Cambridge Multifamily
Energy Program
Terms of Reference – DRAFT
1. Introduction
This Terms of Reference document provides background information to support the development of a
detailed multifamily energy program conceptual design, and outlines key tasks for this design. MIT
faculty and students will complete the detailed design during the Spring Term (February – June) of 2013,
via one of two avenues:
·
·
A practicum offered by MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
Project work of Energy Efficiency Strategy Project.
The program design will be offered for the consideration of the energy utility NStar and the City of
Cambridge, to inform the joint delivery of an energy program for multifamily housing in Cambridge. The
program will focus on housing complexes with approximately 2-20 units in which unit occupants (tenants
or unit owners) pay the utility bill.
The Case for an Energy Program
Deploying energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems into existing buildings can
realize a range of benefits for the City of Cambridge, NStar, and local communities. Such benefits
include:
●
●
●
●
Reduced household energy costs - Energy upgrades can lessen the burden of energy
spending on households.
Improved indoor conditions - Energy upgrades can improve the comfort of living spaces,
keeping them warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. Moreover, upgrades can improve
air quality, and provide an opportunity to ameliorate a range of other health impacts.
Economic development - Energy efficiency and renewable energy are more job intensive than
traditional energy sources (Wei, Patadia, and Kammen 2010). Moreover, energy spending
savings stimulates economic activity and job growth. When these savings occur, businesses
and households spend on other items, instead of energy suppliers receiving energy spending;
this spending typically results in greater job creation than utilities’ spending (IMT & PERI 2012).
Economic activity and job growth spurred by energy savings are substantial, potentially greater
than the direct, indirect and induced impacts of energy investments (Roland-Holst 2008)
(Howland et al. 2009). Moreover, renewable energy and energy efficiency investments can retain
energy spending in the local economy, realizing greater local economic development.
Mitigate climate change and reduce other energy pollution - Upgrades reduce the negative
environmental impacts of climate change. Upgrading a large proportion of Cambridge’s multifamily building stock is necessary to meet the city’s Climate Protection Plan.
●
Meet utility regulatory mandates - NStar is required to achieve all cost-effective energy
efficiency under the Green Communities Act, and is subject to other efficiency statutes and
guidelines.
Despite these benefits, energy upgrade programs have not achieved the rate of uptake that is
economically rational, due to a range of market and behavioral barriers. These barriers are particularly
acute in the multifamily housing sector, which faces landlord-tenant split-incentives and tensions,
barriers to financing, and limited understanding of efficiency opportunities. Consequently, energy
upgrades have seen especially low penetration in the multifamily sector.
Program Elements
A well designed and executed partnership between utilities, local government, businesses, community
organizations and other actors can overcome these barriers, however. Together, these actors can serve
to improve programs and transform markets for energy services. There is potential to:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Use energy data to identify buildings needing upgrades, and to inspire owners and tenants to
take action based on comparisons with their peers.
Engage stakeholders, to co-create energy efficiency program architecture, and provide more
targeted program marketing.
Provide improved financing mechanisms, which can enable the large investments required in
the housing stock and reduce split-incentives.
Maximizing the value of engagement in a building, by providing opportunities for deep energy
improvements, addressing healthy homes issues, and exploring opportunities to implement
other environmental improvements, such as stormwater improvements. Buildings may not
necessarily have to undergo all upgrades simultaneously, but programs should connect buildings
with timely further improvements.
Improve building owners’ experience navigating programs, by providing a consistent point of
contact and improving the flow of information between contractors, utilities, and outreach actors
via improved customer relationship management systems.
Explore the implications of allowing a greater number of vendors to participate in programs.
By piloting and experimenting with these innovative approaches, Cambridge and NStar can develop
replicable models to improve the delivery of sustainable energy services in multifamily housing across
the state and the nation.
The Following section provides background on the market for rental housing and energy efficiency in
Cambridge, and industry trends pertinent to program design.
Background
Characterizing the Cambridge Housing Stock
The prospects for a residential energy efficiency program depend in large part to the
characteristics of the local housing market. Cambridge boasts a unique housing market for
several reasons, including its young population and old housing stock. Understanding the
dimensions of this market is crucial to developing a strategy to encourage energy efficiency
investments. Several dimensions of the local market are examined below, including the nature
of home ownership, resident demographics, and physical characteristics of the home.
In addition to Cambridge as a whole, this project will target three distinct regions of the city,
Mid-Cambridge, Area IV, and Cambridgeport. We examined the specific nature of the housing
market in these areas, but they did not differ dramatically from Cambridge as a whole.
Home Ownership Rates
Cambridge’s housing stock is dominated by multifamily rental properties. In the city as a whole,
only 35% of the population lives in owner-occupied housing.1 27% of the city’s housing units are
Condominiums.2 Unsurprisingly, rental housing appears to be a more temporary living situation
in Cambridge than home-ownership. Under 40% of renters have lived in their current residence
for under 5 years, compared to three quarters of homeowners.
Resident Demographics
Cambridge deservedly has a reputation as a young, student oriented city. 27% of it’s adult
population is currently enrolled in school either as an undergraduate or graduate student. This
is reflected in the rental market, as the primary householder is under the age of 35 in 53% of
Cambridge’s rental housing units. Additionally, Cambridge’s rental market has a low rate of
family residence. While just over half of owner-occupied housing is lived in by families, only
33% of Cambridge’s rental properties are rented by families.
Cambridge is also a predominantly White community. The head householder in 69% of
Cambridge’s residences and 63% of rental residences is Non-Hispanic White. Among minority
groups, Black and Asian communities each account for 13% of rental residences, and
Hispanics for an additional 8%.
1
Unless otherwise noted, all statistics in this section are from the US Census Bureau 2010 Census and 2006-2010
American Community Survey.
2
City of Cambridge Community Development Department, 2010 Housing Profile.
