.

• Hit = average daily base 60 HDDs.

• POSTt = a dummy variable that is 0 in the pre- period and 1 in the post- period.

• αi + β2= average daily non-weather-sensitive baseload usage in the post-treatment period. • β1 + β3= average daily usage per HDD in the post-treatment period. • β2 = average daily baseload usage change. • β3 = heating usage change per HDD.

• εit = estimation error term. This analysis will estimate the reduction in fuel oil usage as a result of the heat pump installations and then assess the change in total energy use (fuel oil + electricity) for the previously oil-heated homes. The results from the fuel oil billing analysis will then be used to project the change in total energy use in propane-heated homes.

4.2.3 Load Calculations The team proposes to conduct a total of 20 on-site visits to participating CEED and CCHP Upstream program homes in order to perform energy audits and calculate heating and cooling

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 13 loads. Volunteers for the on-site visits from the CEED program will be identified during telephone surveys with participating customers. Given the limited number of participants from the CCHP Upstream program, these customers will be directly recruited over the phone. We anticipate conducting on-site visits at about 12 CCHP Upstream homes and all eight CEED homes for which metering data is already available. Customers will be offered $50 to encourage cooperation. After the target homes are identified, auditors will schedule a half-day visit to each home to conduct data collection and testing. If a CCHP Upstream home is also selected for field monitoring (Section 4.2.4), monitoring equipment will also be installed during the on-site audit. Auditors will measure dimensions, make sketches, and take pictures of homes to accurately characterize them. At each home, auditors will collect the following information: • Gross area of walls, floors, ceilings, and roofs • Age of the home (determined by asking homeowner or searching online databases) • Wall insulation (determined by interviewing owners, inspecting from attic or basement) • Basement conditions: floor type, insulation type and thickness (if present) • Window area and orientation • Window shading, if present • Window type (e.g., wooden double-hung, casement, presence of storms, low-e glazing) • Attic/ceiling/roof configuration and insulation type, quantity/depth • Air infiltration (with blower door test) • HVAC equipment (type, fuel, make and model, location, etc.) • HVAC distribution (e.g., hydronic baseboard, radiant, forced air) • Number and layout of heating zones and thermostats • Wood burning equipment (type, location, estimates of annual wood consumption) • Water heating equipment (type, fuel, make and model, location, etc.) • Type of lighting and appliances (e.g., propane or electric range, fraction of CFL or LED lighting) • Other unique energy features (e.g., solar systems, pools or hot tubs)

Related to the heat pump itself, auditors will record the following: • Type, manufacturer, and model number • Location of outdoor unit (with pictures in order to assess risk of snow/ice accumulation, as shown in Figure 4-1) • Location of indoor unit with description of how this room is positioned in the home • Type and location of thermostat (if present)

Figure 4-1 shows two heat pump installations. The heat pump pictured on the left was in the path of ice melting from a deck. During testing, this heat pump entered defrost mode approximately every 10-12 minutes. The heat pump pictured on the right has a cover and defrosted only once every 60-90 minutes.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 14

Figure 4-1: Heat Pump Installations

Auditors will also interview residents while on-site to understand any energy improvements or weatherization efforts undertaken as well as to obtain information on their experience with the program and heat pump (see Section 4.3.2.2 for more details). With information gathered from the on-site visit, auditors will use REM/Rate energy modeling software to determine heating and cooling loads. We recommend using REM/Rate because, in our experience, it provides accurate annual loads as well as design loads. These models can estimate heating fuel usage, which can provide a means of cross-checking or extrapolating the results of the delivered fuel billing analyses. REM/Rate models also generate a Home Energy Rating Index score allowing us to quantify and compare the efficiency of the homes. Annual heating loads will quantify the total heat needed from the various heating systems over the entire heating season. This will be expressed as gross (Btu/year) and on an area-weighted (Btu/ft2year) basis. REM/Rate will also show predicted oil or propane (gallons), wood (cords), and heat pump energy (kWh) used over the heating season. While oil is anticipated to be the most common fuel used, propane will be modeled similarly. Where annual fuel delivery records are available, these will be reconciled with REM/Rate predictions. Design heating loads show the rate of heat needed to keep the home at 68°F at winter design outdoor temperatures (typically from -10°F to 2°F across Vermont). This will be expressed as total (Btu/h) and area-weighted (Btu/ft2h) values. Cooling loads will be calculated for both annual and design loads and reported in a similar fashion to heating loads. If multiple cooling systems are present, the software will calculate the fraction of the load provided by the heat pump. The REM/Rate models will also estimate the impacts of installing the heat pump. For example, running the model without the heat pump installed can provide estimated oil savings. If window

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 15 air conditioners were used before the heat pump was installed, models can estimate cooling energy and demand savings. By applying energy rates and greenhouse gas emission values to REM/Rate results, operating costs and environmental impacts will be calculated for the heat pump in each home.

4.2.4 Field Monitoring (Optional) Ten of the twelve CCHP Upstream homes recruited for the on-site audits will be selected for a full year of monitoring of heat pumps and existing heating systems. In addition to monitoring the electric power and energy of heat pumps, the strategy proposed here will also quantify the fossil fuel displaced by the heat pumps. In order to obtain the proper baseline information, monitoring for an entire heating season is critical. This approach allows us to determine the baseline usage and heat pump displacement of fossil fuels in a single heating season. In developing the NEEP Market Strategies Report for Air Source Heat Pumps,4 SWA contacted many utilities, state agencies, and others around the Northeast. In these conversations, it was clear that many stakeholders are more interested in quantifying the fuel offset by heat pumps than having a detailed understanding of efficiencies of heat pumps. There are several studies5,6 that estimate electrical savings when heat pumps displace electric resistance, but there are very few studies available on heat pumps displacing oil or other fuels. Heat pump electricity usage and displaced fuel savings are certainly closely related; however, there are several reasons why it is not straightforward to calculate one value from the other. For example: • Ductless heat pumps often heat a central space; therefore, secondary rooms (e.g., bedrooms) are cooler than when a central furnace or boiler operates. • There may be take-back where occupants know the heat pump costs less to operate, so they keep temperatures higher and more comfortable, and possibly so they can haul less wood. • Heat pumps will sometimes displace wood rather than fuel oil in Vermont homes. • Efficiencies of displaced oil-fired systems are very uncertain.

4 http://www.neep.org/northeastmid-atlantic-air-source-heat-pump-market-strategies-report-january-2014 5 http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/ductless-heat-pump-impact-process-evaluation-field-metering- report.pdf 6 http://www.cchrc.org/sites/default/files/docs/ASHP_final_0.pdf

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 16

Our monitoring strategy will quantify oil savings when heat pumps are installed to displace oil heat. We will monitor the following parameters: • Heat pump electricity • Oil consumption of the displaced/auxiliary system • Air temperature and humidity within the home • Outdoor temperature and humidity (using a nearby weather station).

Homeowners would be required to turn off their heat pump(s) and only operate their original heating system for two periods during the heating season: • Two weeks during the middle of winter (e.g., January) • Two weeks during milder weather (e.g., November or March)

The homeowners will be called to request that they turn off their heat pumps during these periods. With these data, engineers will plot heat pump electricity and oil consumption versus daily average outdoor air temperature for both periods (i.e., when the heat pump operates and when it does not). Example data showing a heat pump displacing an oil system are shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-2: Example data with both heat pump and displaced oil system operating Both Heat Pump and Oil System Operating 45 4.5 40 4.0 35 3.5 30 3.0

25 y = -0.6568x + 36.237 2.5 20 2.0 HP [kWh] Oil [gal] 15 1.5 y = -0.013x + 0.6711 10 1.0 Daily Oil Consumption [gal]

Daily Heat Pump Electricity [kWh] 5 0.5 0 0.0 0 20 40 60 Average Daily Outdoor Air Temperature [°F]

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 17

Figure 4-3: Example data with oil system operating alone Oil System Only 4.5 4.0 3.5 y = -0.0808x + 4.138 3.0 2.5

2.0 Oil [gal] 1.5 1.0 Daily Oil Consumption [gal] 0.5 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average Daily Outdoor Air Temperature [°F]

The regression equations from these charts can be used to approximate energy consumption for both scenarios over a long period. For example, applying the regression equations to the average daily temperatures in Rutland during 2014 shows the heat pump would consume approximately 3,400 kWh, but occupants would use 250 fewer gallons of oil than with the oil heating system alone. The appropriate per-unit costs for fuel, electricity, and carbon emissions can be applied to determine cost, demand, and environmental impacts. Note that this is an example only meant to demonstrate the approach; it does not represent a real application. This method has limitations, including the following: • Solar gains, occupancy schedules, and other factors may differ during the separate monitoring periods. • If the displaced heating system is also used for water heating (e.g., a boiler with an indirect tank), varying water consumption can skew the results. • Use of wood stoves (or other non-monitored heating systems) can affect results.

Several studies have monitored heat pump electricity use; this is relatively simple and straightforward, and it is included in this proposal. Our team is unaware, however, of studies that measure fossil fuel displaced by heat pumps in homes; such estimates seem to be based on calculations and modeling. The method proposed here is a simple, non-intrusive monitoring approach that will specifically quantify fuel oil saved by heat pumps. The procedure for monitoring is outlined below.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 18

1. Site Selection. Potential sites will be contacted via telephone. Customers will be offered an incentive of $150 to participate ($50 provided at each of the three on-site visits). 2. Scheduling. Coordinate visit with homeowners. We expect installation will require approximately four hours. Visits for monitoring and audits/load calculations will be combined. 3. Installation. Engineers will install sensors as outlined below. Before leaving the site, SWA will make sure sensors are reading and being recorded properly and that the heat pump is working properly.

Table 4-1: Logger Plan Measurement Sensor/Logger Notes Watt Nodes measure true RMS voltage and Electrical Energy (heat Watt Node WNB-3Y-208 current (with CT below) to calculate true pump) with Onset UX90 logger electrical power and energy. 0.5% accuracy of reading. ACT-0750 Current Split core, true RMS, accuracy 0.75% of Electrical Current transducers reading from 1%-100% of rated current. Flowline DX10-00 with Oil Level Ultrasonic level sensor, 0.125” accuracy Onset U12 logger Indoor temperature and Onset U12-011 0.6°F, 2.5% RH accuracy. relative humidity

4. Intermediate Data Collection. During the fall of 2015, engineers will re-visit the sites to collect data and reset the data loggers. Each site visit should require approximately one hour. 5. Final Data Collection and Removal. In spring of 2016, engineers will re-visit each site for a third time to collect data, remove data loggers, and provide homeowners the final incentive payment. At the end of each season of the monitoring period (i.e., cooling and heating), we will compile results from all 10 homes. The reports will include total heat pump electricity (both energy and power), heat pump cycling times, defrost cycles, fuel oil consumed, and displaced heating fuel. Combining these results with local weather data, we will calculate net electricity consumption and fuel savings over a typical year. The report will examine possible explanations for varying levels of displacement and determine, as much as is practical, which types of applications are likely to result in higher fuel displacement and overall cost savings.

4.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Team will estimate the reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in metric tons of

CO2-equivalent as a result of the CEED and GMP programs using the following information: • The change in electricity and delivered fuel usage estimated by the billing analysis

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 19

• Greenhouse gas emission rates (lbs/kWh) from the generation of electricity from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)7 for Vermont • Greenhouse gas rates (lbs/gallon) from fossil fuel combustion to provide heat for residential and commercial spaces from EPA’s Emissions Factors & AP 42 Inventory8

4.2.6 Net-to-Gross Analysis The evaluation team will estimate the NTG ratio for the CCHP Upstream program using the formula below.

��� = 1 − ���� ������ℎ��(%) + ���������(%)

In order to estimate free ridership and spillover, we will include a battery of questions in the surveys with participating customers (see Section 4.3.2.2) regarding the extent of program influence. These free ridership questions will assess the timing of their decision, knowledge of the program, and the likelihood of purchasing a heat pump in the absence of the program. We will develop an algorithm to analyze the responses in order to calculate a free ridership rate for each participant. In addition, we will ask a series of questions to establish whether the program has influenced the participants to install additional measures or undertake additional actions that yield energy savings. In order to provide a cross-check of the participant survey results, the in-depth interviews with distributors and installation contractors involved with the CCHP Upstream program will include a few qualitative questions to understand their perspective regarding the level of program influence on customers’ decisions. In order to calculate net savings, the evaluation team will apply the NTG ratio to the gross savings, as described by the following equation:

��� ������� = ����� ����������

4.2.6.1 Deliverables Deliverables include the following: draft and final data collection forms for the on-site visits; draft memos regarding the electric billing analysis, delivered fuel billing analysis, load calculations, field monitoring, GHG analysis, and NTG analysis.

7 eGRID is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in the United States. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/ 8 AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, has been published since 1972 and is the EPA’s primary source of emission factor information. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 20

4.3 Task 3: Process Evaluation

4.3.1 In-depth Interviews with Market Actors The team will conduct in-depth interviews with market actors involved in the CEED, GMP, and CCHP Upstream programs. These interviews will be designed to obtain a deeper understanding of the market opportunities and barriers for heat pumps in Vermont based on the experiences of those who have been most directly involved. Candidates for interviews will include a sample of the following: • Installation contractors • Local distributors from whom the installation contractors obtained the heat pumps • Regional sales representatives for the most commonly installed heat pumps • Heat pump manufacturers who have been involved in Vermont heat pump program design and development • Program staff from GMP and Efficiency Vermont (EVT) The Team will develop a specific list of firms or individuals from these groups distributed geographically throughout Vermont and finalize that list after consultation with the PSD. We will then complete a total of 15 interviews, with the suggested distribution as shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Market Actor Interviews Category Number of Interviews Installation Contractors 5 Distributors 3 Sales Representatives 3 Manufacturers 2 GMP Program Staff 1 EVT Program Staff 1 Total 15

The interview guides will be customized in order to effectively gather the relevant information from each category of interviewee; however, the guides will generally address the following questions: • Satisfaction with the technology, its performance and applicability for Vermont settings, savings, manufacturer support, any non-energy/economic benefits and general satisfaction, both from the interviewee’s perspective and from the perceived customer perspective • Performance of the technology, its ability to deliver as promised, perceived savings, ability to heat at cold temperatures and cool on hot days and any other positive or negative performance issues • Savings perceptions, anecdotal savings claims, and any data that may have been gathered

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 21

• Control strategy, what information on controlling the system was provided to the customers, effectiveness of controls, strategy for integration with existing central system, shortcomings and suggestions for better controls • Information about the homes including: o Types, sizes, efficiency, and age of the homes the HPs have been installed in o Fuel type (i.e., oil, propane, electricity, wood) and system type (i.e., hydronic, ducted, resistance, wood stove) these HPs displaced, and the extent to which the heat pumps have reduced the need to operate displaced systems o Presence of any air conditioning systems prior to the heat pump installation and the disposition of these units post-installation • Information about the customers o Demographics and psychographics of customers who have installed heat pumps and who are inquiring about them now o Any general trends regarding customer types or characteristics over time o Customer motivations for installing a heat pump o Barriers and disincentives o Factors influencing customer decision making o Perceptions of non-energy benefits • Sales techniques that have worked to sell heat pumps o Solutions and approaches that have been effective with potential customers o Success stories • Effect of oil and propane costs on customer decision-making regarding heat pumps o To what extent, if any, have reduced fuel costs had an effect on customer interest? • Effectiveness of program strategies o To what extent have programs supported market growth? o Are programs creating unnecessary burdens for market actors? EFG staff will conduct the interviews in person to the extent feasible, in particular for the CCHP Upstream program; however, due to proximity and logistics, some interviews will be conducted over the telephone.

4.3.2 Participating Customer Surveys We propose to conduct telephone surveys with participants from the CEED and GMP programs, and in-person interviews with participants from the CCHP Upstream program.

