USING LOCAL STRENGTHS AND INSTITUTIONS
DARA YASKIL
Objective
Oftentimes, we work in isolation on important projects, disregarding the networks of
people and institutions that are also working towards similar objectives. By working
collectively, and building upon each other’s strengths and skills, we are more likely to
reach our goals. Cambridge has been slow to drive energy efficiency in its building
stock, owing largely to a lack of mobilization and coordination in engaging
community and relevant stakeholders in this effort. Therefore, this pilot program
provides us with a critical opportunity to work collectively, developing strategies and
mechanisms that leverage the capacity of local institutions, residents, and relevant
players in the housing field to advance energy efficiency in multifamily rental
properties.
Capacity Building
Identifying and employing local institutional actors can be challenging, but through
continued conversations with relevant stakeholder groups, we will learn more about
the people and organizations we can partner with to develop an inclusive and
successful pilot program. The following is a list of the institutional actors that we
have identified that are integral to the success of a pilot program, as well as an
explanation as to why they would be important:



Local faith-based institutions and community development organizations:
o There are many faith-based institutions in Cambridge -- particularly
churches, a number of whom have worked with HEET to improve the
energy efficiency of their buildings. The program should engage
religious leaders of retrofitted faith-based institutions to promote the
benefits of efficiency to their congregation and the program’s
incentives, either through sermons or sponsoring workshops that
educate their members on the benefits of upgrades and the efficiency
incentives available.
o Community development organizations have wide-reaching and deep
connections to the communities they are based in, and are wellpositioned to hold workshops to educate local residents on the
benefits of efficiency and make residents aware of the incentives the
program offers.
MIT and Harvard housing offices :
o Partnering with MIT and Harvard housing offices to track and advertise
homes with low energy costs will help students make more informed
decisions of where to live, and can put pressure on landlords who
have high energy costs to commit to efficiency upgrades.
Landlords who have completed retrofits and/or are interested in efficiency:
o It is important that the program establishes a mechanism for mobilizing
and coordinating landlords who have completed retrofits and/or are
interested in efficiency to promote savings and engage landlords who



have not committed energy upgrades. Through landlord support
groups, landlords can organize landlords who have not upgraded their
properties to come together to learn and receive the support and
resources they need to successfully implement efficiency measures.
Energy efficiency companies (i.e. Next Step Living and Cambridge Energy
Alliance):
o A challenge to efficiency in multifamily rental properties is that there is
not enough landlord “hand holding.” Understanding the benefits and
costs of efficiency measures can be difficult, especially since the
incentives in place currently are fragmented and not very visible. It is
important that the program create a system -- through partnerships
with companies such as Next Step Living and Cambridge Energy
Alliance -- that assigns people to work with landlords throughout the
entire retrofit process.
Local realtors:
o It would be valuable if the program partnered with realtors to promote
energy efficient homes on Zillow, or to create a separate website that
solely lists homes/rental properties that are energy efficient. Listing
homes as energy efficient or creating an entirely separate website that
only advertises energy efficient homes/rental properties has the ability
to put pressure on landlords to upgrade their buildings.
Local banks
o Partnering with local banks to develop innovative and sensible
financing strategies will be critical to implementing a successful pilot
program and permanent program thereafter.
Brendan’s comments
I see a couple of different themes here. I think you may be conflating two big ideas, to
some extent:
1. One idea is the need for multistakeholder “collaborative adaptive management”
(or “collaborative program design” or whatever one wants to call convening all
relevant stakeholders to collectively design a better program). You could add
serious value by
a. Articulating who relevant stakeholder groups are, and what their interests
might be an energy program pilot (or broader efforts to increase the size of
the EE upgrade market space, generally)
b. Suggesting a process for the pilot (or broader program development at
MassSave level?) to adopt governance by collaborative adaptive
management.
2. The other idea is related, but subtly different. You are noting that the status quo
could be improved, by incorporating the perspectives of the different
stakeholders, and designing elements of programs to better involve them & reflect
their interests – you note a bunch of opportunities in your “capacity building”
section. What I think Harvey envisioned was that you would add value by:
a. Choosing one (or maybe two) of the ideas you note in capacity building
above, and develop in much greater detail.
b. This would be informed by as many interviews & as much feedback from
folks as you could get. But you would ultimately be the designer. See the
difference to a multistakeholder process? I think it is actually an
important difference.
If I were you, I would pick one of the elements you noted (like the handholding idea, or a
strategy to better involve faith-based organizations) and develop it in detail. I think this
is what Harvey envisioned.
But I could also see you developing recommendations for a multistakeholder process.