As of 2009, over 3,000 housing units in Cambridge were designated as affordable units and
subsidized, accounting for 9.6% of the local rental market.3
Physical Characteristics
The vast majority (95%) of Cambridge’s rental households are located in multifamily housing. 33% of
rentals are in small buildings of with 2-4 units, and another 24% are in moderate-sized buildings of 5-19
units.
The housing stock in Cambridge tends to be very old, though this is true more of owner-occupied
residences than rentals. 52% of rental units in Cambridge were built before 1940, compared to 72% of
owned units. Despite the general age of the units, there is a small but noticeably number of newer
properties, with around 17% of units among both rented and owned properties constructed since 1980.
The housing market throughout New England is unique for its reliance on fuel oil to provide space
heating. However, this effect is not as strong in Cambridge, which boasts a well-developed utility natural
gas network. 60% of rental units are heated by natural gas, 21% by electricity (which includes both the
old technology of resistance heating and the newer air source heat pump technology), and 13% by fuel
oil. Among owner-occupied homes, there is a slightly higher percentage of gas-heated homes, and a
lower electric heat presence.
Property and Energy Management Characteristics
There are a number of useful metrics related to Cambridge’s rental market for which data is non-existent
or difficult to obtain. While the identity of property owners is publicly available through tax assessment
data, it is difficult to confirm how many properties a given owner may own due to the nature of available
data. It is also difficult to identify landlords who live on-site in multi-family buildings. Additionally, no good
source of data exists on the number of small property owners who contract with independent property
management firms to conduct business with tenant. Finally, information on the number of apartments
that are individually or master metered is only available through NSTAR and is restricted for privacy
concerns.
Therefore, much of this information must be collected qualitatively through interviews with those familiar
with the local housing market. Preliminary discussions have indicated a fragmented market where parttime property owners account for much of small-to -medium residential properties and a significant
portion of landlords live on-site. While some of these owners contract with property management firms,
most seem not to. Finally, most multi-family buildings in Cambridge are thought to be metered
individually.4
Summary
The characteristics of Cambridge’s housing market pose serious barriers to an energy efficiency
program. The market is dominated by renters, and the rental community is a social demographic in
3
City of Summer Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. Trends in Somerville: Housing
Technical Report. 2009
4
Personal communications with Peter Shapiro (Just-a-Start) and Meghan Shaw (Cambridge Energy Alliance).
transition. Predominantly young and white, this group has a strong student presence and a weak family
presence. Renters almost always live in multifamily units, with a slim majority living in small to medium
sized properties. Small-to-medium rental properties tend to be owned by individuals with small property
portfolios. The transitory nature of renters and the decentralized ownership of properties will make a
coordinated efficiency effort challenging.
Despite the difficulty of reaching this market, there is ample incentive to do so. As with Cambridge as a
whole, rental housing is typically older. Also, though space heating is dominated by natural gas, there is
a significant presence of less efficient oil heating. This indicates that there is much room for efficiency
improvements in Cambridge’s rental housing stock.
Energy Programs – Past and Present
Overview of Multi-Family Efficiency Programs in Massachusetts
A number of energy efficiency programs pertain to multifamily building in Cambridge. These programs
are described below, and summarized in Appendix 1.
At present the primary mechanism for enabling multi-family energy efficiency in Massachusetts is the
utility-funded MassSave program, which provides no-cost home energy assessments and incentives for
efficiency upgrades like insulation, air sealing and improved heating, cooling and hot water systems.
While MassSave’s primary focus is on residential buildings of 1-4 units, it also has a multi-family
program available for residential buildings with more than five units, as well as a Low Income MultiFamily program (also known as the LEAN program) available for housing developments of five or more
units that are owned by a Public Housing Authority, a non-profit or a for-profit entity. An additional
qualification for LEAN is that 50 percent of development households must be at or below 60 percent of
median income.
The Massachusetts Green Retrofit Initiative, a partnership between New Ecology and the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), is another initiative that similarly to LEAN targets owners of multifamily affordable housing for efficiency upgrades. (Both New Ecology and LISC have been involved in
programmatic efforts around LEAN as well.) However the Green Retrofit Initiative has slightly different
income criteria and funding sources compared to LEAN, as summarized in the table below. As part of
this initiative property owners can submit applications for their buildings, which are then subject to
approval by New Ecology before an energy audit can take place. The Green Retrofit Initiative seeks to
provide a one-stop shop for a broad range of energy efficiency services and enable building managers
to identify a variety of financing options for related upgrades, while also emphasizing results and overall
building performance in ways that LEAN to date has not.
LEAN
Program
MA Green
Retrofit
Initiative
Income
Criteria
50 percent of
development
households at
or below 60
percent
of
median income
Funding
Source
Utilities (NStar, Private
National Grid, foundations
etc.)
(Barr
Foundation)
and
federal
agencies
(Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development)
50 percent of
development
households at
or below 80
percent
of
median income
State programs are also available to support financing for energy efficiency upgrades in affordable multifamily properties. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) has an Energy Performance
Improvement Program (EPIP) that provides loans of up to $15,000 per unit for a wide range of efficiency
improvements in multi-family buildings, including water conservation, air sealing and insulation and more
efficient heating, cooling, ventilation and hot water systems. The EPIP is intended to complement
energy assessment grant programs like LEAN and the Green Retrofit Initiative.
State planning provides important signals for the future direction of energy efficiency in Massachusetts.
Right now the state is in the process of developing a new energy efficiency plan for 2013-2015, and the
draft plan proposes several adjustments to current multi-family programs. These include: treating condo
owners as single family homeowners for the purposes of energy audits and upgrades, given that many
condo owners see themselves as such; better coordinating multi-family and commercial programs to
enhance service delivery, as many multi-family buildings are currently metered as commercial; and
better coordinating low-income programs for both single-family and multi-family properties as well as for
both non-profit and for-profit multi-family housing developments.