4.3.2.1 Telephone Surveys In order to gather data regarding program experience from customers, we will conduct computer- assisted telephone interview (CATI) surveys with about 70 customers who participated in the CEED and GMP programs. The contact information from the sample will be derived from program tracking databases. The objectives of the surveys are to assess the following items:

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 22

• Satisfaction with the overall program, including the clarity of information provided, rebate levels, and payment processing (where applicable) • Satisfaction with the installation contractor and the heat pump installation itself, including provision of operating instructions • Satisfaction with and use of the heat pump o Area of heat pump coverage in home o Adequacy of heating systems on cold days o Performance issues or concerns with heat pump • Perceived cost savings, if any • Total installation cost • Motivations and obstacles to program participation and heat pump installation o Heat pump intended for heating or cooling or both • Presence and use of prior cooling equipment • Perceived value of program participation • Extent of program influence on their decision (NTG) • Additional energy-saving actions undertaken since participation • Extent of any non-energy benefits, such as the level of comfort before and after installation • Prior/existing heating fuel type and system • Housing characteristics, such as house type and size • Demographic characteristics, including household size, ages, education, and income • Recruit for subsequent on-site visits We anticipate that the surveys will be about 10 to 12 minutes in length. Approximately 260 customers have participated in the CEED and GMP program, which indicates that the sample precision for the 70 surveys at the 90% confidence level equals about ±8.5%. The Team will submit a draft of the survey instrument to the PSD for approval. Next, the telephone survey instrument will be programmed for CATI fielding. The Team will test the surveys prior to fielding, be available for the initial training of interviewers, and monitor the first day of interviewing. After that, the Team will periodically monitor survey implementation and provide weekly updates to the PSD on its progress. The interviews will be conducted over approximately a three-week fielding period from 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on weekends. At least five attempts will be made to reach each sampled customer. If a respondent is reached at an inconvenient time, the best time to call back will be determined or an appointment scheduled.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 23

Discovery Research Group (DRG),9 an industry-leading market research firm headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, will field the CATI surveys. DRG has provided high-quality data collection for NMR on numerous projects. The Team will analyze the survey results by program (CEED vs. GMP) to the extent that sample sizes are sufficient.

4.3.2.2 In-person Surveys During the on-site visits to the 12 CCHP Upstream homes, the field staff will conduct brief in- person interviews with the residents. These interviews will cover the same general topics as outlined above in Section 4.3.2.1. In addition, for the 10 CCHP Upstream homes selected for field monitoring (an optional task described in Section 4.2.3), the interviews will be conducted during each of the three on-site visits, including the initial visit in winter/spring 2015, the mid- study visit in fall 2015, and the final visit in winter/spring 2016.

4.3.2.3 Deliverables Deliverables include the following: draft and final versions of the market actor interview guides, participating customer survey, and related sampling plans; draft memos summarizing the findings of the market actor interviews and the participating customer surveys.

4.4 Project Management Throughout the course of each component of this project, the Team anticipates working closely with PSD staff to ensure that project goals are met. We will provide regular (weekly or bi- weekly) project updates via e-mail as well as bi-weekly conference calls between the Team and the PSD’s project manager to monitor project progress and discuss issues as they arise. In addition, we will provide brief monthly status reports to the PSD that summarize the project accomplishments of the prior month, provide the current month’s schedule, and identify issues or concerns that need to be addressed. The Team’s project manager will be responsible for conducting regular check-ins with members of the evaluation team in order to keep the project on track and to provide problem-solving assistance, as appropriate. The Team will submit deliverables on time, to the extent under our control, according to the schedule presented in Section 4.5.

4.4.1.1 Reporting Each of the research tasks will result in draft memos, as noted under the Deliverables sections (4.2.6.1 and 4.3.2.3) of the impact and process evaluations. Some tasks will results in multiple memos, as illustrated in Figure 4-4.

9 For more information about DRG, please visit their website at http://www.discoveryresearchgroup.com/about-us/.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 24

In addition, the team will provide overall winter and summer reports in order to integrate the results of both the impact and process evaluations to produce unified and comprehensive overall reports. These reports will include strategic recommendations regarding improvements to program design and delivery that were identified during the course of the evaluation. In particular, the reports will provide guidance on how to effectively support heat pump technology in Vermont and target homes where savings can be optimized. Supporting data and information for the report summaries will be contained in appendices. The reports will also include comparisons of findings from recent published evaluations of other heat pump programs, where available.

4.4.1.2 Deliverables Deliverables include the following: monthly status reports, draft and final overall winter and summer reports.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 25

4.5 Schedule and Deliverables The provisional schedule is presented in Figure 4-4. The dates on which tasks are completed and deliverables submitted will depend on the actual date on which the kickoff meeting occurs, when the final contract is executed, and when the Team receives comments on draft data collection plans and instruments. For planning purposes, we have assumed that the PSD will return comments within one week. In addition, we assume that electric usage data will be made available to the team within two weeks of our request being submitted. Lastly, our schedule assumes that a sufficient number of participating customers will volunteer for the on-site visits and that both customers and their fuel dealers will be responsive to our requests for fuel bill data. We understand the need to keep the project on schedule and deliver findings in a timely manner and will communicate any schedule changes to the PSD to ensure that expectations will be met. Key deliverables and dates for the project include the following: • Draft memo on electric billing analysis by March 31, 2015 • Draft winter impact/process overall report by May 29, 2015 • Draft summer impact/process overall report by October 30, 2015

Figure 4-4: Schedule & Deliverables

2015 2016 Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Kickoff Meeting & Workplan KO DP FP Impact Evaluation Electric Billing Analysis DM FM DM Delivered Fuel Billing Analysis DM On-site Visits (subsequent visits optional) DI FI Load Calculations DM Field Monitoring (Optional) DM DM Process Evaluation Market Actor Interviews DI FI DM Participant Surveys DI FI DM DM DM Overall Reports Winter Impact/Process Report DR FR Summer Impact/Process Report DR FR Version: D=Draft, F=Final Data Collection: P=Plan, I=Instrument Reporting: M=Memo, R=Report

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 26

4.6 Budget The estimated budget for the evaluation study described in this proposal is $249,656. Including the optional field monitoring of 10 CCHP Upstream program homes increases the budget by $51,660 to $301,316 (Table 4-3). Assuming a minimum of five homes, the field monitoring cost is about $5,166 per home.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 28

5 Descriptions of Similar Projects

5.1 NMR Group Client: Efficiency Maine Project: Evaluation of the Low-Income Multifamily Program (2014-Present) NMR is leading a team (that includes EFG) to conduct an evaluation of the Efficiency Maine Low-Income Multifamily program, which installed ductless heat pumps and weatherization measures at low-income multifamily properties. The central component of the impact evaluation is an analysis of electric and gas billing data in order to estimate energy savings, preceded by the collection of billing data from participating properties. The impact evaluation will also estimate program cost-effectiveness as well as compare results to other recent low-income multifamily evaluations. The process evaluation includes in-depth telephone interviews with program staff, implementation contractors, and participating property managers. In addition, the process evaluation includes telephone surveys with tenants from participating properties as well as a best practices review of other low-income multifamily programs. Client: Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board Project: Evaluation of Connecticut HES and HES-IE Programs (2013-Present) NMR is currently leading a team to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the Connecticut Home Energy Solutions (HES) and Home Energy Solutions-Income Eligible (HES-IE) programs. This evaluation will assess program gross savings, net savings, effective useful life of installed measures (including ductless heat pumps), as well as non-energy impacts. The process evaluation includes a program document and database review; in-depth telephone interviews with program staff, implementation contractors, and landlords; telephone surveys with program participants; and development of a program logic model. The impact evaluation includes a billing analysis to estimate gross electric and natural gas savings at participating homes, including measure-level estimates for ductless heat pumps. Client: Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board Project: Evaluation of the Geothermal Heat Pump Program (2012-2014) NMR led a team to conduct a process and impact evaluation of a program that provides customer incentives for the installation of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs). The impact evaluation included on-site visits to 40 participating homes in order to conduct energy audits of the home, collect data on the GSHP system and its performance, and install long-term meters on a sub- sample of homes. The analysis included Manual J calculations, analysis of metering data and project files, and development of multiple DOE2 energy models. The process evaluation included interviews with participating contractors and telephone surveys with participating customers in order to assess their program experience and estimate program influence.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 29

Client: Nova Scotia Power & Efficiency Nova Scotia Project: Process and Impact Evaluation of the Existing Houses Program (2009-2011) NMR led an evaluation of Nova Scotia Power’s EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, which included ductless heat pumps, among other measures. The process evaluation was based on in- depth interviews with program staff and implementation contractors as well as telephone surveys with program participants. The interviews conducted with program staff and contractors covered a variety of program topics including program goals, theory, structure, design, delivery, roles of individuals, and marketing. The telephone survey of participants covered topics that included satisfaction with the overall program as well as key program elements, reasons for participating, value of the program to customers, barriers to action, and recommendations for program improvements. The impact evaluation included reviews of a sample of HOT2000 energy audit reports from participating homes and savings estimates from similar programs in other jurisdictions. Client: Massachusetts Program Administrators Project: HVAC Market Effects Study (2014-Present) For the Massachusetts Program Administrators, NMR developed a set of recommended and appropriate methods for evaluating the effects of Massachusetts programs on several HVAC markets, including ductless mini-split heat pumps. The recommended methods include the establishment of qualitative evidence of the programs’ effects on markets, as well as quantification of market effects, including spillover, and estimation of net savings.

Client: Vermont Public Service Department Project: Evaluation of Clean Energy Development Fund (2014-Persent) NMR is leading a team (that includes EFG) to conduct an evaluation of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, which offers a portfolio of funding opportunities to accelerate the development, commercialization, and production of clean energy in Vermont. The process evaluation involves developing a comprehensive program history as well as in-depth interviews with board members, program managers, and participating contractors and end-users. The impact assessment includes the quantification of the energy, environmental, and economic impacts of the program.

Client: Vermont Public Service Department Project: Residential Sector Market Assessment and Baseline Study for Existing Homes and New Construction (2007-2009, 2011-2013) NMR led a team that twice assessed the market for single- and multifamily homes in Vermont. The first study included telephone surveys with 790 homeowners and in-depth telephone interviews with 55 builders, HVAC contractors, insulation contractors, and remodelers. In addition, the team performed on-site audits at a total of 302 single- and multifamily homes, including data collection regarding building shell, HVAC, water heating, appliances, and lighting, as well as measurements of air infiltration and duct leakage. In 2011, the team (with the

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 30 addition of EFG) was awarded a study to conduct a second round of market assessment research in Vermont. This project includes similar tasks: telephone surveys with 520 homeowners, in- depth telephone interviews with 10 HVAC contractors, and on-site audits at a total of 250 single- family homes and multifamily buildings.

5.2 Energy Futures Group Client: Green Mountain Power Corp. Project: Development of Vermont’s Cold Climate Heat Pump Program (2012-2013) EFG led the program design efforts in the development of the Vermont Cold Climate Heat Pump program and worked closely with Efficiency Vermont to implement the successful program. This initiative involved technical modeling and analysis, program design, stakeholder engagement, manufacturer coordination, regulatory process and approval, implementation details and design, program roll-out, troubleshooting, customer support, mid-course corrections and the success of achieving the program goals. Through this effort, EFG staff were integral in the development of a new “cold climate” heat pump standard and relationship-building with leading manufacturers and Vermont installers. This standard and program experience has led to involvement with regional and national initiatives to promote heat pumps as an energy-saving and carbon reduction strategy and engagement with regional and national organizations in developing standards designed to define “cold climate” heat pump performance. Client: Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) Project: Heat Pump research, committees and reports (2013-2014) Member of NEEP’s Leadership Advisory Committee that developed the January 2014 “Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Air-Source Heat Pump Market Strategies Report.” Project manager for NEEP’s Emerging Technologies Research Project with a focus on field research of ductless heat pumps in New Hampshire, following the first phase review of ductless heat pump technologies. Led and completed the NEEP Ductless Heat Pump Meta-Study in November 2014 which compiled, reviewed, and assessed 40 field studies and evaluations of heat pumps throughout the U.S. and interviewed heat pump manufacturers, contractors and program administrators. Served on NEEP’s Cold Climate Air-Source Heat Pump Specification Development Working Group in 2014 to help develop this specification that will serve as a basis for energy efficiency programs and for AHRI consideration as they modify the national heat pump standards to better consider the new generation of air-source heat pumps. Client: High Meadows Fund (Vermont Community Foundation) Project: Interviews with Vermont Home Performance Contractors and Fuel Dealers (2012) EFG conducted in-depth interviews of Vermont Home Performance Contractors and fuel dealers, and prepared findings, recommendations, presentation, and reporting. The High Meadows Fund followed up with a statewide effort to develop new partnerships and business opportunities to drive more building retrofit projects and heat pump installations by both fuel dealers and home

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 31 performance contractors. This has resulted in the development of Efficiency Vermont’s Efficiency Excellence Network of quality contractors, which serves as a framework for promoting and delivering energy efficiency services and programs throughout Vermont in partnership with established leading contractors and businesses. Client: Vermont Public Service Department Project: Evaluation of Clean Energy Development Fund (2014-Present) Subcontractor to NMR Group on the evaluation of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund. Client: Vermont Public Service Department Project: Vermont Residential Market Assessment Study (2011-2013) Senior advisor to NMR Group on the market assessment of single-family and multifamily existing homes and new construction in Vermont.

5.3 Steven Winter Associates Client: U.S. Department of Energy Building America Program Project: Ductless Heat Pump Evaluations (2013-2014) In collaboration with Building America and Efficiency Vermont, SWA monitored 10 ductless heat pumps installed in homes around New England. The study involved measuring electricity consumed and heat delivered by the ductless heat pump. Electricity measurements were straightforward; heat delivery measurements were not. SWA could easily install return and supply temperature sensors, but monitoring flow rate (needed to calculate heat delivered) proved very challenging. It was fortunate that several participants in the study were willing to have SWA revisit the home multiple times to refine airflow testing methods. Some past studies used flow rates from manufacturer literature to calculate heat delivered, but SWA found flow rates were quite variable and often substantially lower than manufacturer values. The flow measurement method involved constructing a large, fan-assisted flow hood on the fan coil outlet. The fan negates back-pressure caused by the hood. SWA also measured electrical current drawn by the fan coil, and during flow testing SWA calibrated a flow vs. current relationship that was used for long-term monitoring. Results were quite interesting, largely because they varied tremendously. The same heat pump model had dramatically different performance; it actually performed more efficiently at the colder Vermont site. It appears that the primary reasons for the less efficient performance at one site were higher return air temperatures and lower air flow rates (because of louver position). Client: U.S. Department of Energy Building America Program, WPPI Energy Project: Ground-Source Heat Pump Monitoring (2007–2010) To establish a better understanding of installed ground-source heat pump (GSHP) system performance and the associated energy savings potential, SWA worked with contractors and homeowners in Connecticut, Virginia, and Wisconsin to monitor the in situ performance of four residential ground-source heat pump systems. The two systems in Wisconsin were in partnership

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 32 with WPPI Energy through their WPPI GreenMax demonstration home project. SWA installed extensive monitoring equipment in each home to record the energy use of the GSHPs. In two of the systems, SWA’s monitoring revealed major problems that dramatically reduced the systems’ performance. Once these problems were remedied, SWA measured heating coefficients of performance (COPs) of 3.1 to 3.6 over the entire heating seasons. SWA’s findings, along with a comparison of measured data to predictions of several energy modeling tools, were published and presented at the 2010 Geothermal Resource Council (GRC) conference (Puttagunta et al. 2010).10 Client: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Project: ASHP Assessments in New York State (2014-Present) In some ongoing work for NYSERDA, SWA has examined how well common modeling tools predict real-world ASHP performance. When four different modeling tools were used to model the same homes with the same loads, SWA found: • Energy Plus and EQUEST underestimated heat pump electricity consumption by 25-40% • REM/Rate overestimated heat pump electricity consumption by 30-40% • On average, TREAT results matched measured consumption rather closely. These findings, however, were based on only two published studies of five different types of homes. A more significant conclusion was there is a great need for more detailed data on ASHP performance in cold-climate homes. Client: National Grid, NSTAR, Cape Light Compact, US DOE Building America Program Project: Heat Pump Water Heaters, Phase II (2010-2012) In partnership with Massachusetts and Rhode Island utilities (National Grid, NSTAR, and Cape Light Compact) and the DOE Building America program, SWA evaluated the performance of three recently released HPWH products. In 2010, 14 new HPWHs were installed in homes in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and SWA installed monitoring equipment to evaluate performance in detail. SWA found that these newer products were more efficient (average, effective annual COP of 1.9) and much more reliable than the previous generation of water heaters. The study also highlighted how widely performance can vary in different applications. In one home, for example, the HPWH was installed in a remote part of a basement that was always very cold. This HPWH had an effective annual COP of 1.0; there were hardly any energy savings over an electric resistance water heater. At some other sites, the basement was warm enough for the HPWH to operate efficiently, but high water consumption still led to substantial use of backup resistance elements.