Cambridge’s Experience to Date and Potential Next Steps
New potential multi-family efficiency programs in Cambridge must recognize and build off the city’s
experiences and challenges with the existing programs described above, as well as potential shifts in
programs based upon the state’s upcoming 2013-2015 efficiency plan. Through the city-sponsored
Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA) the city is already connecting residents and businesses with energy
efficiency retrofit programs, with a primary focus on MassSave. Working in coordination with home
performance contractors like Next Step Living and community-based nonprofit organizations like the
Home Energy Efficiency Team, CEA has primarily pursued an event-based outreach strategy to sign
people up for home energy assessments through MassSave. Cambridge has also partnered with NStar
(the utility serving the city) to do walk-in audits of small businesses in neighborhoods like Inman and
Kendall Squares. Finally, the city has done some targeted mailings to landlords, finding that the
landlords who are most engaged about energy efficiency tend to live in the relevant properties.
CEA has found that having a motivated tenant who enjoys a good relationship with the landlord is
important to the success of multi-family efficiency efforts. The city has been able to track requests for
multi-family efficiency via their website, but has experienced challenges in the follow-up stages. Once
its contacts are turned over to NStar, the city is unable to access data on multi-family energy audits
unless it maintains contact with the landlord and tenants throughout the entire process. The reports that
NStar does submit to the city on multi-family assessments are also of limited utility, as they are not
disaggregated by property. These reports also appear to indicate that uptake of deep energy retrofits is
limited, as many of the audits focus on light bulbs or other surface-level measures while doing little to
track actual implementation.
To address many of these issues, the Massachusetts Green Retrofit Initiative could provide a model for
new utility-funded energy efficiency programs in Cambridge and beyond. As described earlier, the
Green Retrofit Initiative seeks to provide deeper engagement around a broad portfolio of energy
efficiency measures and their long-term performance. This one-stop shop framework could be
integrated with Cambridge’s current efforts to assess citywide solar potential and develop a guide for
doing solar upgrades at multi-family properties, creating a process that engages both landlords and
tenants in deep energy retrofits and their long-term impact. This would be consistent with a “strategic
focus on multi-family and performance-based community engagement initiatives, combined with an
overall goal of delivering robust, cost-effective programs,” which are outlined as key objectives in
Massachusetts’ draft energy efficiency plan for 2013-2015.
Finally, delivery of multi-family energy efficiency services and funding could potentially be integrated with
existing programs in Cambridge. In partnership with Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing
Services, the city has a Multi-Family Rehab Loan Program that provides up to $20,000 per unit for
upgrades and addressing code violations and exterior improvements; however, this program currently
does not mention energy efficiency. Integrating energy efficiency options and the MHP’s Energy
Performance Improvement Program into the Multi-Family Loan Rehab Program could be another means
to increase the uptake of multi-family energy efficiency in Cambridge.
Healthy Homes Programs
It is important that any housing retrofit program not exacerbate home health issues, such lead exposure
and asthma, which effect some Cambridge residents; ideally, a program can ameliorate these issues. A
number of initiatives may be considered as the program is designed, to consider how healthy homes
issues can be better integrated into a multifamily program:
●
The Green and Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI) is a national project of the Coalition to Prevent
Childhood Lead poisoning. In Maryland, GHHI is piloting a program that integrates family
advocacy, resident education, lead and other health hazard mitigation services, and home
energy upgrades.GHHI offers a Compact of Core Standards that regions’ home improvement
programs are encourage to collaboratively adopt, to facilitate the development of more
●
streamlined program delivery. It also certifies cities in which home improvement agencies have
taken steps to align their delivery.
The EPA has developed Healthy Indoor Environment Protocols for Home Energy Upgrades.
This program will explore opportunities to better integrate healthy home
Energy Data
Utilities, businesses, governments, and non-governmental actors are increasingly devising innovative
methods to acquire, analyze, and present data in ways which can catalyze energy upgrade markets.
The subsections below outline considerations and industry initiatives relating to energy data.
Types of Energy Data
Building energy data can be classified into two broad categories:
●
●
Energy data. Such data may include:
○ Monthly billing records for individual meters.
○ Smart meter interval readings, which may provide energy used every five minutes, 15
minutes, or hourly.
○ Equipment communications. Increasingly, equipment may be enabled to communicate
with local networks and via the internet, using addressed wireless tags. This
communications ability will allow users to know, and control, how and when equipment is
using energy.
Asset data, referring to information about a building. Asset data may be derived from:
○ User inputs from building operators, tenants, etc.
○ Local government tax assessor records.
○ Representations of buildings’ size and massing, such as LIDAR data.
○ Thermal images of buildings, from which thermal fluxes may be inferred.
○ Comprehensive building assessments.
Benchmarking and Building Rating
Two fundamental types of building ratings have been developed to benchmark buildings’ energy
efficiency:
●
Operations ratings are based on the actual energy consumption data of buildings. Buildings
with similar uses and climates can be compared. EnergyStar Portfolio Manager is the prominent
operations rating nationally, used for commercial buildings and multi-unit building. Wego Wise is
used in multifamily and single family buildings. The energy use of a building is influenced by its
constructions, systems operations and maintenance, and occupant behavior. Thus, an
operations rating reflects all three of these considerations.
●
Asset ratings assess the energy efficiency of buildings’ construction. Asset ratings may be
quite complex, such as Home Energy Score or ASHRAE compliant building energy model; these
models input details of a buildings construction and systems, and run energy simulations. Other
asset models are based on fewer inputs, which have particularly strong building energy use
prediction abilities. Asset ratings can inform potential building utility payers of how much energy
the building may use under normal occupancy, regardless of how it was operated conversely.
Automated Building Assessments Driven by Engineering Models
Data and building energy modeling techniques are increasingly being used to rapidly assess potential
energy improvement opportunities based on relatively few data inputs. Such assessment strategies
include:
●
●
●
Building operators or assessment professionals can implement relatively few pieces of asset
information. This data is then used to develop a model of the buildings energy use, informed by
prior detailed audit data.