10 http://carb-swa.com/Collateral/Documents/CARB-SWA/Research/Ground_Source_Heat_Pumps.pdf

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 33

Client: U.S. Department of Energy Building America Program Project: Space Conditioning Impacts of Heat Pump Water Heaters (2014–Present) While SWA and other researchers have done extensive monitoring of the performance of HPWHs themselves, there is little known about the space conditioning impacts of HPWHs. Heat pump water heaters, after all, move heat from the home into the potable water. Because of this, some skeptics insist there is no place for these devices in cold climates; others ignore the space conditioning implications entirely. This is a very challenging topic to address, but SWA has begun monitoring three 50-gallon HPWHs in unfinished basements in Connecticut homes. Over the course of the winter, the HPWHs will be switched between heat pump and electric resistance mode to provide a comparison with traditional electric water heating systems. The energy consumption of the homes’ space heating systems is also being monitored. By alternating between heat pump and resistance water heating, SWA will document increased heating fuel consumption when the heat pump operates (normalized for weather, water consumption, etc.). Results should be available in spring of 2015. Client: Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) Project: Heat Pump Water Heater Evaluation, Phase I (2002-2004) Since the early 2000s, SWA has been researching the performance of heat pump water heaters installed in homes. In 2002, SWA worked with CL&P, a division of Northeast Utilities, to install and evaluate the performance of ECR International’s WatterSaver™ HPWH, an early integrated replacement unit. The CL&P-funded project consisted of finding 20 volunteers in CL&P’s territory using electric resistance water heaters, replacing the resistance water heaters with HPWHs, monitoring the performance for approximately 12 months, and conducting surveys of home residents about the performance of the systems. SWA installed detailed monitoring systems to determine the efficiency (COP) of the HPWH systems and how efficiency varied with surrounding conditions, hot water use patterns, etc. SWA also evaluated the performance of the systems (adequate temperature and quantity of hot water), use of backup resistance elements, and the dehumidifying potential. The average effective COP of the units was 1.67, but SWA found some control problems, which resulted in very inconsistent performance. This HPWH model was ultimately removed from the market partly because of these flaws. Client: Long Island Power Authority Project: PV Evaluation (2006-2008) Beginning in 2006, SWA inspected nearly 200 PV systems (10kW and smaller) installed through LIPA’s incentive program. SWA performed detailed inspections and short-term testing (long- term monitoring was installed on a subset). Results showed that generation was lower than expected and quantified reasons for lower performance (Aldrich 2011).11

11http://archive-org.com/page/3196148/2013-11-20/http://www.iepec.org/conf- docs/papers/2011PapersTOC/papers/086.pdf

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 34

6 Qualifications of Firms

6.1 NMR Group NMR Group provides planning and evaluation services for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. We help clients evaluate these programs and assess the complex markets in which the programs operate. Our services include developing program theory and logic models, and conducting process, impact, and market evaluations, as well as overall evaluation planning and management. We provide clients with the research-based information and insights to help them to focus program efforts based on the realities of the market, to measure the impacts of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and to provide strategic guidance for improving program design and delivery. NMR is qualified to lead this effort because of our experience and expertise in energy efficiency evaluation and because of a commitment to quality and on-time delivery. Over the years, work conducted by NMR’s staff has addressed a wide range of energy use applications and related issues including residential lighting, HVAC, energy audit programs, new construction, and appliances, among others. Below is a complete list: • Commercial lighting • Photovoltaics • Commercial HVAC (DX, chillers, • Residential new construction boilers) • Commercial new construction • Residential HVAC • Commercial refrigeration • Residential lighting • Motors • Residential appliances • Office equipment • Residential windows • Building operator management • Energy brand management • Indoor air quality • Promotional campaign management

The populations researched by NMR staff have encompassed the spectrum of energy users and trade allies, including: • Residential, commercial, and industrial • Refrigeration manufacturers and customers contractors • Retail chain decision makers • Motor manufacturers and contractors • Building and facility managers • Window manufacturers and contractors • HVAC manufacturers, distributors, and • Photovoltaic manufacturers, contractors distributors, and contractors • Lighting manufacturers, distributors, • Builders, architects, and engineers and contractors

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 35

6.2 Energy Futures Group Energy Futures Group is an energy efficiency consulting firm established in Hinesburg, Vermont, in April 2010 by Chris Neme, Richard Faesy, and Glenn Reed, each of whom has more than 25 years’ experience in the energy-efficiency industry. On staff are Managing Consultant Jim Grevatt, with over 20 years’ experience in the industry, and Senior Consultant Chris Kramer. EFG specializes in the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies to promote investments in efficiency, with particular emphasis on cutting-edge strategies to achieve both broad participation and deep levels of savings. They have worked for program administrators, government agencies, and advocacy organizations in more than 25 states and provinces, as well as several countries in Europe. EFG brings to their work a unique combination of technical, economic, program, and policy expertise. EFG staff have critically reviewed hundreds of efficiency programs and played key roles in developing a number of programs that have won national awards for excellence. They have also served as program managers and portfolio directors for industry-leading electric and natural gas efficiency programs. Recent work includes serving as advisors on the development of efficiency program portfolios and policies in eight of the top 10 highest ranking states in ACEEE’s 2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, development of a meta-study summarizing the state of ductless heat pumps in the U.S., building energy labeling reports on both the residential and commercial market sectors to the Vermont Legislature, a series of papers for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Department of Energy on energy efficiency financing, the publication and presentation of a report that summarizes lessons learned from leading residential retrofit programs in North America and Europe, an analysis and presentation on the key pitfalls that can be encountered in performing potential studies, the development and updating of a regional residential lighting strategy for the Northeast, and an assessment of the effectiveness of leading efficiency financing initiatives. EFG staff have served on the Board of Directors of the national Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) and the Program for the Evaluation and Analysis of Residential Lighting (PEARL); the Air Conditioning Contractors of America’s (ACCA) national quality installation committee; the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships’ Evaluation, Measurement and Verification forum’s committees; and various other regional, national, and statewide efficiency forums, working groups, and boards. They have also taught courses on efficiency program design and implementation for both Affordable Comfort and AESP.

6.3 Steven Winter Associates Steven Winter Associates, Inc., provides research, consulting, and advisory services to improve commercial, residential, and multifamily built environments for private and public sector clients. We specialize in energy, sustainability, and accessibility consulting as well as certification, research and development, and compliance services. Our engineers and architects have led the way since 1972 in the development of best practices to achieve high performance buildings. As a

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 36 matter of course, we collaborate with our clients to produce the most cost-effective and innovative solutions. SWA has decades of experience monitoring and evaluating building energy systems all across the country. Our clients include federal agencies, utilities, state agencies, non-profit stakeholder groups, product manufacturers, and private builders and developers. SWA specializes in detailed monitoring of in situ energy systems (i.e., evaluating how systems really perform in the field rather than in a laboratory). Our evaluation services include development of test protocols, installation of instruments and data loggers, analysis of field data, and technical reporting on findings. Since 1997, SWA has led the Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB), a Building America team funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Building America efforts are aimed at improving the efficiency and overall performance of American homes. A major part of this program is rigorous evaluation of energy system performance. SWA also is very active in energy rating programs across the Northeast. SWA engineers are not only familiar with the technologies, but they are very familiar with how technologies are installed and integrated into buildings.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 37

7 Qualifications of Individuals

7.1 NMR Group Tom Mauldin is a Director at NMR with over 16 years of experience in the field of energy- efficiency evaluation. He will serve as the project director responsible for overseeing the entire evaluation and assuring high-quality, on-time, and on-budget deliverables. Tom is leading the evaluation of the Efficiency Maine Low-Income Multifamily Program Evaluation, managed the evaluation of the Connecticut Geothermal Heat Pump program, and contributed to the process evaluation of the Connecticut Home Energy Solutions-Income Eligible program. In addition, he managed two rounds of residential baseline studies in Vermont. Mr. Mauldin has managed market assessments, program evaluation studies, and implementation programs on a wide variety of energy issues. He has an extensive background in managing process evaluations, including the design, implementation, and analysis of telephone surveys with residential customers as well as in-depth telephone interviews with a wide variety of audiences, including program staff, implementation contractors, architects, engineers, distributors, manufacturers, retail store managers, and builders. Tom received his Master of Science degree in Ecology & Environmental Sciences with a concentration in Resource Economics & Policy from the University of Maine, and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers University. Dr. Ferit Ucar is a Senior Quantitative Analyst at NMR with more than ten years of research experience, with over five being in energy-efficiency program evaluation, particularly related to billing analyses. Ferit will lead the billing analysis portion of the impact evaluation. He is leading the impact evaluation of the Efficiency Maine Low-Income Multifamily Program, which includes a billing analysis of multifamily properties, most of which received heat pumps. He is also currently leading the impact assessment of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, including energy, environmental, and economic components. Before joining NMR, he conducted evaluations of energy-efficiency and energy affordability programs for utilities and government agencies in a number of states. He managed multiple aspects of a recent multi-year, national process and impact evaluation of the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). In particular, he managed the collection, cleaning, and analysis of billing data from nearly 1,000 electric and natural gas companies across the country, including all major utilities in Vermont. He co-authored the national impact evaluation reports of WAP for program years 2008 and 2010. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University. Dr. Andrew Correia is a Quantitative Analyst at NMR. He has over six years of research experience, using sophisticated statistical modeling approaches to answer important questions in a variety of fields. His expertise includes the analysis of spatio-temporal and time-series data, Bayesian statistics, linear and non-linear mixed effects modeling, and environmental statistics. Andrew has used this experience and expertise to lead the statistical analysis on a number of projects at NMR, including lighting, residential new construction, and billing analysis projects.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 38

He led the statistical analysis for the Northeast Regional Hours of Use study, using multi-level Bayesian regression models to estimate adjusted lighting hours of use for states in the northeastern U.S. Further, Dr. Correia has extensive experience in the analysis of billing data, having either led or contributed to projects in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maine during his time with NMR. Andrew holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in Biostatistics from Harvard University and a B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Joanne O’Donnell is a Research Analyst at NMR. She has conducted process and impact evaluations of energy efficiency programs in the residential, multifamily, low-income, and commercial sectors. She has experience conducting in-depth interviews and participant surveys, as well as analyzing complex qualitative and quantitative data to develop process and impact findings. She recently assisted in an evaluation of a low-income multifamily program in Maine and has conducted evaluations across several technology areas including lighting, HVAC, water heating, and appliances. Joanne holds an M.A. in Energy and Environmental Analysis and two Bachelor degrees in Environmental Analysis & Policy, and Political Science, all from Boston University. Jared Powell is a Research Associate at NMR, where he performs quantitative and qualitative data analysis as a part of impact, process, and market effects evaluations. His experience includes extensive work with designing and conducting interviews and surveys, statistical analysis of survey and on-site data, moderating focus groups, and drafting reports. As a RESNET-certified HERS rater, he has conducted over 100 comprehensive energy audits throughout New England for evaluations of residential new construction, retrofit, and code compliance programs, and he is trained in Manual J HVAC load calculations. Mr. Powell received his Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from the University of Massachusetts Boston, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Williams College. Erin Coates is a Research Assistant at NMR, where she assists with market research and energy- efficiency program evaluations by performing research, data entry, data coding, and participant recruitment. She also assists with office administrative functions including report formatting, project logistics, and website maintenance. Ms. Coates has past experience in coordinating and auditing campus sustainability programs and designing and conducting ecological surveys and analysis. She holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies with a concentration in Sustainable Development from Mount Holyoke College. Lori Golzmane is a Research Assistant with NMR. She has experience assisting with qualitative and evaluative research as well as editing a wide range of academic and professional documents. Her work at NMR includes aiding with various administrative and clerical tasks, performing research and data entry, conducting in-depth interviews, recruiting participants, proofreading and formatting reports, and maintaining the company’s website. Ms. Golzmane holds a B.A. in English from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 39

7.2 Energy Futures Group Richard Faesy is a principal and co-founder of Energy Futures Group in Hinesburg, Vermont, and will serve as an advisor for the process and impact evaluations and conduct most of the market actor interviews. As a Certified Energy Rater and LEED-Accredited Professional, Richard Faesy is an expert in residential and multifamily energy-efficiency programs, markets and technologies, including retrofits, labeling, new construction, home energy rating systems (HERS), energy codes, green building, financing and effective market characterization, program design, policy and implementation. He has been active locally, regionally, and nationally in all of these areas for more than 25 years. Richard helped create and was the founding president of the board of the Northeast HERS Alliance and was a founding board member of the national Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), including a term as president. Richard was featured in a national Dateline/NBC story on energy efficiency and was also awarded RESNET’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Prior to co-founding Energy Futures Group, Richard managed the Energy Efficiency Division of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation’s (VEIC) consulting business. Jim Grevatt brings over 20 years’ experience as a leadership professional in energy-efficiency program operations to his consulting practice. He will support the in-depth interview tasks for this project. Jim uses an in-depth knowledge of the nuts and bolts of running programs and a clear understanding of strategic thinking and planning to ensure that programs achieve their desired market impacts. As Director of Residential Services for Efficiency Vermont for over five years, and then in the same role for the District of Columbia Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) for its startup operation, Jim has hands-on experience with industry-leading market- based approaches to planning and managing energy-efficiency programs, including the multifamily sector. Prior to the creation of Efficiency Vermont, Jim was a member of a multi- utility collaboration that pioneered comprehensive low-income multifamily programs in Vermont in the late 1990s, addressing both gas and electric opportunities and combining utility and WAP funding. This model became the basis for Efficiency Vermont’s award-winning low- income multifamily program. In his role with the DCSEU, Jim managed program planning for its first Annual Plan and supervised the development of the DCSEU’s multifamily programs. Currently, Jim is serving as a subject matter expert to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Program, drafting and reviewing handbooks that describe best practices in planning and implementing residential efficiency programs. Throughout his career, Jim has focused on building strong relationships with staff, peers, trade allies, and clients as the best way to understand the needs and challenges that each sector faces. Prior to his role with Efficiency Vermont, Jim managed Vermont Gas’s residential and commercial energy-efficiency programs. Prior to working at Vermont Gas, Jim was Associate Director for the Weatherization Assistance Program serving Northwestern Vermont. In each of these roles, Jim had overall responsibility for program design and delivering results.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 40

7.3 Steven Winter Associates Robb Aldrich is a senior mechanical engineer at SWA; he will oversee SWA’s fieldwork including audits, load calculations, and on-site monitoring. Robb has 18 years of experience in the residential energy field and has been the project manager in several research and field evaluation projects for utilities, government agencies, and other clients. Robb’s projects have included evaluation of many building energy systems including ductless heat pumps, hundreds of PV systems, dozens of solar thermal systems, various residential ventilation strategies, and performance of envelope systems. He has been invited to speak on these evaluation projects and best practices at conferences across the country. Robb also works with builders and developers across the country to create better, healthier, more efficient homes. Before joining SWA, Robb received a master’s degree from the Building Systems Program at the University of Colorado and worked for several years designing, commissioning, and repairing solar electric and solar thermal systems. In addition to being a licensed engineer, Robb has HERS rater and BPI Building Analyst certifications. Steve Klocke is a Senior Sustainability Consultant at Steven Winter Associates. He is a registered architect with experience in architectural design, construction, and weatherization in residential buildings. He currently specializes in LEED® for Homes and ENERGY STAR certifications and residential energy analysis. Steve received his Bachelor of Architecture from Iowa State University. He holds current credentials from the Green Building Certification Institute as a LEED for Homes Green Rater; from RESNET as a certified HERS Rater; and from the Building Performance Institute as a Building Analyst. Steve has completed ratings on hundreds of green and high-performance homes in the Northeast in the past three years. Prior to joining SWA, Steve Klocke acted as the Lead Inspector for the Weatherization Assistance Program at ACTION, Inc., in Athens, GA. Since joining SWA, he has supported building science efforts including the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America research program. Steve has trained numerous groups of contractors, architects, developers, and mechanical system designers in best practices for high performance housing. He contributed to the development of a class for the City University of New York to introduce construction technology students to residential energy modeling, and he is currently on the Mayor’s Energy and Environment Task Force in Norwalk, CT. James Williamson is a mechanical engineer at SWA. He will play a large role in field monitoring of heat pumps, on-site audits, load calculations, and data analysis. He has past experience testing and rating the performance of homes, installing in-depth monitoring systems on heat pump water heaters, measuring in situ performance of ductless heat pumps in cold- climates, and development of data measurement tools and methods for a solar thermal test laboratory.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 41

8 Management and Staff Structure NMR will serve as the primary contractor and will coordinate resources for each of the evaluation activities. NMR will also be responsible for the billing data collection and analysis as well as the participant surveys. EFG will be responsible for the market actor interviews. SWA will be responsible for the on-site visits, load calculations, and optional field monitoring. The overall project director will be Tom Mauldin from NMR who will ensure that all those involved in the project carry out their responsibilities properly and on time. He will be supported by Ferit Ucar from NMR, who will lead the billing analysis. Robb Aldrich from SWA will lead the on-site visits, load calculations, and optional field monitoring. The other key members of the impact evaluation team include Steve Klocke and James Williamson from SWA and Andrew Correia, Erin Coates, and Lori Golzmane from NMR. Richard Faesy and Jim Grevatt from EFG will be responsible for the market actor interviews. In addition, Joanne O’Donnell and Jared Powell from NMR will contribute to the participant surveys. Discovery Research Group will field the participant telephone surveys. The project management structure is depicted in Figure 8-1.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 42

Figure 8-1: Organizational Chart

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 43

9 References

Table 9-1: NMR References Reference #1 Reference #2 Reference #3 Name Laura Martel Lisa Skumatz Nicole Cadek Organization Efficiency Maine Skumatz Economic Research Nova Scotia Power, Inc. Associates Phone (207) 213-4143 (303) 494-1178 (902) 428-6735 Email laura.martel@efficiencymaine. [email protected] [email protected] com Position Research and Data Analyst Evaluation consultant to Performance Development Connecticut Energy Manager Efficiency Board Relevant Efficiency Maine Low Income Connecticut HES and HES- NSP Evaluation Project(s) Multifamily Program IE evaluation Evaluation

Table 9-2: EFG References Reference #1 Reference #2 Reference #3 Name Elizabeth Titus Gaye Symington Jake Marin Organization Northeast Energy Efficiency High Meadows Fund Vermont Energy Investment Partnerships Corp. / Efficiency Vermont Phone 781-860-9177 802-388-3355 x247 802-658-6060 x.7700 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Position Senior Research and Executive Director Program Manager for HVAC Evaluation Manager & Refrigeration Relevant NEEP Heat Pump Meta- Vermont Fuel Dealers and Development of Vermont’s Project(s) Study, New Hampshire Heat Contractors Research, High Cold Climate Heat Pump Pump Study Performance Homes Market Program Assessment

Table 9-3: SWA References Reference #1 Reference #2 Reference #3 Name Keith Miller David Roberts Dimple Gandhi Organization National Grid National Renewable PSEG Long Island Energy Laboratory Phone 781-907-2241 631-755-5310 631-755-5310 Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Position Products/Energy Services Senior Engineer Lead Analyst Relevant Project(s) Heat pump water heater Building America Heat PV Program evaluation evaluations Pump study

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Page 44

10 Conflict of Interest Disclosure EFG is currently under contract with the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation as a subcontractor in support of several small consulting projects, including Efficiency Vermont (EVT). The work order for EVT includes EFG support of limited and strategically focused projects (i.e., contractor support and a savings guarantee development) on the order of 100-150 hours per year. EFG has also recently been deemed qualified to work on EVT projects, but has had none assigned. EFG is on teams led by VEIC in support of the Rhode Island EERMC and on a DOE grant in partnership with New Hampshire to support building energy labeling. EFG agrees not to undertake additional contracts with VEIC/EVT or other Vermont EEUs during the project term without first being deemed free from conflict of interest by the PSD. After inquiring whether EFG would be eligible to bid on this evaluation, project manager Barry Murphy from the PSD responded on 1/5/2015: “I don’t see any conflict if you wish to respond to this RFP.” With funding from the U.S. DOE, SWA partnered with Efficiency Vermont to perform testing of heat pumps in eight Vermont homes that participated in the CEED program. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, NMR will analyze the metering data collected for these eight homes as described in Section 4.2.1.2.

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Appendix A-1

Appendix A Sample Report In this section, we provide the executive summary from the Evaluation of the Connecticut Ground Source Heat Pump program. The full report can be accessed at the following website: http://www.energizect.com/sites/default/files/CT%20GSHP%20Impact%20Eval%20and%20Mar ket%20Assessment%20%28R7%29%20-%20final%20report.pdf

NMR

Connecticut Ground Source Heat Pump Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment

FINAL – Study R7

6/3/2014

Submitted to: Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board Connecticut Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority

Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. DNV GL

Project Oversight: CT EEB Evaluation Committee and Evaluation Consultant Scott Dimetrosky, Apex Analytics, with assistance from Lisa Skumatz, SERA and Lori Megdal, AEC

50-2 Howard Street, Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page I

Executive Summary NMR and its partner, DNV GL, (henceforth referred to as the evaluation team) performed an evaluation of the Connecticut Residential Geothermal Heat Pump Program and a market assessment of residential ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) in Connecticut. The GSHP program, administered by the Connecticut Energy Financing and Investment Authority (CEFIA) and the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (CEEF), has provided incentives since 2009 to homeowners and businesses that install qualifying GSHPs. We refer to the two programs collectively as “the GSHP program.” In April 2012, CEFIA exhausted their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for the GSHP program and discontinued incentives, although CEEF continues to offer incentives. Residential customers of Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating were required to apply for both CEFIA and CEEF incentives while the CEFIA program was active. It is important to note that homeowners could also receive 30% of the total project cost in federal tax credits. The objectives of the study include the following: • To quantify energy and peak demand savings of the Connecticut GSHP program • To quantify improvements in air quality • To assess the GSHP program for potential improvements • To assess the market for GSHPs in Connecticut The following tasks were undertaken in order to address these objectives. • Short-term on-site metering at 40 participating homes, including 21 existing homes and 19 new construction homes o Long-term on-site metering at a subset of 10 homes • Assessment of system design including an analysis of Manual J sizing as well as field and loop sizing • Analysis of energy and demand savings using DOE-2 energy models • Analysis of emission reductions • Telephone surveys with 100 participating customers • In-depth telephone interviews with 10 participating contractors The evaluation team utilized the data collected from the 40 on-site homes to develop two prototype DOE-2 energy models: one for existing homes and one for new construction. The CEFIA program and the CEEF program each assume that their incentives influence different components of the project and, consequently, they assume different baseline scenarios. The CEFIA incentive encouraged an upgrade to a standard GSHP system, while the CEEF incentive encouraged an upgrade to a high efficiency GSHP system.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page II

Each of the two prototype homes were analyzed using two baseline scenarios, as described below: • CEFIA baseline: This scenario represents the baseline conditions assumed by CEFIA for its portion of the GSHP program, which include a typical AC unit plus an oil hot water boiler. CEFIA analyzed emission savings for program planning purposes, but did not claim any savings. • CEEF baseline: This scenario represents the baseline conditions assumed by CEEF for its portion of the GSHP program—an ENERGY STAR Tier 1 water-to-air GSHP system. The CEEF program claims the energy savings that exceed this baseline level. The upgrade scenario for each baseline was the same—the as-observed participating program home. This section provides an overview of the key findings from the study.

Gross Energy and Demand Savings • For a typical existing home, the gross annual savings for CEFIA include over 800 gallons of oil in conjunction with increased electricity usage of about 6,500 kWh. During heating mode, the electricity consumption increases because the baseline oil boiler used a relatively small amount of electricity for the circulating pump, burner motor, and controls in comparison to the GSHP system. A similar rationale applies to the cooling mode as well; a central air conditioning system does not include pumps, which contributes to negative cooling savings. Peak CEFIA demand savings per home are estimated to be 0.66 kW in the summer and -2.9 kW in the winter (Table ES-1). • The gross annual electricity savings for CEEF is about 2,200 kWh for a typical existing home. In addition, peak demand savings per home are estimated to be 0.34 kW in the summer and 0.5 kW in the winter.

Table ES-1: Annual Gross Electric and Oil Savings per Existing Home1 Electric Savings Oil Savings CEFIA CEEF CEFIA Electric Savings Oil Savings Savings Savings Savings Summer Coinc. Dmd. kW 0.66 0.34 Annual Gallons 804 Winter Coinc. Dmd. kW -2.9 0.5 Heating Mode Gallons 804 Annual kWh -6,554 2,206 Cooling Mode Gallons 0 Heating Mode kWh -6,412 1,641 Heating Gal/SF 0.30 Cooling Mode kWh -142 566 Cooling Gal/SF 0 Heating kWh/SF -2.4 0.62

Cooling kWh/SF -0.053 0.212

1 The CEFIA and CEEF savings values differ because each program utilized different baseline assumptions.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page III

• Similar to an existing home, the CEFIA savings for a typical new home include substantial oil savings, but negative electricity savings. Annual electricity usage increased by about 6,500 kWh (again, due to the low electricity usage of the baseline oil boiler), though oil usage decreased by over 700 gallons. In addition, peak demand savings per home are estimated to be 1.13 kW in the summer and -2.9 kW in the winter (Table ES-2). • Gross annual CEEF electricity savings are about 3,700 kWh for a typical new home. Peak demand savings per home are estimated to be 0.48 kW in the summer and 0.90 kW in the winter.

Table ES-2: Annual Gross Electric and Oil Savings per New Construction Home1 Electric Savings Oil Savings CEFIA CEEF CEFIA Electric Savings Oil Savings Savings Savings Savings Summer Coinc. Dmd. kW 1.13 0.48 Annual Gallons 723 Winter Coinc. Dmd. kW -2.9 0.90 Heating Mode Gallons 723 Annual kWh -6,539 3,681 Cooling Mode Gallons 0 Heating Mode kWh -5,798 2,791 Heating Gal/SF 0.16 Cooling Mode kWh -741 890 Cooling Gal/SF 0 Heating kWh/SF -1.3 0.61

Cooling kWh/SF -0.161 0.193

1 The CEFIA and CEEF savings values differ because each program utilized different baseline assumptions • Overall, each program home yields annual gross savings of between 79,000 to over 90,000 thousand British thermal units (MBTUs) for CEFIA and nearly 7,500 to over 12,500 MBTUs for CEEF. The gross annual energy savings per home in terms of MBTUs is shown in Table ES-3, including both electric and oil savings. All of the CEFIA energy savings result from reduced oil usage, while all of the CEEF energy savings result from reduced electricity usage. Except for the cooling mode of the CEFIA option, the annual energy savings are all positive.

Table ES-3: DOE-2 Gross Annual Energy Savings Per Home (MBTU/yr) Existing Home New Construction Home

CEFIA CEEF CEFIA CEEF Metric Savings Savings Savings Savings Annual MBTU1 90,616 7,528 79,270 12,559 Heating Mode MBTU 91,099 5,598 81,853 9,522 Cooling Mode MBTU -484 1,930 -2,527 3,037 Heating MBTU/SF 34.2 2.10 17.8 2.07 Cooling MBTU/SF -0.18 0.72 -0.55 0.66

1 The savings represent the sum of electric and oil savings.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page IV

• The evaluated electricity savings exceed the CEEF program tracking system estimates. The CEEF realization rate for annual electricity savings is 1.52 for existing homes and 3.53 for new construction (Table ES-4). While a detailed review of the CEEF program tracking estimates was beyond the scope of this study, the evaluation team did conduct a high-level review of the savings estimates. Based upon this review, it appears that the GSHP hours of operation assumed in the CEEF tracking system were lower than those observed in the field by the evaluation team.

Table ES-4: Gross CEEF Electric Savings Realization Rates Evaluated CEEF CL&P Tracking Baseline Savings System Savings Per Gross CEEF Per Participant Participant Realization Type of Home (Annual kWh) (Annual kWh) Rate Existing Home 2,206 1,454 1.52 New Construction 3,681 1,044 3.53

Gross Air Quality Improvements • The average program home yielded emission savings of between 8,000 and 11,000 pounds per year for CEFIA, entirely due to carbon savings from reduced heating oil usage (Table ES-5). A complete description, including the conversion factors, is presented in Section 3.

Table ES-5: CEFIA Gross Air Quality Savings New Existing Construction Metric Home Home (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Electricity CO2 -7,584 -7,566 CH4 -404 -403 NO2 -95 -94 Residential Fuel Oil CO2 18,223 16,385 Net CO2 Emissions 10,639 8,819

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page V

• The CEFIA program tracking data overestimated the annual CO2 emissions, yielding a realization rate of 0.48 and 0.33 for existing homes and new construction, respectively (Table ES-6). For NO2, the DOE-2 models estimated an increase in emissions rather than the decrease indicated by the CEFIA data, resulting in a realization rate of -0.57 and -0.45 for existing homes and new construction, respectively.

Table ES-6: Gross CEFIA Emission Savings Realization Rate Evaluated CEFIA CEFIA Tracking CEFIA Baseline Annual System Estimates Baseline Emissions per per Participant Realization Metric Participant (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Rate Existing Home CO2 10,640 22,265 0.48 NO2 (95) 168 -0.57 New Construction CO2 8,819 26,740 0.33 NO2 (94) 209 -0.45

Program Influence The homeowner surveys revealed the following findings regarding the influence of the GSHP program. • Program Net-to-Gross (NTG) ratios are modest. The evaluation team estimated NTG ratios and found the following results (see Figure ES-1): o The average overall NTG ratio for all participants, including all incentives (CEEF, CEFIA, and federal tax credit), is 0.71. The estimated NTG value for the CEFIA incentive alone is 0.27, for CEEF alone is 0.17, and for the federal tax credit is 0.27. o As might be expected, average overall NTG ratios are higher for those that received federal tax credits (0.75) than those that did not (0.53). In addition, the CEFIA and CEEF NTG ratios are lower for participants who received tax credits (0.25 and 0.16, respectively) than for the participants who did not (0.33 and 0.20, respectively) because, without the federal tax credit, CEFIA and CEEF represent all of the available incentives. o The CEFIA NTG ratios are higher than CEEF NTG ratios for both retrofit and new construction projects. This difference probably reflects the notable difference in incentive sizes (on average, over $4,000). o Overall NTG ratios are lower for new construction projects (0.63) than for retrofit projects (0.77). This is likely because owners of existing homes must choose to replace their existing equipment, whereas owners of new homes must install a new heating system, regardless of program incentives.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page VI

Figure ES-1: Average Net-to-Gross Ratios, by Project Type

• The relative amounts of the incentives, the high cost of the GSHP systems, and the high incomes of participants may all contribute to the modest NTG ratios. The evaluation team believes that there are three primary reasons why the CEFIA and CEEF NTG values are fairly low. o CEFIA and CEEF NTG values among tax credit recipients are lower than those among non-recipients likely due to the fact that, on average, federal tax credits are nearly double the combined sum of CEFIA and CEEF incentives. As a result, the incentives may decline in importance when juxtaposed with the much larger tax credits. o The evaluation team estimates that, on average, CEFIA incentives may represent between 11% and 13% of the total installation cost, and CEEF incentives may represent 3% to 4% of the total installation cost. When rebates represent relatively small shares of total project costs—especially among very expensive projects (estimated $42,000 to $51,000, on average) 2 —they likely do not carry great importance in the decision to install. o Program participants have considerably higher incomes than typical residents in Connecticut: nearly three-quarters of homeowner respondents (72%) report annual incomes of $100,000 or greater, whereas only one-third of households in Connecticut (33%) have incomes of $100,000 or greater. If homeowners have the

2 Note that, for new construction projects, the incremental cost of upgrading to a GSHP, rather than the total project cost, would be the appropriate total cost. See Appendix B for details on the project cost scenarios.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page VII

financial resources to install equipment without incentives, the importance of the incentives may be lower than otherwise. In addition, it is likely that the purchase of most new homes was financed, thus further reducing the cost barrier for a GSHP system for this segment of the market. • While contractors were not specifically asked about program attribution, their feedback tends to support the findings of the homeowner survey. Five of the ten interviewed contractors asserted, unprompted, that the program incentives have been a crucial element in customers’ final decision to install a GSHP system, especially in combination with the federal tax credit. Three contractors noted that the disappearance of the CEFIA incentive slowed down their business.