Tax assessor records can indicate what buildings feature the highest energy efficiency potential,
based off of correlations with detailed audit data and assessor data.
Interval meter data can be subjected to algorithms that disaggregate energy consumption into
different end-use loads. A model of the buildings’ energy use may then be automatically
constructed based on these inferred loads, and upgrade scenarios tested in this model.
Such assessment tools are evolving rapidly. They promise to reduce the costs of auditing buildings’
energy efficiency potential, and to allow for identification of the most promising energy efficiency
opportunities across a portfolio of buildings.
The Appendix includes case studies of a range of building benchmarking and data-driven assessment
tools.
Energy Data Privacy
The US Department of Energy has convened stakeholders to articulate principles for smart meter
interval energy data; similar principles seem to hold for less granular meter consumption data VERIFY.
They found that most market participants believe consumers should have the right to disclose energy
use data to non-utility third-parties, and that this disclosure should be a streamlined, simplified process.
They felt data should not be disclosed unless consumers opted-in to the program.
Utilities have the right to use data for their business activities, including efficiency program delivery.
Thus, utility vendors reportedly have access to all buildings energy usage data, though they do not
share this data.
Green Button Inititiative
Federal recognition of the importance of energy data galvanized the creation of the Green Button
Initiative, an industry-led effort to improve availability of energy data. Sparked by a challenge in
September 2011 from U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra to give customers greater access
to their energy data, industry stakeholders worked together to officially launch the program in January
2012.5 This voluntary program encourages utilities to release personal energy data to customers in a
standard format as an XML file.6 To date, 20 utilities have committed to the Green Button Initiative. This
amounts to 36 million residential customers gaining digital access to their energy data (Innovation
Electricity Efficiency 2012).7
Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform (SEED)
The Federal government is developing tools which will standardize the taxonomy of energy data.
Currently in beta testing, Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform (SEED) is software for large building
portfolios that provides a standard format for collecting, storing, and analyzing large. (The SEED
taxonomy is based upon the Department of Energy’s Building Performance.) Database The tool is
available to state and local governments and other building portfolio owners. SEED can also import
data from the EPA’s portfolio manager, export data to the Department of Energy’s Building Performance
Database, and publish results via an open API. SEED is free and open source.
5
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Administration Announces New Tools to Help
Consumers Manage Electricity Use and Shrink Bills." whitehouse.gov. January 18, 2012.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pressroom/01182012 (accessed October 29, 2012).
5
6
EnerNex. Green Button Data. n.d. http://www.greenbuttondata.org (accessed October 29, 2012).
6
7
Innovation Electricity Efficiency. Green Button: One Year Later. Issue Brief, September, 2012.
This is the DOE Building Energy Performance Taxonomy which SEED is based upon.8
SEED enables users to analyze efficiency potential, compare building performance, and track
compliance with efficiency programs. Moreover, creating a large database of energy data will enable
greater understanding of a city or region’s building stock as well as enable statistical analyses of
regional or community building performance.9
More information can be found at:
8
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012, May 05). Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform. Retrieved November 10,
2012, from Department of Energy:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/pdfs/doe_building_energy_performance_taxonomy.pdf
8
9
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012, September 13). Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from Department of Energy:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/seed_platform.html
9
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/seed_platform.html
3. Program Components
A variety of program components could be included in the ultimate design of the Cambridge Energy
Project. A few promising opportunities are noted here.
Benchmarking and Building Rating
Benchmarking and building rating programs in residential buildings can improve the functioning of real
estate markets, allowing greater transparency in the anticipated energy costs of buildings. Such
transparency can help stimulate upgrade activity. Nadkarni and Michaels (2012) articulate that an
optimal building rating and benchmarking system for residential buildings would entail:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Requiring annual operational updates.
An asset rating of the building within a specified time (10 years), providing that cost-effective
rating tools were available.
Rating confidentiality, save for web-based disclosure to relevant stakeholders, like owners,
tenants and prospective buyers/lessees.
Public disclosure during time of listing for sale or lease.
A standardized process for building asset rating, delivered by a certified rating authority.
A consistent, easy to understand energy label, providing both asset and operational scores,
comparable within and between residential building types.
Other
Demand -side Stakeholder Engagement
Overview
The multi-family housing market remains one of the most difficult-to-reach areas in the energy efficiency
field, due in large part to the “split incentive” program. In rental homes, tenants generally pay energy bills
and would stand to gain immediately from efficiency improvements, but any large projects must be
financed by the owner, who has no such immediate gain. As noted above, this problem is particularly
salient in Cambridge, which is characterized by younger tenants who do not live in one home for long
and therefore do not have a long-term interest in the home’s efficiency. Additionally, many area property
owners are small-scale landlords who may not have the available capital to make major investments in
efficiency.
There are also a significant number of condominiums in the Cambridge area, which present present a
separate but equally challenging barrier to implementation. Condominium associations generally have
veto power over a range of energy efficiency improvements, and have no direct interest in the increased
efficiency of an individual unit.
Overcoming these barriers to implementation requires a program structure that appeals to both tenants
and property owners. This will necessarily involve an educational and outreach component to these
groups to understand their concerns and barriers to the program’s success. Below, we discuss the
categories of stakeholders who will have an interest in such a program as well as existing means of
interaction and best practices for engagement.
Stakeholders and Institutional Pathways for Engagement
The specific market segment targeted by this project—small multi-family buildings with between 2 and
12 units—is particularly difficult to reach. In the large multifamily rental market, there are relatively few
property managers to conduct outreach to and there are more likely to be established modes of
organization among tenants. There are significantly fewer such organizations in the small rental market,
though they do exist
On the landlord side, there are several state and regional organizations of small property owners to
conduct outreach to. These include the Small Property Ownership Association,10 the Massachusetts
Rental Housing Association,11 the Greater Boston Real Estate Board,12 and the Boston chapter of
the Institute for Real Estate Management.13 There is also a diverse number of condominium
associations that represent property owner interests as well.