Net Energy Savings For several reasons, we recommend applying the overall NTG ratio, rather than the NTG ratio for each individual incentive, to estimate net savings. First, homeowners are most likely to collectively consider the aggregate impact of all three incentives rather than any single incentive. In addition, the CEEF baseline accounts for only a portion of the overall savings, whereas the NTG ratios were estimated for the entire GSHP system as a whole, which further complicates the calculation. Because CEFIA does not claim any savings from the GSHP program, we only estimate net savings for the CEEF program (Table ES-7).

Table ES-7: Net Electric Savings for CEEF Baseline Gross CEEF Net CEEF Baseline Baseline Savings Savings Per Per Participant Overall Participant Home Type (Annual kWh) NTG Ratio (Annual kWh) Existing 2,206 0.77 1,699 New Construction 3,681 0.63 2,319

System Sizing & Performance • Ground source heat pumps are sized to meet homes’ largest space conditioning requirements. In Connecticut, the dominant residential space conditioning requirement is for heating. Therefore, the system sizing analysis focuses on determining if the units were properly sized to meet the heating loads of the homes. • The systems, on average, are slightly oversized for heating loads. According to the Manual J calculations, the sampled participant homes had an average heating sizing ratio of 1.21 for newly constructed homes and 1.24 for existing homes, both of which slightly exceed standard practice. However, 11 of the 21 existing homes and 9 of the 17 newly constructed homes exceeded a heating sizing ratio of 1.20. Table ES-8 shows the Manual J results.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page VIII

Table ES-8: Manual J Load Sizing Ratios Cooling Load Sizing Ratio Heating Load Sizing Ratio Home Type Avg Median Min Max Avg Median Min Max Existing Home 1.91 1.97 1.10 3.30 1.24 1.23 0.76 2.16 New Construction 1.81 1.87 1.06 2.92 1.21 1.21 0.84 2.22

• The systems appear to be performing somewhat below the manufacturer-rated efficiencies. The calculated field/rated performance ratio is 85% for existing homes and 91% for newly constructed homes (Table ES-9). This result is primarily due to differences in the operating conditions in the field compared to the manufacturers’ testing facilities. • However, the field-rated capacities of the systems appear to meet manufacturer ratings. The calculated field/rated capacity ratio is 99% for existing homes and 102% for newly constructed homes.

Table ES-9: GSHP System Field vs. Manufacturer Rated Performance3 Existing New Characteristic Homes Construction Cooling EER 85% 91% Heating COP 85% 91% Cooling BTUh 99% 102% Heating BTUh 99% 102%

• The recovery fields for the GSHP loops appear to be sized correctly. Determining the ratio of the heating capacities to the manufacturer-rated heat extraction rates revealed that three (8%) of the 38 sites were below 0.90 (with the lowest at 0.83), while 14 sites (34%) had ratios greater than 1.10, and the overall average for all sites was 1.12. In addition, an analysis performed in the DOE-2 models also indicated that the size of the recovery fields relative to the size of the ground loop was adequate. The calculated return water temperatures from the ground loop wells were consistent with those expected of properly performing deep well ground coupled systems during both the heating and cooling modes of operation.

3 Field rated efficiencies were based upon metered data collected during the on-site visits. The manufacturer efficiencies were based on the efficiency ratings for the equipment reported by the manufacturers’ on their websites.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page IX

Program Processes and Participation The contractor interviews and homeowner surveys revealed the following findings regarding participation in the GSHP program. • Contractors play an important part in disseminating program information to homeowners. Homeowners most commonly first learn about the GSHP program (not about GSHPs themselves) through their contractors (39% of respondents). In addition, most contractor interviewees report actively marketing the GSHP program. • Participation drivers. Nearly all homeowner survey respondents (94%) reported that they participated in the GSHP program in order to receive the program rebate. This finding is corroborated by the contractors, as nine of ten interviewees believe that homeowners participate in the program solely for the rebate. However, 6% of homeowners reported participating for the Verification of Installed Performance (VIP) report, 4 and another 6% cite the stamp of approval or certification. In light of the moderate NTG ratios found above, this suggests that, while most customers participate in the program for the incentive, some would have installed a GSHP in the absence of the program incentive. • Homeowners are generally satisfied with the GSHP program and their new GSHP systems. Homeowners provided average satisfaction ratings of 9.4 out of 10 for the new GSHP systems themselves and 9.1 for their participation in the program. • Contractors are somewhat satisfied with the GSHP program. On average, the ten contractors rated their overall satisfaction with the program as 6 out of 10. Many contractors consider it “a good program,” and three interviewees emphasized that they would like the CEFIA incentives to return. They commended the program on its effective distribution of incentives and the demeanor and diligence of program staff. • Contractor participation requirements are reasonable. Contractors largely believe that the program requirements regarding their eligibility—such as expectations regarding licensing, accreditation, insurance, and references—are reasonable. The contractor interviews and homeowner surveys revealed the following findings regarding the processes of the GSHP program. • The VIP report yields a mixed response. Some contractors (four of ten) believe that the technical details required by the VIP report are generally valuable to both perform and verify. In addition, the VIP report has changed the way some contractors (four of ten) are checking their installations. While some contractors find the VIP requirements reassuring, others find VIP reporting to be time consuming and frustrating. In particular, they believe that their VIP reports have been rejected because program staff considered

4 Participating contractors are required to complete and submit VIP reports, which document the operating performance of GSHP systems.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page X

that the reports’ data reflected that the systems were too efficient, program staff believed the formulas in the worksheet were incorrect, or program staff did not know how to interpret the data if they did not meet the staff’s expectations. In some instances, contractors report altering their practices to make systems less efficient in order to meet program requirements. This feedback likely refers to the VIP requirement that systems perform within 15% of AHRI-rated efficiency and capacity levels. Some contractors recommend that the program adjust its specifications to accept projects where the systems achieve greater efficiency than the VIP report allows. • Contractors unanimously report using Manual J to determine system size, as required by the GSHP program. Some contractors find that customers often want systems that are larger than necessary, but they try to steer homeowners toward more appropriate systems that will properly and efficiently heat and cool their homes. • Contractors believe program staff require more technical knowledge. Despite some contractors’ praise for program staff, others are troubled by their perception that program staff appear to have little technical knowledge and training regarding GSHP systems. They would advise the program to focus on staff training and development around geothermal technology and require that the inspectors obtain more rigorous licensing accreditations. • Other program complaints include paperwork, funding, and coordination. Contractors list other frustrations, including: (1) too much program paperwork, (2) CEFIA mismanaged its waning program funds, (3) hassles in dealing with the review and involvement of the State Historic Preservation Office,5 and (4) insufficient coordination of program administration between CEFIA and CEEF. • The program does not appear to be overlooking any savings opportunities. According to five of the ten contractors interviewed, the program is not missing any savings opportunities in program homes. They underscore the relevance of Home Energy Solutions (HES) testing requirements for existing homes because it is inefficient to install a GSHP in a home with inadequate insulation and air sealing. The other five contractors believe the program might be missing savings opportunities because the rigorous HES efficiency standards and project pre-approval requirements may discourage participants, the ineligibility of open loop GSHP systems, and the lack of a requirement for desuperheaters. • Program eligibility does not appear to influence system efficiency levels. Contractor interviewees indicated that the program eligibility requirements for the GSHP systems (ENERGY STAR Tier 1) do not influence the efficiency levels of the heat pumps they sell. Interviewees explained that they only offer eligible systems to their customers,

5 Because ARRA funding supported the CEFIA program, SHPO review was required for sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page XI

regardless of the program. Most contractors believe that the program requirements for home eligibility, such as HES testing, are reasonable. • Few program-eligible GSHPs appear to be installed outside of the program. Some contractor interviewees report installing systems during the program period that did not receive rebates because they were ineligible due to the home failing to meet energy efficiency requirements as well as installations beginning before receiving program approval. Only one interviewee has been involved in projects that qualified for the program yet had not participated—this contractor found that a small number of customers chose not to go through the program in order to receive a larger federal tax credit. • The GSHP program appears to have improved the building shell efficiency of only a portion of the participating homes, according to homeowners. Eighty percent of the owners of newly constructed homes believe that their homes would have likely met ENERGY STAR standards if the GSHP program had not required them to do so. In addition, two-thirds (64%) of owners of existing homes think they would have likely made the upgrades required to pass the HES requirements if the program did not require it. Note that the building shell savings are not claimed by the GSHP program; rather, the shell savings for new homes are claimed by the Residential New Construction program, and the shell savings for existing homes are claimed by the HES program.

Market Assessment The contractor interviews and homeowner surveys revealed the following findings regarding the market for GSHPs in Connecticut. • Contractors perceive a large opportunity for residential GSHPs in Connecticut. Contractors interviewed see tremendous opportunity for installing GSHPs in Connecticut, estimating that about one-half of existing homes (51%) and nearly all newly constructed homes (96%) are good candidates. They explained that most newly constructed homes have adequate weatherization and land available to install GSHPs, whereas fewer existing homes are good candidates because of limited insulation, leaky air sealing, and the greater likelihood of an existing connection to natural gas service. • However, contractors’ expectations vary for Connecticut’s GSHP market in the coming years. Some contractor interviewees noted that the availability of variable speed compressors is increasing GSHP efficiency, though others expect that advances in GSHP efficiency will plateau over the next few years. Some interviewees anticipate installations will decrease or flatten in the coming years given the disappearance of federal tax credits in 2017, yet others believe sales will increase due to growing awareness. Further, some contractors predict that system prices will increase due to improved efficiency, while others think prices will remain relatively stable. • Participants are primarily motivated to install GSHPs due to energy concerns. The primary motivations of homeowner survey respondents to install GSHPs include the

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page XII

desire to save energy (36%), reduce energy costs (23%), and help the environment/reduce their carbon footprint (21%). Contractor responses underscore these motivations—they find that customers are primarily motivated to install GSHPs in order to save on operating costs. However, contractors noted other motivators as well, including homeowners’ concerns for the environment, federal tax credit funding opportunities, and the increasing price of oil and propane. • More than one-half of participants had concerns about installing a GSHP, primarily regarding reliability. Fifty-three percent of homeowner survey respondents reported that they had concerns prior to installing a GSHP; most commonly (53%), they cited concerns about reliability. Contractors explained that homeowners often express confusion and skepticism around the function and reliability of the systems. However, all ten contractors said that the upfront cost is generally the largest barrier preventing homeowners from installing GSHPs. Both homeowners and contractors referenced the inconveniences of installation; for example, owners of existing homes are concerned with disrupting their landscaping and interior décor. • Word of mouth is the most common method of learning about GSHPs. Homeowner survey respondents are most likely to first learn about GSHPs through word of mouth (35%). Contractors also reported that word of mouth is a major component of their marketing strategy. Contractors said they also conduct active marketing at various events and through professional networks. • Homeowner respondents find the level of energy efficiency of their new GSHPs to be notably high. On average, participants rated the efficiency of their new GSHP system as 9.0 out of 10. In comparison, respondents who conducted retrofit projects believe their old systems were only somewhat efficient, having an average rating of 5.0. • Survey respondents feel comfortable in their homes now that the GSHP is installed. On average, they rated their level of comfort as 9.5 out of 10. On the contrary, owners of existing homes, on average, were less comfortable in their homes prior to the installation of the GSHPs, rating their previous comfort level as 6.8.

Discussion and Recommendations In this section, we discuss some of the key findings of the evaluation and present some recommendations to consider. Participating customers provided universally positive feedback about the program, while participating contractors had mixed reactions. However, several contractors would like to see the CEFIA incentives return, noting that their GSHP sales have decreased since CEFIA funding was exhausted. The evaluation identified several issues to consider for the CEFIA incentive, if it returns, and the CEEF incentive, which is still offered for existing homes. • Several participating contractors believe that the program staff and inspectors are not sufficiently knowledgeable about GSHP systems to perform their duties in an effective

NMR Connecticut GSHP Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment – REVISED DRAFT Page XIII

manner. However, it is unclear whether the contractors were referring to CEFIA or CEEF program staff. Based on feedback provided by CL&P and UI, it appears that some CEEF program staff are certified by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association.6 Nonetheless, consider advanced training in GSHP design, installation, and performance for program staff, particularly if the CEFIA incentive returns. • Several contractors believe that the VIP reporting requirements are not sufficiently adaptable to allow for the unique conditions that may exist in some homes. In particular, some contractors reported that their systems exceeded allowable efficiency levels. Therefore, consider redesigning the VIP spreadsheet to allow for more flexibility. • Some contractors noted that effective coordination between CEFIA and CEEF was sometimes lacking. If the CEFIA incentive returns in the future, consider ways in which the program could be offered more seamlessly to both contractors and customers. • If funding becomes available, consider reintroducing the CEFIA incentive in 2017 after the federal tax credit expires on December 31, 2016. At that point, demand for GSHPs may have peaked as customers rush to install systems before the tax credit expires. However, customer demand for GSHPs may drop substantially in 2017 unless the federal tax credit is extended or the system costs have declined such that the GSHP market is more sustainable. • If the CEFIA incentive is offered again in the future, consider revising the CEFIA baseline assumptions to accommodate those participants who would choose a natural gas or propane heating system (for new construction in particular) in the absence of the GSHP program.

6 http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/

NMR Proposal to Evaluate Vermont Heat Pump Programs Appendix B-1

Appendix B Resumes

NMR Thomas Mauldin, Director EDUCATION M.S., Ecology & Environmental Sciences with a concentration in Resource Economics & Policy, University of Maine 1998 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Rutgers University 1993 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group (formerly Nexus Market Research), South Portland, Maine Director 2011 – Present Senior Project Manager 2008 – 2011 Project Manager 2004 - 2008 DNV GL (formerly KEMA-XENERGY), Burlington, Massachusetts Project Manager 2001 – 2004 Research Analyst 1998 - 2001 University of Maine, Orono, Maine Research Assistant, Department of Resource Economics & Policy 1996 – 1998 Kearfott Corporation, Little Falls, NJ Senior Engineer 1993 - 1996 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Appliances. Efficiency Maine. Managed a process and impact evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Appliance Rebate Program. The process evaluation included in-depth telephone interviews with staff and participating retailers; the impact evaluation included telephone surveys with participating customers and on-site visits to homes in order to collect data and install metering equipment to measure usage. Appliances. Vermont Department of Public Service. Managed a study to assess the condition of the Vermont market for ENERGY STAR appliances. Also evaluated the performance of Efficiency Vermont appliance programs. Tasks included the design, implementation, and analysis of surveys with retail store managers, mystery shoppers, and home audits. In addition, collected and analyzed thousands of lighting and appliance sales records from retail stores. Ground Source Heat Pumps. Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Managed a process and impact evaluation of a program that provides customer incentives towards the installation of ground source heat pumps. The impact evaluation includes site visits, short-term metering,

NMR Mauldin Resume Page 2

long-term metering, and DOE2 modeling. The process evaluation includes contractor interviews and participant surveys. Homes – Existing. Vermont Department of Public Service. Managed two baseline studies of the existing homes market in Vermont which included interviews with homeowners, HVAC contractors, insulation contractors, and remodelers, as well as onsite inspections of hundreds of homes. Homes – Existing. Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Assessed the impacts of an enhanced pilot Home Performance with Energy Star program. Tasks included telephone surveys with program participants and in-depth interviews with program contractors. Lighting – Residential. Wisconsin Department of Public Service. Managed the evaluation of the Focus on Energy ENERGY STAR lighting program, which included telephone surveys with residents, as well as onsite inspections. This data fed into a multi-state modeling analysis in order to assess the effect of the program on CFL purchases in Wisconsin. In addition, analyzed sales data in order to estimate net savings and calculated annual and lifetime savings for CFLs. Lighting – Residential. Consumers Energy. Managed the evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Lighting program since 2009. Current research tasks include a benchmarking and best practices study of lighting programs and analysis of market-level sales data. Past work included a delphi panel to estimate net-to-gross ratio, focus groups of residential customers, telephone surveys and onsite visits with households, interviews with program staff, manufacturers, retailers, and industry experts, a shelf survey of retailers, as well as a literature review regarding incandescent phaseouts. Lighting – Residential. Efficiency Maine. Currently managing a process and impact evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Lighting program. Process evaluation tasks include in- depth telephone interviews with staff and participating manufacturers and retailers. Impact evaluation tasks include telephone surveys with participating customers, on-site visits to homes to install lighting loggers, and a price elasticity analysis to measure the net-to-gross ratio. Lighting – Residential. Vermont Department of Public Service. Managed a study regarding the purchases of CFLs in Vermont in order to estimate a statewide Net-to-Gross ratio for the lighting program. Low-Income Multifamily Buildings – Residential. Efficiency Maine. Conducting a process and impact evaluation of a low-income multifamily weatherization program. Process evaluation tasks include interviews with program staff and property managers as well telephone surveys with tenants. The impact evaluation includes the collection of billing data from participants and a subsequent billing analysis in order estimate energy savings.

NMR Mauldin Resume Page 3

New Construction – Residential. Vermont Department of Public Service. Managed two baseline studies of the new homes market in Vermont, which included interviews with homeowners, HVAC contractors, insulation contractors, and builders, as well as onsite inspections of hundreds of homes and an assessment of code compliance. Power Monitors - Residential. Vermont Department of Public Service. Managed a process evaluation of a program that offered discounted power use monitors to residential customers. Tasks included staff interviews and telephone surveys with participating and non- participating customers. Weatherization Baseline Study. Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Advised a baseline study of the weatherization status of single-family homes in Connecticut. RECENT PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ‘How Upstream Lighting Programs Are Affecting Markets for Standard CFLs in the U.S.: Lessons from Michigan’ Proceedings of the 2014 International Energy Policies & Programmes Evaluation Conference, Berlin, Germany. September 2014 (with N. Wobus, J. Steiner, C. McDonald, J. Meurice, and A. Jaworoski). ‘Fixture, Fixture, in the Hall, Which Bulb is the Fairest of Them All?’ Proceedings of the 23rd Association of Energy Service Professionals National Conference, Orlando, FL. January 2013 (with Steve Cofer and Ellen Rubinstein). ‘Motivating Residential Customers: Is More Money Really the Answer?’ Proceedings of the 2011 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Boston, MA. August 2011 (with Laura Schauer and Carrie Koenig). ‘Do Homeowners Know How Efficient Their Homes Are?’ Proceedings of the 2009 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Portland, OR. August 2009 (with D. Conant and M. Kushler). ‘Do ENERGY STAR Homes Programs Make a Difference? Comparison of Baseline Studies in Two States—One with and One without a Residential New Construction Program.’ Proceedings of the 2009 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Portland, OR. August 2009 (with D. Conant, L. Badger and R. Faesy).

NMR Ferit Ucar, Senior Quantitative Analyst EDUCATION Ph.D., Economics, Princeton University 2008 B.S., Mathematics, Koc University 2002 B.A., Economics, Koc University 2002 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group, Inc. Somerville, Massachusetts Senior Quantitative Analyst 2014-Present APPRISE, Princeton, New Jersey Senior Project Director 2013 Project Director 2008-2013 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Teaching Assistant/Lecturer 2004-2008 Sage Publications, London, UK Editorial Assistant, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 2000-2002 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Clean Energy Programs. Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF), which was established in 2005 with a principal goal of increasing the development and deployment of cost-effective clean energy resources in Vermont while also stimulating economic development from clean energy. Dr. Ucar is currently leading the impact assessment of the CEDF programs since its inception. The impact assessment consists of an analysis of CEDF project-level data to estimate energy, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as a qualitative estimate of net impacts through a review of recent evaluations of renewable energy programs and interviews with program participants, market actors, and contractors. State Usage Reduction Programs. Maine Low Income Multifamily Weatherization Program. Dr. Ucar is currently leading the impact evaluation of this program, which was administered by the Efficiency Maine Trust and installed energy efficiency measures including ductless heat pumps, air sealing, and insulation in qualified electrically- and gas- heated multifamily properties in Maine over several years. The impact evaluation includes the measurement and verification of gross and net program energy and demand savings, and an assessment of cost-effectiveness at the measure, building, and program level.

NMR Ucar Resume Page 2

Federal Usage Reduction Programs. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Dr. Ucar served as the task manager in a multi-year, national process and impact evaluation of WAP. Managed the development and maintenance of the databases for data collection from 50 states and the District of Columbia, 400 local agencies, and over 1,000 gas and electric utility companies. Oversaw the migration of data from the state program tracking databases, contributed to billing data analysis to estimate energy and cost savings, and developed information on the eligible population for weatherization services and the targeting of program services to the priority groups. Designed the sample frames, selected the samples of agencies, utility companies, and clients. Estimated the non-energy benefits of the program associated with avoided emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. Utility Usage Reduction Programs. PECO Low Income Usage Reduction Program (LIURP). Dr. Ucar served as the lead analyst for the annual evaluation of LIURP for a number of years, which provided energy efficiency services to low income customers in Pennsylvania. Reviewed and analyzed data from the program tracking database. Analyzed billing data and developed estimates of energy and cost savings of the program. Developed regression models to estimate measure-level savings and to assess cost effectiveness of different measures. Analyzed survey data from the energy education survey to measure the extent to which the energy education provided as part of the program was effective. Economic Modeling. Massachusetts Cross-Cutting Research Area Evaluation. Dr. Ucar developed a macro-economic (top-down) modeling approach to estimate the total, net impact of energy efficiency programs administered by the Massachusetts utilities in the state for both residential and non-residential sectors. This top-down technique uses a holistic approach by estimating program impacts across all energy-efficiency programs in a geographical region or service territory rather than running separate studies for each program (or measure/end-use within a program). The goal of this modeling was to isolate the effect of energy efficiency program activity from other natural changes and policy variables using macro-level data.

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS “Comparison of Pooled and Household Level Usage Impact Analysis.” Paper presented at the International Energy Program Evaluation Conference in Chicago, IL, August 2013. With Jacqueline Berger. “Energy Insecurity: Lessons from the RECS and SIPP." Presentation at the National Energy and Utility Affordability Conference in New Orleans, LA, June 2012.” With David Carroll. “Large Commercial New Construction Market Profiling.” Poster presented at the International Energy Program Evaluation Conference in Boston, MA, August 2011. With Ryan Barry and Andrew Wood.

NMR Andrew W. Correia, Quantitative Analyst EDUCATION Ph.D., Biostatistics, Harvard University 2013 A.M., Biostatistics, Harvard University 2010 B.A., Mathematics, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 2008 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group, Inc., Somerville, Massachusetts Quantitative Analyst 2013-Present Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA Statistical Consultant 2012-Present Harvard University Department of Biostatistics, Boston, MA Teaching Assistant 2009-2012 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA Teaching Assistant, Grader, Tutor 2006-2008 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Point-of-Sale Study, Massachusetts. Led statistical analysis of multi-state panel data to determine the impact of state-level program activity on state-level efficient bulb sales, and estimated corresponding net-to-gross ratios. Program-attributable savings estimates were obtained for all efficient bulbs, CFLs only, and LEDs only by fitting a series of random- effects regression models to isolate the impact of program activity while controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors. Top-Down Modeling Methods Study, Multiple Sponsors. Data management and model development for current study investigating the role that top-down modeling approaches should play in net energy impact evaluation, and what forms those models should take – particularly how to specify lagged energy consumption and program variables in these longitudinal regression models. Regional Hours of Use, Multiple Sponsors. Led statistical analysis of study estimating lighting hours of use (HOU) for the Northeast region of the U.S. – specifically in MA, CT, RI, and NY (upstate and downstate). Developed multi-level hierarchical Bayesian models that provide adjusted HOU estimates for the entire Northeast region while also providing separate HOU estimates for each state. Estimates at the state level are strengthened by incorporating information from other states via the hierarchical modeling approach,

NMR Correia Resume Page 2

providing better estimates for certain states, and in particular in some sub-categories within certain states, that might otherwise have a smaller than ideal sample size. Residential New Construction, National Grid. Led statistical analysis of Delphi panel study to determine the net savings attributable to a new residential construction program. Using bootstrapping techniques, determined the appropriate number of REM/Rate model runs based on Delphi panel recommendations needed to accurately estimate baseline energy consumption in order to calculate net savings, and developed a resampling procedure to randomly generate REM/Rate model inputs for those model runs based on the Delphi panel survey results. Behavioral Modification – Residential Billing Analysis, FirstEnergy Pennsylvania. Data management, statistical modeling, and reporting of the billing analysis for the first year of a behavioral project in which households in the participant treatment group received monthly home energy reports comparing their energy usage to that of their neighbors, and suggesting behavioral modifications to save energy/money. Billing analysis consisted of fixed effects linear regression on panel data for over 575,000 study participants. EPA STAR Grant Air Pollution Research – Lead Author, Conducted multi-site, national studies to determine the impact of fine-particle air pollution on life expectancy in the United States; developed novel statistical methods; edited, cleaned, and merged large data sets from multiple sources; performed statistical analyses; prepared manuscripts for publication; helped supervise undergraduate research in the field. FAA/Partner Research, Project 44 – Co-Lead Author, Conducted the first national-scale investigation of health impacts of airport noise in the United States; linked Medicare patient data to noise contours surrounding 89 airports in the contiguous U.S.; was responsible for statistical model development, statistical analyses, data collection and preparation, and manuscript preparation. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Cheng S, Claggett B, Correia AW, Shah AM, Gupta D, Skali H, Ni H, Rosamond WD, Heiss G, Folsom AR, Coresh J, Solomon SD. Temporal trends in the population attributable risk for cardiovascular disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Circulation, 2014;130:820-828. Correia AW, Peters JL, Levy JI, Melly S, Dominici F. Residential exposure to aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases: a multi-airport retrospective study. BMJ. 2013;347:f5561. *ISEE Honorable Mention – Best Environmental Epidemiology Paper of 2013. Correia AW, Pope CA III, Dockery DW, Wang Y, Ezzati M, Dominici F. The effect of air pollution control on life expectancy in the United States: An analysis of 545 U.S. counties for the period 2000 to 2007. Epidemiology. 2013;24(1):23-31. *NIEHS extramural paper of the month, March 2013.

NMR Joanne O’Donnell, Research Analyst EDUCATION M.A., Energy and Environmental Analysis, Boston University 2006 B.A., Environmental Analysis and Policy; Political Science, Boston University 2006 Accelerated 5-year BA/MA Joint Degree Program WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group (formerly Nexus Market Research), Somerville, Massachusetts Research Analyst 2013 – Present Opinion Dynamics Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Project Analyst 2012 - 2013 Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA Program Manager 2011 – 2012 Senior Program Associate 2009 – 2011 Program Associate 2006 – 2009 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Multifamily Low-Income Weatherization Program, Efficiency Maine. Collected and reviewed electric usage data for properties that participated in a low-income multifamily weatherization program for the purposes of conducting a billing analysis. Helped to develop and implement a telephone survey to gauge tenant experiences with the weatherization upgrades performed at participating properties. Residential and Multifamily – National State Energy Program Evaluation, U.S Department of Energy. Evaluated several SEP and ARRA-funded multifamily and residential retrofit programs. Identified evaluable projects, collected and analyzed program data provided by State Energy Offices, conducted in-depth interviews, developed samples, oversaw CATI surveys and analyzed related data, and utilized a Standard Calculation Tool to perform energy savings calculations on rebated measures. Residential and Multifamily – HVAC, NV Energy. Conducted a participant survey with multifamily and residential customers as part of a process evaluation for the NV Energy 2013 Residential High Efficiency AC Program. Program measures included both heating and cooling technologies. Conducted data analysis and reporting with a focus on issues related to program design and implementation and customer satisfaction.

NMR O’Donnell Resume Page 2

Residential – Lighting, Ohio FirstEnergy. Developed interview guides and conducted in- depth interviews with program staff, implementers, and residential lighting retailers in Ohio as part of a process evaluation for the Ohio FirstEnergy Lighting Rebate and Markdown Program. Conducted data analysis and reporting with a focus on issues related to program design, implementation, marketing, sales volume, and customer satisfaction. Green Jobs Green New York – Jobs Impact Assessment, New York State Energy and Research Development Authority. Conducted in-depth interviews with Community Based Organizations, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR lenders, and other entities helping to deliver the program; analyzed data from in-depth interviews and CATI survey data to calculate related green jobs impacts created or sustained by the program, and drafted final report for client. Residential Regional Hours of Use Study – Lighting, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York Program Administrators. Assisted with an onsite saturation study and estimation of the hours of use of light bulbs in homes to add to the evaluation of energy- efficiency programs in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York (NYSERDA). Tasks included data review, cleaning, and input for on-site assessments that focus on installed lighting and stored lighting in residential applications. Energy Sector Evaluations, Opinion Dynamics Corporation. Performed program evaluations of state and utility energy efficiency programs in the multifamily, residential, and commercial sectors. Helped to design and conduct in-depth interviews with utility and state programs managers, implementers, and trade allies. Oversaw phone and internet surveys, including survey development, testing and monitoring, and data cleaning. Developed Net-to- Gross algorithms, and analyzed complex qualitative and quantitative data to develop process and impact finding with support of senior staff. Consensus Building, Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Built consensus among CEE program members around common efficiency specifications to help accelerate the market acceptance of energy efficient technologies and practices. Alliance Building, Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Fostered alliances with relevant industry players (trade associations, manufacturers, distributors, installers, retailers) in order to better understand and influence the market for efficient products and services. Natural Gas – Residential and Commercial Technologies, Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Recommended program design strategies to create a market presence for energy efficient natural gas end uses through assessing market conditions and energy savings opportunities. Program Planning Material Development, Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Authored initiative descriptions, market and technology assessments, efficiency specifications, and qualified products lists for use by efficiency programs in planning purposes. ENERGY STAR – Marketing, Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Developed toolkits, press releases, social media, quarterly articles for trade journals, an efficiency program

NMR O’Donnell Resume Page 3

database, and other educational collateral in support of a bi-national marketing campaign for the introduction of a new ENERGY STAR water heating label. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS O’Donnell, Joanne. 2012. “Boiling Down Complexity: Innovative Program Approaches to Optimize Efficient Commercial Boiler Systems.” Prepared on behalf of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and published in the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy 2012 Summer Study Proceedings. O’Donnell, Joanne. 2011. “CEE High Efficiency Water Heating Initiative Description”. Prepared on behalf of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Rodgers, Kara and Joanne O'Donnell. 2010. “Working Together to Transform the Market for Water Heating.” Prepared on behalf of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and published in the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 2010 Summer Study Proceedings. Rodgers, Kara and Joanne O'Donnell. 2008. “A Market Transformation Strategy for Gas- Fired Domestic Hot Water Heaters.” Prepared on behalf of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and published in the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 2008 Summer Study Proceedings. Rodgers, Kara and Joanne O'Donnell. 2008. “CEE High-Efficiency Residential Gas Water Heating Initiative Description. Prepared on behalf of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency.

NMR Jared Powell, Research Associate EDUCATION B.A., Political Science, Williams College 2006 M.S., Environmental Science, University of Massachusetts Boston 2014 CERTIFICATIONS Certified HERS Rater, RESNET 2011 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group, Inc. (formerly Nexus Market Research), Somerville, Massachusetts Research Associate 2011-Present Research Assistant 2009-2011 Harkins Cunningham, LLP, Washington, D.C. Senior Paralegal/Research Associate August 2006-August 2008 Williams College Center for Environmental Studies, Williamstown, Massachusetts Renewable Energy/Sustainable Architecture Research Intern 2006 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Market Effects—Multifamily Residential New Construction, CA Public Utilities Commission. Conducted market characterization; identified indicators of market effects and tested indicators via case studies.Researched program activities, code requirements, and other efficiency programs, with focus on low-income tax credit projects. Designed interview guides and conducted dozens of interviews with experts and individuals involved with case study projects, including developers, contractors, Title 24 code consultants, and investors. Created market and program logic models of program activities and potential market effects. Market Effects, NYSERDA. Analyzed process, impact, and market transformation evaluation reports to identify strategies for shifting to a market effects evaluation approach for selected programs, reporting on the market effects indicators that have been tracked by past evaluations. Conducted interviews and analyzed NYSERDA and Building Performance Institute records to assess market effects of NYSERDA’s investment in BPI over time. Market Characterization and Non-Energy Impacts—Residential Appliances¸ Massachusetts Sponsors. Developed sample, conducted interviews with market actors, and performed research to characterize the appliance disposal and resale markets, and analyzed the non-energy impacts of an appliance recycling program.