While less organized, there are also established mechanisms that can be used to reach tenant groups.
The focus of tenant advocacy groups is typically on eviction and poverty, though it clear that energy
savings has relevance to this mission. The nonprofit Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee14
serves as the local Community Action Program. On the city side, the Environmental and
Transportation Planning Division15 within the Cambridge Community Development Department is also
an important actor in this space. Unfortunately, the majority of tenant-engagement activities are
restricted to subsidized housing, and there are few existing means of organization among market-rate
tenants. This is made more difficult by the transitory nature of Cambridge’s rental population, particularly
its students.
Beyond landlords and tenants, there are a number of related industries with an interest in energy
efficiency in multifamily housing. These include, but are not limited to, property management firms,
energy contractors, and realtors.
Another relevant actor is Just-A-Start,16 a local organization dedicated to mediating landlord-tenant
disputes in the Boston area, with a heavy focus on Cambridge. Just-A-Start’s mediators have valuable
10
http://spoa.com/
http://www.massrha.com/
12
http://www.gbreb.com/
13
http://www.iremboston.org/
14
http://www.ceoccambridge.org/
15
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/etdiv.aspx
16
http://www.justastart.org/
11
experience navigating the institutional context of landlord-tenant relationships, and it is likely that they
will be able to act as an important resource in conducting outreach and information to these groups.
Finally, NSTAR’s current multifamily housing program includes an outreach component conducted in
partnership with local community organizations and likely has established inroads into local communities
that can be leveraged for this project.
Best Practices for Condominium Outreach
Condominiums present a less-often considered variant of the split-incentive problem. As such, there are
fewer existing efficiency programs that explicitly call out condominiums in the established scope, and no
uniform methodology among those that do. The simplest approach--taken by both Wisconsin’s Focus on
Energy17 and NYSEG18--is to direct condo owners to take advantage of rebates on the upgrades that
they are able to control directly, like lighting and appliances. Other programs take more concerted
approaches to the split incentive problem by targeting condominium associations. Efficiency programs
run by National Grid,19 Energy Trust of Oregon,20 and NYSERDA21 aim to work directly with
condominium associations by conducting individual outreach and recruit energy champions within
buildings. Policy interventions could also be made on a higher level than that of a utility-operated energy
efficiency program, and condominiums may be encouraged to make efficiency upgrades through
practices like Energy Improvement Districts, taxpayer-funded natural gas pipeline extensions, and
changes to applicable condominium laws.22 Of these methods, we believe that the first is too narrow and
the last may be too impractical. We believe that an appropriate approach to condominiums is to consider
the market to be a unique program stream and offer dedicated resources to engage and market to
condominium associations and encourage condominium owners to advocate for efficiency to their
boards.
Recommended Approach
We believe that obtaining buy-in from landlord and tenant groups and condominium associations will be
a crucial element to this program’s success. Over the coming months, we propose to conduct outreach
efforts to the groups identified in order to gauge their attitudes on energy efficiency upgrades in
multifamily housing, the potential impact of the data and program delivery strategies being developed,
and thus the potential parameters of the project.
This outreach effort will be modeled after the established practice of stakeholder analysis and will
involve collaboration with MIT’s Science Impact Collaborative and the experienced mediators at Just-AStart. Our outreach effort will begin with the stakeholders identified above. Through preliminary
discussions with those groups and individuals, we will identify additional stakeholders and interested
17
18
http://www.focusonenergy.com/residential/apartments-and-condos/programs.aspx
http://www.nyseg.com/UsageAndSafety/usingenergywisely/eeps/multifamily.html
18
19
http://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/home/energyeff/4_energy_svcs.asp
http://energytrust.org/residential/rental-properties/ForCondoOwners.aspx
21
http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Multifamily-Performance-Program/Co-op-and-condo-boards.aspx
22
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0391.htm
20
parties. Due to the fragmented nature of the rental community in Cambridge, it will be prohibitively
difficult to conduct outreach to all interested parties. Instead, we will conduct focus groups with
representative samples of property owners, tenants, and other stakeholder groups. Through these
interviews and focus groups we will seek the understand the concerns and interests of various
stakeholders and identify one or several program delivery mechanisms that could be used to implement
an effective efficiency program. We are prepared for the likelihood that unique program delivery
mechanisms may be appropriate for distinct groups--such as rental properties with student residents,
properties where landlords reside on-site, and condominium housing.
Financing
Several challenges have precluded the widespread adoption of energy efficiency financing measures.
These include difficulty assuring that energy savings will exceed payments, limited support for
comprehensive retrofits, and an inability for programs to cover their costs in some instances (ACEEE
2011). Customers may lack information about financing programs, perceive them as costly or timeconsuming, or face credit barriers to accessing financing; lenders often lack data on energy savings
projections and may see energy efficiency as a risky proposition in the absence of this information
(Deutsche Bank 2012). The split incentive problem between landlords and tenants also remains a
persistent challenge to driving uptake of energy efficiency programs. To be effective, financing
programs for multi-family efficiency must proactively address these issues.
Several strategies exist for overcoming the aforementioned barriers. By tying repayments to utility bills
and specific meters, on-bill financing presents a mechanism to use customer payments as a proxy for
creditworthiness and potentially address the split incentive problem in multifamily and rental properties
(ACEEE 2011). Providing energy data before or at the point of loan application can position lenders to
incorporate cost and savings projections into their underwriting (Deutsche Bank 2012). Financing
products can bundle together a variety of energy efficiency measures to spur deeper retrofits and to
enable measures with short payback periods to offset the costs of measures with longer payback
periods (ACEEE 2011). Public benefit and utility funds, in addition to directly funding energy efficiency
improvements, can also be used to provide credit enhancements to financial products or to buy down
interest rates (ACEEE 2011). Multi-family efficiency programs can employ a portfolio of these
approaches to ensure that both customers and lenders can access important information, reduce their
overall financial risks and have stronger incentives for participation.