NMR Powell Resume Page 2

HERS Ratings—Residential. As a certified HERS Rater, performs diagnostic audits of buildings, including blower doors, duct blowers, and modeling with REM/Rate™ software, and trained on HVAC load calculations with Wrightsoft’s Manual J software. New Construction and Existing Home Baseline Studies—Residential, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Vermont Sponsors. Conducted HERS ratings of new and existing homes for baseline studies, and analyzed results to characterize housing stock, with focus on HVAC, water heating, and other mechanical equipment. Analyzed code compliance using REScheck and built REM/Rate models to identify retrofit cost effectiveness. New Construction—Residential, Massachusetts Sponsors. As part of an evaluation of an ENERGY STAR pilot program, conducted focus groups with builders to identify opportunities for improving the program, and reported on the results. Designed survey and conducted interviews for program staff at out-of-state utility/energy efficiency organizations to identify new building technologies and estimate savings derived from their use. New Construction—Residential, Massachusetts Sponsors. To evaluate trainings that taught real estate agents to market ENERGY STAR homes, conducted mystery shopping visits with agents to assess the training’s effectiveness and reported on findings. To evaluate the Major Renovations Pilot Program, conducted interviews with homeowners and builders. HVAC—Residential, Massachusetts Sponsors. Conducted in-depth interviews with HVAC contractors and distributors involved with ENERGY STAR Version 3 Pilot Program, to identify current HVAC contractor preparedness for 2012 Version 3 standards. HVAC and Water Heating, Gas Networks. Created survey and in-depth interview samples, and conducted interviews with participating wholesalers and supply houses. Residential Retrofit, Connecticut Sponsors. Moderated multiple rounds of focus groups with homeowners who participated in the Home Energy Solutions weatherization and retrofit program, identifying unknown barriers to measure uptake. Renewable Energy, Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF). Conducted interviews with institutions purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), and analyzed motivations for these purchases. Also analyzed monthly clean energy purchase data, calculating rewards for communities that reached certain thresholds. Lighting—Residential and Commercial, New York State Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Xcel Energy (Colorado), and Nova Scotia Power. Conducted almost thirty in-depth interviews with store- and corporate-level retailer contacts. Reported on CFL pricing, sales, and program marketing. Conducted in-depth interviews with lighting distributors to evaluate a program incentivizing high efficiency commercial lighting. Demand Side Management—Commercial and Industrial, Massachusetts Sponsors. Conducted interviews with Sponsors’ account executives responsible for identifying deep energy savings opportunities at the Massachusetts facilities of key, large-scale energy users.

NMR Erin Coates, Research/Administrative Coordinator EDUCATION B.A., Environmental Studies, Mount Holyoke College 2008 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group, Inc. (formerly Nexus Market Research), Somerville, Massachusetts Research/Administrative Assistant September 2010-July 2014 Research/Administrative Coordinator July 2014-Present University of California Santa Barbara, SNARL reserve at Mammoth Lakes, California Research Assistant 2008 Mount Holyoke College Department of Biology, South Hadley, Massachusetts Research Fellow/Research Assistant 2006-2010 Mount Holyoke College Environmental Health and Safety, South Hadley, Massachusetts Office Liaison/Campus Sustainability Coordinator 2005-2008 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Appliances, New York Refrigerator Retirement, National Grid. Recruited participants for a logger study to help determine energy savings in the New York Residential Refrigerator- Freezer Recycling Program. Appliances, Massachusetts program administrators. Assisted with secondary research for a literature review on consumer electronics. Billing Analysis – Low-Income Weatherization. Efficiency Maine. Assisted in billing data collection for billing analysis of Maine’s Low-Income Multifamily Weatherization Program. Tasks included mailing and calling customers to obtain authorization for utilities to provide us with their billing data, data cleaning, and data entry. Building Benchmarking – Commercial, California Public Utilities Commission. Assisted with report editing and formatting on a process evaluation report of California IOUs’ support for benchmarking commercial buildings with ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. Codes and Standards. Massachusetts Program Administrators. This study was a review of the Massachusetts energy code trainings for contractors, equipment suppliers, builders, building code officials, and others working with the residential and commercial energy codes. Tasks included survey data entry.

NMR Coates Resume Page 2

Commercial & Industrial. Massachusetts program administrators. Interviewed HVAC distributors and contractors as part of a study to estimate market penetration of energy- efficient HVAC technologies and the impact of the Massachusetts large C&I programs on market penetration. Existing Construction – Residential, Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Organized and facilitated focus groups as part of a multi-year evaluation of Connecticut’s Residential Retrofit and Retail program. Booked multiple focus group facilities throughout the state and worked with facilities on logistical issues and to keep participant recruitment on track. Acted as host for one focus group, including preparation of materials for the group. Existing Construction – Residential, Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Recruited participants to take part in home energy audits as part of an effort to determine the current baseline of homes that meet the State’s criteria for being weatherized. Prepared homeowners for what to expect during the energy audit. Coordinated scheduling between NMR auditors and Connecticut-based home energy efficiency vendors who jointly conducted the home energy audits. Lighting – Residential, Massachusetts Program Administrators. Recrioted participants in Massachusetts and Georgia to participate in onsite saturation and panel surveys in order to better understand the sales, use, and saturation of energy-efficient bulbs in areas both with and without residential programs. Tasks included calling and recruiting participants, scheduling appointments, and coordinating visits with participants and onsite technicians. Lighting—Residential, Efficiency Maine. This is an onsite saturation study and estimation of the hours of use of light bulbs in homes to add to the evaluation of energy-efficiency programs in Maine. Responsibilities include calling and recruiting participants for the onsite study, scheduling onsite appointments, and communication about schedules with onsite staff. Lighting—Residential, NYSERDA CFL Expansion Program. Assisted with the technical aspects of reporting for an evaluation of the NYSERDA CFL Expansion Program, a multimillion dollar project that involved random digit dial telephone surveys, on-site saturation studies, and other evaluation activities in New York State, New York City, and three comparison areas. Lighting—Residential, Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund, Arranged the technical details to conduct focus groups on lighting choices for consumers in Connecticut in order to asses consumers’ current beliefs, knowledge and plans for light bulb purchases after EISA and to determine ways to influence customers to make more efficient choices. Lighting—Residential, Consumers Energy, Arranged the technical details to conduct focus groups on lighting choices for consumers in Michigan in order to asses consumers’ current beliefs, knowledge and plans for light bulb purchases after EISA and to determine ways to influence customers to make more efficient choices.

NMR Coates Resume Page 3

Lighting – Residential, Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Recruited and scheduled participants for a statewide lighting saturation study as part of an evaluation of Connecticut’s Residential Retail Products program. Coordinated schedules for onsite technicians. Lighting – Residential, Multiple sponsors. Recruited and scheduled participants for a multi- client, multi-state project to measure the hours of use of lighting products in single-family and multi-family homes. Trained and oversaw other recruiters and schedulers. Coordinated schedules for multiple onsite technicians in multiple states. Tracked multiple different participant quotas in different areas. New Construction—Residential, Massachusetts and Rhode Island Electric Companies. As part of the evaluation of Massachusetts and Rhode Island energy efficiency programs in the residential new construction area, assisted with coordination of a baseline study of homes built under the IECC 2009 code. Collected information to recruit onsite participants and entered auditor’s data into Rem/Rate. Non-native Plants—Invasion Potential Survey, Mount Holyoke College. Assessed the potential for a non-native plant, St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum), to become invasive in New England. Analyzed the relationship between St. Johnswort and the native and non- native species in the vegetation and the seed bank through a vegetation survey and a greenhouse seed bank experiment. Estimated the historical population sizes and changes in flowering time and duration in Massachusetts and Connecticut counties by analyzing herbaria specimens. Presented the preliminary findings at the Ecological Society of America Meetings in Milwaukee, WI in August 2008. Renewable/Clean Energy, Connecticut Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (CEFIA). As part of monitoring and evaluation of CEFIA’s voluntary clean energy purchase program, analyzed monthly data of residential and commercial clean energy purchases, tracking changes in program participation. Contacted Renewable Energy Credit (REC) suppliers in an effort to collect and analyze data on non-residential voluntary clean energy purchasers in Connecticut. Reviewed project participant feedback from CCEF’s Community Innovation Grants Program. Assisted in writing the program’s yearly reports for three consecutive years. Residential—Code Compliance Review. Massachusetts Program Administrators. This study was a review of code compliance rates for single-family homes built at the end of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) cycle and at the beginning of the 2009 IECC code cycle. Tasks included contacting and visiting building departments around the state to collect documentation of energy code compliance paths. Special and Cross Sector—Residential and Low Income Residential, Massachusetts Sponsors. Processed, cleaned, and coded data in preparation for analysis to investigate the value of non-energy impacts (NEIs) associated with energy efficiency programs.

NMR Lori Golzmane, Research/Administrative Assistant EDUCATION B.A., English, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 2002 WORK EXPERIENCE NMR Group, Inc., Somerville, Massachusetts Research/Administrative Assistant 2012-Present PaperCheck.com/Proof-Reading.com Associate Editor 2008-2012 Naropa University Department of Contemplative Psychology, Boulder, Colorado Research/Administrative Assistant 2007-2008 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Appliances, Ohio FirstEnergy. Conducted in-depth interviews with key retailers throughout Ohio regarding customer uptake of and retailer participation in Ohio FirstEnergy’s Residential Energy Efficient Products program. Existing Construction—Residential, Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Recruited participants to take part in home energy audits as part of an effort to determine the current baseline of homes that meet the state’s criteria for being weatherized. Prepared homeowners for what to expect during the energy audit. Coordinated scheduling between NMR auditors and Connecticut-based home energy efficiency vendors who jointly conducted the home energy audits. Lighting—Residential, Efficiency Maine. Recruited and scheduled participants in on-site visits to assess lighting usage and saturation as part of an evaluation of Efficiency Maine’s Residential Lighting program. Lighting—Residential, Multiple sponsors. Recruited and scheduled participants for a multi- client, multi-state project to measure the hours of use of lighting products in single-family and multifamily homes. Trained and oversaw other recruiters and schedulers. Coordinated schedules for multiple onsite technicians in multiple states. Tracked multiple participant quotas in different areas. Institutional Leadership Evaluation, Naropa University. Assisted with compiling and coding data on faculty evaluations of the university’s leadership, strategic planning, and

NMR Golzmane Resume Page 2

decision-making processes. Transcribed confidential interviews and suggested appropriate coding methods. New Construction—Residential, Massachusetts electric companies. Collected code compliance information from building departments throughout Massachusetts as part of a baseline study of homes built under the IECC 2006 and 2009 codes. Student Program Evaluation, Naropa University. Aided in designing a qualitative survey to evaluate undergraduate psychology students’ responses to a newly implemented series of weekend learning/meditation retreats. Coded data, compiled report, and presented the results to faculty.

NMR RICHARD FAESY,PRINCIPAL

EDUCATION M.S. Coursework in Energy Management & Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 1986 B.S., Resource Economics and Environmental Studies, University of Vermont, 1983

EXPERIENCE 2010-present: Principal, Energy Futures Group, Hinesburg, VT 2000-2010: Energy Efficiency Division Manager and Managing Consultant, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), Burlington, VT 1986-2000: Director, Energy Rated Homes of Vermont (ERH-VT), Burlington, VT 1989-2000: Development Director, Single Family Services, VEIC, Burlington, VT

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY As a Certified Energy Rater and LEED Accredited Professional, Richard Faesy is an expert in residential and multifamily energy efficiency programs, technologies and markets, including retrofits, labeling, new construction, home energy rating systems (HERS), energy codes, green building, financing and effective market characterization, program design, policy and implementation. He has been active locally, regionally, and nationally in all of these areas for more than 25 years. Richard helped create and was the founding president of the board of the Northeast HERS Alliance and was a founding board member of the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), including a term as president. Richard was featured in a national Dateline/NBC story on energy efficiency and was awarded RESNET’s Lifetime Achievement Award. As a leader and technical expert, he has a reputation for delivering fresh thinking grounded in reality.

PROJECTS • Connecticut Energy Efficiency Board. Residential programs advisor assisting the Board with goal setting, utility oversight and planning and technical assistance. 2007-present. • Eastern Resources Group. Developed strategies and materials for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Residential Program Solution Center. 2012 – 2014. • Efficiency Maine. Team lead for development of Maine Residential New Construction Technical Baseline Study, resulting in influencing adoption of Maine’s energy code. 2007- 2008. Low Income Multifamily Program evaluation with NMR Group, 2014. • Efficiency Vermont. Senior Advisor for residential program design, implementation support and policy guidance for Vermont’s statewide, award-winning energy efficiency utility. Focus on residential retrofit programs, fuel dealer partnerships, cold climate heat pump program, home energy labeling, energy savings guarantees. 2000-present. • Energy Foundation. Interviewed national experts and developed report to a consortium of philanthropic foundations on ramping up the residential retrofit market in the U.S. 2012. • Green Mountain Power. Led the development of a new cold climate heat pump program to introduce this emerging technology to Vermont. Supported partnership between Efficiency Vermont and Vermont Fuel Dealers Association in promoting heat pump installations. 2013-2014.

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] RICHARD FAESY,PRINCIPAL

• High Meadows Fund (Vermont Community Foundation). Interviews and research of Vermont Home Performance contractors and fuel dealers, report, presentations and follow-on market support, including development of partnership with Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, business support and development of Efficiency Excellence Network. Team lead for Vermont market assessment and potential for manufacturing and sales of high performance homes. 2012- present. • Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council. Consultant overseeing the residential new construction and existing homes programs in Massachusetts. 2007-2013. • Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP). Led meta-study of 40 evaluations on ductless heat pumps to assess program and market potential in the Northeast. Served on working group to guide development of “cold climate” heat pump specification. 2014. • New Jersey Office of Clean Energy, Board of Public Utilities. Senior Advisor for program design and oversight of New Jersey ENERGY STAR Homes Program assisting the Honeywell Team and the Office of Clean Energy design and develop program modifications and enhancements, set goals, and provide budgeting and implementation assistance. 2004-2010. • New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Senior Advisor in development of New York Energy Code Compliance Study. 2010 – 2011. • Rhode Island Energy Efficiency and Resource Management Council. Consultant leading the residential team and overseeing the residential new construction and existing homes programs in Rhode Island. 2008-present. • U.S. Department of Energy/Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Senior Advisor and Aggregated Products lead for Program Design Team of DOE’s Technical Assistance Project for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) communities and states. 2010-2011. • Vermont Public Service Department. Senior Advisor to NMR Group on baseline study of residential new construction, remodeling and existing homes in Vermont. 2011 - 2013. • Vermont Public Service Department. Led consulting team in the development of the Vermont Energy Code Compliance Plan. 2011 - 2012. • Vermont Public Service Department. Supported stakeholder groups then led development of reports to the Vermont Legislature on 1) Vermont Home Energy Score and Label (2012-2013) and 2) Commercial/Multifamily/Mixed-Use Building Energy Labeling & Benchmarking (2014). • Vermont Public Service Department. Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF) impact and process evaluation with NMR Group. 2014. • Vermont Residential Energy Code. Consultant and negotiator in the update of the Code and development of a mechanical ventilation standard for Vermont. 1999-2003. Representative for Efficiency Vermont on the Code Steering Committee for the Code update process. 2010-2011. Residential lead for Navigant Consulting team 2015 IECC energy code update process. 2013-2014.