Scope of Design
·
Recommend a consumer financing tool to support deep energy upgrades.
Background Information
·
Summarize available financing tools & programs in Cambridge.
o
http://cambridgeenergyalliance.org/landlords/financing
o
http://leanmultifamily.org/
o
http://www.heetma.com/
·
Typical MF building financing systems present in Cambridge (commercial mortgages, home
mortgages, REITs, etc. – Derive from interviews with real estate community.)
·
·
·
Existing & proposed on-bill financing initiatives.
Commercial PACE – Could it apply to MF in MA; existing & proposed initiatives.
Articulate important elements of financing EE.
Green Leasing
Overview
Green Leases are one policy tool that has been implemented to overcome the split incentive problem
discussed above. The term refers to a standard rental lease that includes a mechanism to finance
energy efficiency improvements in a home. Typically, a Green Lease includes language stating that if a
landlord makes improvements of a certain type, he may raise the rent immediately to begin to recoup
the cost. If structured properly, a Green Lease benefits both landlords—because repayment on capital
improvements is guaranteed—and tenants—whose increases in rent will be more than offset by
decreases in utility bills. As part of defining a scope for the Cambridge Multifamily Energy Program, we
have investigated the viability of utilizing Green Leases and related policy tools that target the split
incentive problem.
Previous Use
While Green Leases are not uncommon in the commercial sector,23 the practice has not yet gained a
foothold in the residential rental market. Late last decade, the Cambridge Energy Alliance began to
consider advocating for their use locally, but the initiative lost steam and has not been restarted.24
Applicability to Cambridge
Previous use of Green Leases in the residential housing market have generally been restricted to rent
controlled areas. In these situations, Green Leasing provides a convenient and mutually beneficial
mechanism that allows landlords to be compensated for making improvements to the home without
causing an increase in total living costs to the tenant. This benefit is not as clear in a rental market
without rent control, where there is no legal barrier to a landlord who wishes to raise rent upon expiration
of a lease.
Cambridge currently has an uncontrolled rental housing market. Rent control had previously been
established in the 1970s, but the market was deregulated by a statewide ballot initiative in 1994.
Predictably, opening the market has led to both increased average rents25 and greater investment in
rental housing26 in Cambridge.
23
See: http://www.imt.org/finance-and-leasing/green-leasing, http://www.greenleaselibrary.com/bestpractices.html, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3__Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/BEES2011FINALfullWeb.pdf
24
Beth Williams thesis, Jason Jay thesis.
25
New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/nyregion/when-rent-control-just-vanishes-bothsides-of-debate-cite-boston-s-example.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
26
Henry Pollakowski, MIT Center for Real Estate. 2003.
http://www.nmhc.org/files/ContentFiles/ThirdPartyGuide/cr_36.pdf.
Green Leases are structured to confront a formal barrier in the rental housing market, where landlords
may be unable to guarantee a revenue stream (in the form of increased rents) to recover the cost of
capital investments. However, because of the lack of rent control, the barriers to rent increases in
Cambridge are informal rather than formal. Landlords are hesitant to increase rents because of the
extralegal protests raised by tenants. The key barrier is the willingness of tenants to accept rent
increases on principle. Green Leases are not intended to confront this barrier, but instead present a
legal mechanism for certainty and transparency once parties have already agreed to the general
concept.
Recommendation
While Green Leases may be useful in providing a formalized mechanism of implementing efficiency
improvements in rental housing, we do not believe that they confront the most fundamental barriers to
efficiency in multifamily housing in Cambridge—that is, the agreement by all parties that efficiency
improvements and resulting rent increases are mutually beneficial for both landlord and tenant. In light of
this, we believe that a focus on Green Leases would a misallocation of this effort’s limited resources and
political capital. Instead, we believe that our efforts should focus on the informal barriers preventing
energy efficiency in the multifamily housing market and must entail a comprehensive outreach and
educational campaign to the small landlord and tenant communities.
Time-of-Sale Upgrade Ordinances
Overview
Another policy option that has been attempted in other jurisdictions is a mandatory time-of-sale upgrade
to a housing unit’s efficiency. Often termed Residential Energy Conservation Ordinances (RECOs),
these regulations specify that as part of the purchase of an existing rental housing unit, property owners
must either fulfill a prescriptive set of mandatory upgrades or invest a set portion of the purchase price in
efficiency improvements.27
This policy option overcomes the split incentive problem by mandating that one party--the property
owner--make efficiency improvements as part of a property sale. However, there are two substantial
drawbacks to this policy tool. The first is the political difficulty of implementing such an ordinance, and
the second is its limited effectiveness. Because the policy only comes into effect when a housing unit is
sold, an upper limit is enforced on the number of homes that would be retrofitted through this approach.
Previous Use
RECOs have been used to advance energy efficiency since the 1980s and are in place in several cities
across the nation--including San Francisco, Berkeley, Austin, Boulder, Ann Arbor, Minneapolis,
Burlington, and Roseville, CA--as well as statewide in Wisconsin. In other areas, such as Portland and
San Diego, proposed RECOs were abandoned due to opposition from real estate organizations and
other groups. However, opposition from commercial groups is not a given. Realtors in San Francisco
27
Beth Williams thesis.
and Berkeley use energy upgrades as a selling point for buyers,28 and in Austin, realtor groups
negotiated and support a watered-down ordinance that requires energy audits, but not mandatory
upgrades.29
There are slight variations in program scope and administration that are worth discussing. While most
program apply to the entire residential sector, the programs in Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, and Minneapolis
specifically target multi-family housing.30 This implies that they are intended to address--or rather,
sidestep--the split-incentive problem in rental housing. While most programs are run through a housing,
building, or code department, the ordinances in Burlington and Roseville are operated by local municipal
utilities.31
There are also differences in penalties for non-compliance. Most cities specify monetary penalties for
noncompliance that vary in severity. In Ann Arbor and Wisconsin, noncompliance has additional legal
consequences, and can actually lead to jail time. Conversely, Roseville and Berkeley do not have any
established enforcement mechanisms to deal with noncompliance.32 In Boulder, landlords must be
licensed by the city, providing an additional leverage point for enforcement.33
There has been a general failure to track and evaluate the impact of RECOs, and as a result, there is
little information available regarding their effectiveness in achieving energy savings. 34
Energy Disclosure Ordinances
A related policy mechanism that has been attempted in several cities is an Energy Disclosure Ordinance.