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] RICHARD FAESY,PRINCIPAL

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS • Market Potential for High Performance Homes in Vermont (with J. Grevatt, L. Black-Plumeau, M. Collins, A. McLellan and C. Eisinger), High Meadows Fund, November 2014. • Ductless Heat Pump Meta Study (with J. Grevatt, B. McGowan and K. Champagne), NEEP EM&V Forum, November 2014. • Groton School Potential Energy Savings Study (with D. Lane, S. Dent, G. Lawrence and J. Forward), Groton School, October 2014. • Residential Building Energy Scoring and Labeling – An Update from the Leading States, (with L. Badger, D. Ferington, I. Finlayson, J. Jane and E, Levin), Proceedings of ACEEE 2014 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 2014. • Development of a Voluntary Residential Building Energy Label, Report to the Vermont Legislature, for the Vermont Public Service Department, December 2013. • Attributing Building Energy Code Savings to Energy Efficiency Programs, with the Cadmus Group, Inc. for Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), The Edison Foundation and Institute for Market Transformation, February 2013. • Building Retrofit and Industry Market (BRIM) Initiative - Reactions to the Residential Retrofit Roundtable Recommendations, for the Energy Foundation, January 2013. • Residential Energy Efficiency Financing: Key Elements of Program Design, for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Environment Northeast, December 2012. • Accelerating Energy Efficiency in the New Construction Market with Stretch Codes, Proceedings of ACEEE 2012 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 2012. • Residential Energy Disclosure Policies, for the Natural Resources Defense Council, June 2012.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • Board Director, Energy Co-op of Vermont, 2013 - present • Board Director, Building Performance Professionals Association (Vermont), 2012 - present • Chair, Funding and Finance Committee, (Vermont) Thermal Efficiency Task Force, 2012 • Member, (International) Zero Energy Homes Task Force, 2012 • Member, Vermont Legislature’s Building Energy Disclosure Working Group, 2011 • Board Director, Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), 2002 – 2010 • Board Director, Building for Social Responsibility, 1996 – 2000, 2005 - present

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] JIM GREVATT,MANAGING CONSULTANT

EDUCATION B.F.A., University Honors, University of Illinois, 1982

EXPERIENCE 2013-present: Managing Consultant, Energy Futures Group, Hinesburg, VT 2012-2013: Director, Targeted Implementation, Vermont Energy Investment Corp., Burlington, VT 2011-2012: Director, Residential Energy Services, District of Columbia Sustainable Energy Utility for Vermont Energy Investment Corp., Washington, D.C. and Burlington, VT 2010-2012: Managing Consultant, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, VT 2005-2010: Director, Residential Services, Vermont Energy Investment Corp., Burlington, VT 2001-2005: Manager, Energy Services, Vermont Gas Systems, S. Burlington, VT 1998-2001: Manager, Residential Energy Services, Vermont Gas Systems, S. Burlington, VT 1996-1998: Manager, HomeBase Retrofit Program, Vermont Gas Systems, S. Burlington, VT 1994-1996: Technical Specialist, Vermont Gas Systems, S. Burlington, VT 1991-1994: Associate Director and Technical Specialist, Champlain Valley Weatherization Program, Burlington, VT

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Jim Grevatt brings over 20 years’ experience as a leadership professional in energy efficiency program operations to his consulting practice. Jim uses an in-depth knowledge of the nuts and bolts of running programs and a clear understanding of strategic thinking and planning to ensure that programs achieve their desired market impacts. Throughout his career, Jim has focused on building strong relationships with staff, peers, trade allies, regulators, and clients as the best way to understand the needs and challenges that each sector faces. As Director of Residential Services for Efficiency Vermont for over five years, and then in the same role for the District of Columbia Sustainable Energy Utility for its startup operation, Jim has hands-on experience with industry- leading markets-based approaches to managing energy efficiency programs, including multi-family, low income, residential retrofit, new construction, HVAC, and efficient products programs. In his leadership role he was responsible for finding successful consensus approaches among diverse groups of partners and stakeholders, and for policy interactions with regulators, assuring that program processes were efficient and effective. Prior to his roles with Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Jim managed Vermont Gas’ residential and commercial energy efficiency programs. In each of these roles Jim had overall responsibility both for program design and operations.

SELECTED PROJECTS • Vermont Public Service Department: Evaluation of Clean Energy Development Fund Conducted interviews of staff and key stakeholders under contract to NMR and prepared memo outlining process findings and recommendations (2014-2015) • Evaluation of Efficiency Maine Low-Income Multi-Family Weatherization Program- Responsible for program staff and building owner interviews and process evaluation under contract to NMR and Efficiency Maine (2014-2015)

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] JIM GREVATT,MANAGING CONSULTANT • Coalition of Maryland Energy Efficiency Advocates Prepared written comments and appeared before the Commission to present evidence regarding Maryland utilities’ 2015-2017 EmPOWER Maryland energy efficiency plans (2014-2015) • Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships- Researched and co-authored meta-study of the use of energy efficiency to defer T&D investments (2014) • Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships- Researched and co-authored meta-study of ductless heat pump performance and market acceptance (2014) • High Meadows Fund- Co-authored a study assessing the market viability of “High Performance Homes” in Vermont (2014) • Energy Savings Potential Study, Delaware Department of Natural Resources- led narrative development for the residential programs for a study of the energy efficiency savings potential in Delaware (2013-2014) • Regulatory Assistance Project- Provide technical support to energy efficiency advocates in proceedings in Maryland, Mississippi, and Missouri (2013-2014) • Better Buildings Solutions Center, U. S. Department of Energy- Energy Futures Group’s lead author in drafting and reviewing web content for ten how-to “handbooks” detailing proven approaches to designing and implementing residential retrofit efficiency programs (2013-2014) • Natural Resources Defense Council- Provided expert witness testimony in support of NRDC’s intervention in Ameren Illinois’ 2014-2016 energy efficiency plan. Testimony demonstrated that Ameren would be capable of capturing significantly greater efficiency savings than it had proposed (2013) • Utility Program Benchmarking- led research on behalf of a California IOU to compare the cost of saved energy across ~10 leading utility portfolios. The research sought to determine if there are discernable differences in the cost of saved energy related to utility spending in specific non-incentive categories, including administration, marketing, and EM&V (2013) • Research on trends in multi-family, HVAC, and new construction programs- developed an analysis of emerging program trends on behalf of a leading energy efficiency industry firm (2013-2014) • Efficiency Power Plant, Regulatory Assistance Project- Partnered with RAP to develop a demonstration tool to show how energy efficiency measures can be used to mitigate air quality impacts related to power production (2013) • Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Analysis, the Green Energy Coalition- Provided analytical support to demonstrate in testimony that Enbridge Gas could reduce the scale of its proposed pipeline expansion by implementing aggressive energy efficiency programs (2013) • Targeted Implementation, VEIC- Responsible for market analysis and strategic planning for a new division expanding VEIC’s energy efficiency program implementation projects (2012- 2013)

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] JIM GREVATT,MANAGING CONSULTANT • DC Sustainable Energy Utility- Led the planning and startup implementation of Residential programs for the DC SEU, including single and multi-family and retail market programs. Led the development of the initial portfolio-level Annual Plan. Led client and partner interactions around planning and policy development. Member of DC SEU Senior Management Team (2011-2012) • EmPOWER Maryland Critical Program Review- Expert consultant to the Maryland Office of Peoples’ Counsel in EmPOWER Maryland hearings regarding utility energy efficiency planning and reporting. Represented the OPC in stakeholder meetings that informed the current 2012-2014 EmPOWER plans. Multiple appearances before the Maryland Public Service Commission. (2010-2012) • Efficiency Vermont 20 year Forecast of Efficiency Potential- Senior Advisor in developing the forecast scenarios that led to significantly increased efficiency investment in Vermont (2010- 2011) • Efficiency Vermont Residential Programs- Directed 100% growth in program budgets to nearly $10M annually. Responsible for strategic direction, leadership, and results for Efficiency Vermont’s award-winning residential retrofit, new construction, retail, and low income programs. Supported excellence in a staff of 30 (2005-2010). • Vermont Gas Systems Efficiency Program Leader- Directed strategic planning and program operations that led to six programs and portfolio as a whole being recognized as exemplary in Responding to the Natural Gas Crisis: America's Best Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Programs (ACEEE, 2003). Built contractor infrastructure and internal support to consistently meet program objectives. Led development of Annual Reports, planning and budgeting. Collaborated with Efficiency Vermont staff to develop a fuel-blind, state-wide, jointly offered residential new construction program (2001-2005) • Residential Retrofit Program Development- Enhanced design and performance of VGS’ residential retrofit offerings by streamlining delivery and building strong relationships with contractors, homeowners, and property managers (1994-2005) • Demonstrated Technical Excellence in Approaches to Residential Retrofits Conducted hundreds of residential energy audits and quality assurance inspections for natural gas and alternative-fueled homes. Trained and coached installers to obtain desired quality. Worked to satisfy homeowners through explanation, education, sound listening to concerns, and ultimately assuring that concerns were addressed. Trained new staff in auditing techniques. (1991-1998)

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Residential Retrofit Programs: What's Working? Perspectives from National Program Leaders- Panelist at AESP National Conference 2012 Elements of Retrofit Program Incentive Design- DOE Technical Assistance Program Publication, April, 2011 Designing Effective Incentives to Drive Residential Retrofit Participation- DOE Technical Assistance Program Webinar, October, 2010

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] JIM GREVATT,MANAGING CONSULTANT Quality Assurance for Residential Retrofit Programs- DOE Technical Assistance Program Webinar, October, 2010 Home Performance with ENERGY STAR, Quality Assurance in Vermont- Panelist at the ACI Home Energy Retrofit Summit, April 2010 Delivering on the Promise-Engaging Communities and the Public- Panelist at 2010 NEEP Summit, March, 2010 Home Performance with Energy Star in Vermont - Presentation at CEE Member meeting, June 2009 Leading by Example: Exemplary Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs –Presented on Efficiency Vermont’s Residential low income services at California’s Low Income Energy Efficiency Symposium, June 2006 “Natural Gas Efficiency Policies, Responding to the Natural Gas Crisis One Therm at a Time” - Co-presented with Dan York and Anna Monis Shipley of American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) -ACEEE/CEE Market Transformation Symposium, 2004

Energy Futures Group • P.O. Box 587, Hinesburg, VT 05461 • 802-482-5001 • [email protected] Robb A. Aldrich, PE Senior Mechanical Engineer

Robb Aldrich is a Senior Mechanical Engineer at SWA. He focuses Expertise on residential energy efficiency, mechanical systems, and renewable Solar Energy Systems • Building energy. Systems Research • Monitoring and Commissioning • Energy Modeling • Relevant Project Experience Building Energy Education

Efficient Building Design & Construction Years of Experience Mr. Aldrich works with architects and builders to design excellent 18 envelopes with regard to energy efficiency, moisture management, durability, and “build-ability”. Energy modeling is used to analyze Education costs and benefits of systems and value engineering minimizes MS Building Systems Engineering materials and construction time. University of Colorado, Boulder He also works with clients to optimize mechanical systems. Projects focus on integrating simple, effective energy systems with other BA Chemistry & Environmental building elements to optimize cost-effectiveness, comfort, and long- Science term performance. Colby College, Waterville, ME

HVAC Systems Research Licensing/Certifications Mr. Aldrich’s research at SWA includes building systems modeling as Professional Engineer (PE) well as field testing of advanced systems. Current and past research LEED AP at SWA includes: BPI Building Analyst Certified RESNET HERS Rater • Evaluations of simple, low-cost HVAC in low-load homes • Practical, low-cost pathways to “zero energy” buildings Affiliations ASHRAE • Evaluating various ventilation systems for effectiveness, IEQ, NESEA and energy implications in homes • Thermal and moisture performance of walls and insulation systems • Evaluating performance of ground-source and air-source heat pumps in homes

Solar Energy Mr. Aldrich has designed and installed numerous solar thermal and solar electric systems. At SWA, Mr. Aldrich works with clients to provide solar resource assessment, cost and generation estimates, support during design and bidding, and commissioning of installed systems. For several government and utility clients, Mr. Aldrich has provided detailed monitoring and evaluation of hundreds of solar systems. This has provided key insights into real-world performance, system performance trends, and a wide range of installation methods and equipment.

Presentations, Publications, and Training

Mr. Aldrich conducts workshops for builders, designers, and others on residential HVAC systems, solar energy, and zero energy homes. He has been invited to speak at dozens of conferences and similar events across the country, including NESEA Building Energy Conference, Affordable Comfort National Conference, RESNET, EEBA, International Builders Show, and Solar Power International. Several articles and papers have been published in the conference proceedings of BEST, ACEEE, ASES, Buildings, IEPEC, and in Home Energy magazine, and in the Journal of Green Building.

NEW YORK, NY | WASHINGTON, DC | NORWALK, CT CALL US: 866.676.1972 | WWW.SWINTER.COM Steve Klocke Sustainability Consultant

Steve Klocke is a Sustainability Consultant at SWA. He is a Expertise registered architect with experience in architectural design and Sustainable Design, Construction, & development in residential buildings. He currently specializes in Project Management in Residential LEED® for Homes™ ratings and residential energy analysis. Buildings • Residential Energy Modeling • Performance Testing

Relevant Project Experience Years of Experience 13 Green Building Consulting: Mr. Klocke’s consulting work includes sustainability for residential applications; selection of Education environmentally preferable building materials; analysis of Bachelor of Architecture resource-efficient appliances and building equipment; writing and Iowa State University, Ames implementing construction and demolition plans; and emphasizing energy conservation, environmental protection, and Licensing/Certifications occupant health and safety. State of Iowa Architect License Residential Green Building Standards: Mr. Klocke verifies #05838 implementation of the LEED for Homes criteria at SWA, one of a LEED for Homes Green Rater select group of providers in the USGBC’s LEED for Homes RESNET – HERS Rater program. He is an integral part of the initial strategic planning BPI Building Analyst sessions and workshops with builders, architects, and homeowners based on the LEED for Homes program. Energy and Building Systems Analysis: Mr. Klocke uses energy modeling software to analyze plans and specifications and makes recommendations for sustainability strategies including; thermal barrier, air barrier, vapor barrier, mechanical efficiencies, and building materials. Performance Testing: As a HERS Rater, Mr. Klocke inspects projects under construction for compliance with energy performance, durability, and health and safety standards according to the ENERGY® STAR Homes program. His performance testing expertise includes whole-house infiltration and duct leakage, as well as infrared thermal imaging. Architectural Design and Project Management: Mr. Klocke has extensive experience in architectural design and project management, including oversight of single-family home renovations, additions, and new construction. He has experience in the production of conceptual through construction documents, cost estimates, procured materials and daily oversight of project site and fiscal activity.

Presentations, Publications, and Training

Presenter, “Reducing Air Leakage in Multifamily Buildings”, Perkins Eastman, October 2013 Presenter, “Certification Options and Incentive Programs for Sustainable Homes”, Murphy Brothers Contracting, July 2013 Advisor, New York City College of Technology - CUNY, Building Performance Workshop, December 2012 - May 2013 Presenter, “Online Weatherization Training”, New York State Green Building Conference, March 2013

NEW YORK, NY | WASHINGTON, DC | NORWALK, CT CALL US: 866.676.1972 | WWW.SWINTER.COM James Williamson Mechanical Engineer

James Williamson is a mechanical engineer with SWA. He is Expertise experienced in evaluating advanced residential building technologies Data Analysis • Field Testing • Energy as well as product research and development. Modeling • Advanced Building Technologies • Research and Development • Product Prototyping • Relevant Project Experience 3D Solid Modeling/Analysis

Advanced Building Systems Research and Evaluation Years of Experience 2 Inverter-driven air source heat pumps

Residential dehumidification strategies Education CO2 based demand ventilation BS Mechanical Engineering University of New Haven Cold-climate performance of air-source heat pumps Utility bill analysis of single and multi-family buildings Licensing/Certifications Variable speed electrically commutated motors (ECMs) for air Engineer-in-Training (EIT) handler fans

Research and Development Fiber-optic Day Lighting for Military Shelters Product design and prototyping concentrated photovoltaic system design and testing structural and optical analysis active solar tracking

Presentations, Publications, and Training

Co-Author, S. Puttagunta, J. Grab, and J. Williamson. The Performance House—A Cold Climate Challenge Home. 2013 Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/GO-102013-3944

Co-Author, S. Puttagunta and J. Williamson. Systems Evaluation at the Cool Energy House. 2013 Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/GO-102013-3942

Co-Author, L. Arena and J. Williamson. Predicted Versus Actual Savings for a Low-Rise Multifamily Retrofit in Boulder, Colorado. 2013 Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/GO-102013-4258

Co-Author, R. Aldrich and J. Williamson. Evaluation of Retrofit Variable-Speed Furnace Fan Motors. 2014 Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/GO-102014-4306

NEW YORK, NY | WASHINGTON, DC | NORWALK, CT CALL US: 866.676.1972 | WWW.SWINTER.COM