These require that building owners collect and make available detailed information on energy
consumption. These regulations are very new, and there is not much uniformity in terms of what types of
building owners are covered under the ordinance, and who they must disclose information to.
In Seattle, a 2011 ordinance requires that commercial properties report energy use to the city, and on
request to tenants, lenders, and potential buyers. Opponents have expressed a concern about the cost
28
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
29
Pat Coleman thesis.
30
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
30
31
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
32
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
33
Find a source.
34
Beth Williams thesis, ACEEE.
of compliance of smaller property owners for whom the standard reporting tool, EPA’s Portfolio Manager,
is less suitable.35 Philadelphia enacted a similar plan in June 2012, and requires commercial buildings to
provide information to tenants on request. The city government is in the process of developing a broader
distribution plan.36 Boston is also in the process of developing an ordinance, and New York, San
Francisco and Washington, DC have already enacted similar mechanisms.37
Cambridge is already developing an energy disclosure ordinance for both residential and commercial
buildings, but at the moment there are no plans to require buildings under 50,000 square feet to comply
due to the high cost of administering such an effort.38 As currently structured, the ordinance would not
apply to the segment of the multi-family housing market targeted by this efficiency strategy project.
Applicability to Cambridge
While implementing a RECO is difficult in any context, Cambridge is perhaps better situated than other
most municipalities to make a successful attempt. Cambridge’s participation in the Green Communities
Act and its implementation of stretch energy codes could provide a foundation for further actions around
energy regulation. However, the extreme opposition that an attempt to enact a RECO is sure to
encounter demands that the chances at success of such an attempt be carefully evaluated in advance.
Recommendation
Time-of-sale upgrade ordinances present a unique means of addressing the split-incentive problem in
multifamily energy efficiency, largely by sidestepping the issue entirely. However, due to the great
political difficulty in establishing and implementing a RECO, it should not be assumed that Cambridge
will be able to. Instead, through conversations with stakeholders occurring throughout the engagement
process, RECOs should be included as one of several possible solutions for achieving energy efficiency
in Cambridge. If a universally beneficial solution can be found, an energy ordinance may indeed be
implemented in Cambridge, but it should only be considered as one of many potential solutions.
Technical Scope
Scope of Design
·
Outline typical measures appropriate for MF housing typologies in Cambridge.
·
Outline required contractor certifications
Background information
·
Identify MF upgrade contractors.
·
Pre-weatherization barriers.
35
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/print-edition/2011/09/30/green-report-seattle-energy.html?page=all
36
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/184320/Energy+Law/Philadelphia+Enacts+Mandatory+Energy+and+Water
+Use+Disclosure+Ordinance+for+Commercial+Buildings
37
http://www.energyefficiencymatters.org/building-energy-rating-and-disclosure-picks-up-steam-in-governmentand-corporate-policies-boston-announces-policy/
38
Personal communication with Meghan Shaw (Cambridge Energy Alliance).
·
Status of rent controls.
4. Potential Program Architecture
Outline potential structure of a MF energy program. Caveate that this outline is conceptual and
preliminary; recommended designs will occur in Spring 2012. Outline should cover:
·
·
Process of buildings/customers through the program.
Adminstration, management & delivery structure; responsibilities of different stakeholders.
Improving on the Traditional Program Cycle
As we explore the opportunities for a small pilot project in Cambridge, it is important to understand how
such pilots operate within broader utility and government energy efficiency programs. Vine (2009) notes
that utilities operate on a “program cycle”, broadly comprised of the following steps:
● Policy objectives - government and/or utilities will identify how much efficiency they hope to
achieve, at what costs, for whose benefit. This is often informed by an assessment of the energy
efficiency potential in a region. This potential is categorized by sector (residential, commercial &
industrial). The potential is often differentiated between technical (technically possible),
economic (cost effective), and achievable (reflecting analysts’ opinions of how much of the
potential programs could actually achieve, often informed by previous programs uptake rates).
● Program and portfolio planning - Identify what programs will serve to achieve efficiency.
● Program design - Programs administration, management, financing,
● Program piloting - Some programs will be piloted in smaller jurisdictions and/or for limited periods
of time, to identify their cost efficacy.
● Program monitoring and evaluation - Program administrators will monitor programs against key
performance indicators. They may also undertake internal or external evaluations of programs,
which include quantitative and qualitative investigations of programs efficacy, and how they could
be improved.
Sullivan (2009) notes that this process hinders innovation. He argues that innovation must be managed,
using early and frequent testing of concepts and prototype products. By fully developing pilot programs,
and leaving evaluation until programs are well established, energy efficiency programs miss
opportunities to improve services. Experimentation is key to innovation, though difficult to ensure their
validity in efficiency programs. For example, validity can be impacted in the following ways:
●
●
Internal validity of tests may be compromised due to the numerous variables that might impact
customers’ decision to take on upgrades, beyond the few measures programs seek to test.
External validity may be compromised due to conditions in a pilot location, or the nature of
offerings, differing from broader efforts.
Appendixes
Program Summary
Program Techn
ical
meas
ures
&
availa
ble
incent
ives
MassSav
e Home
Energy
Services
Program
(1-4 unit
buildings
)
Inco
me
Crite
ria
F
u
n
di
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n
&
C
o
n
tr
a
ct
o
r
s
A
s
s
o
ci
at
e
d
fi
n
a
n
ci
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
ni
s
m
O
u
tr
e
a
c
h
C
h
a
n
n
el
s
Techni >60
cal
% of
measu AMI
res:
Instant
saving
s
measu
res
U
til
it
y
ra
te
p
a
y
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
or
s:
0
%
H
E
A
T
lo
a
n
U
til
iti
e
s,
c
o
nt
ra
(CFL’s
,
progra
mmabl
e
therm
ostats,
faucet
aerato
rs),
insulat
ion, air
sealin
g,
heatin
g/venti
lation/
HVAC
syste
ms
Availa
ble
incenti
ves:
75%
off up
to
$2,000
on
insulat
ion,
nocost
air
sealin
g,
rebate
s for
heatin
g
equip
ment
er
fu
n
d
s
N
S
ta
r,
N
at
io
n
al
G
ri
d,
ot
h
er
ut
ili
ti
e
s
C
o
nt
ra
ct
or
s:
N
e
xt
S
te
p
Li
vi
n
g,
C
oo
p
P
fo
r
q
u
al
ifi
e
d
m
e
a
s
ur
e
s
–
u
p
to
$
2
5,
0
0
0
w
it
h
7y
e
ar
p
a
y
b
a
c
k
ct
or
s,
n
o
npr
of
it
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
ni
ty
or
g
a
ni
z
at
io
n
s,
lo
c
al
b
u
si
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
w
er
,
G
re
e
n
T
e
k,
et
c.
MassSav
e MultiFamily
Program
(5+ unit
buildings
)
Techni >60
cal
% of
measu AMI
res:
Energ
y
efficie
nt
lightin
g
upgra
des
and
control
s,
occup
ancy
sensor
s,
water
heatin
g
equip
ment,
domes
tic hot
water
measu
res
U
til
it
y
ra
te
p
a
y
er
fu
n
d
s
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
or
s:
N
S
ta
r,
N
at
io
n
al
G
ri
d,
ot
h
er
ut
ili
ti
e
s
L
o
a
n
s
U
til
iti
e
s
(lowflow
showe
rheads
,
aerato
rs, and
pipe
wrap),
progra
mmabl
e
therm
ostats,
insulat
ion, air
sealin
g,
highefficie
ncy
heatin
g and
coolin
g
equip
ment
upgra
des
and
control
s,
ENER
GY
STAR
®
qualifi
ed
refrige
rators
and
other
eligibl
C
o
nt
ra
ct
or
s:
C
o
n
s
er
v
at
io
n
S
er
vi
c
e
G
ro
u
p
e
applia
nces
Low
Income
MultiFamily
Program
(LEAN)
(5+ unit
buildings
)
Techni
cal
measu
res:
Repla
cemen
t or
repair
of
heatin
g
syste
ms
and/or
control
s,
replac
ement
or
repair
of hot
water
heatin
g
syste
ms,
buildin
g
envelo
pe
upgra
des
throug
h air
sealin
g and
insulat
ion,
lightin
50%
of
units
at or
belo
w
60%
of
AMI
U
til
it
y
ra
te
p
a
y
er
fu
n
d
s
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
or
s:
A
ct
io
n
fo
r
B
o
st
o
n
C
o
m
m
u
ni
ty
D
e
v
el
o
p
m
e
nt
,
A
ct
G
ra
nt
s
L
E
A
N
A
d
vi
s
or
y
C
o
m
m
itt
e
e
(p
ro
p
er
ty
o
w
n
er
s,
c
o
m
m
u
ni
ty
d
e
v
el
o
g
upgra
des,
applia
nce
upgra
des,
and
ventila
tion
upgra
des
Massach
usetts
Green
Retrofit
Techni
cal
measu
res:
io
n
In
c.
p
m
e
nt
c
or
p
or
at
io
n
s,
n
o
npr
of
it
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
ni
ty
or
g
a
ni
z
at
io
n
s)
C
o
nt
ra
ct
or
s:
50%
of
units
at or
B
ar
r
F
A
d
m
in
G
ra
nt
s,
C
o
m
m
Initiative
(5+ unit
buildings
)
Bench
markin
g of
histori
cal
energy
and
water
consu
mption
, onsite
buildin
g
asses
sment
s,
energy
and
water
retrofit
project
financi
ng
Availa
ble
incenti
ves:
Coordi
nation
with
existin
g
rebate
or
incenti
ve
progra
ms
belo
w
80%
of
AMI
o
u
n
d
at
io
n,
D
e
p
ar
t
m
e
nt
of
H
o
u
si
n
g
a
n
d
U
rb
a
n
D
e
v
el
o
p
m
e
nt
is
tr
at
or
s:
N
e
w
E
c
ol
o
g
y,
B
o
st
o
n
L
o
c
al
In
iti
at
iv
e
s
S
u
p
p
or
t
C
or
p
or
at
io
n
lo
a
n
s
u
ni
ty
d
e
v
el
o
p
m
e
nt
c
or
p
or
at
io
n
s,
n
o
npr
of
it
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
ni
ty
or
g
a
ni
z
at
io
C
o
nt
ra
ct
or
s:
n
s
Case Study - WegoWise
https://www.wegowise.com/
Monitors energy consumption primarily in multifamily buildings.
● Building Type: multifamily/residential
○ Tweaked application so it could comply with NY Law 84 and function for commercial
buildings
○ Developing commercial and single-family residential platform.
● Asset Data:
○ Basic building characteristics that can be discovered in about 27 questions.
○ Do not actively use Tax Assessor data, but are exploring possibilities.
● Operational Data: Accesses E-bill online payment systems most utilities have
○ Monthly reports of energy data
○ WegoWise is not as concerned right now about smart meters and receiving 15-minute
interval data.
● Visualization Tool:
○ Online dashboard
WegoWise is an online platform designed to monitor energy and water use of multi-family homes.
Primarily targeted at property managers, clients pay $5/building/month to have their electric, gas, and
water consumption automatically tracked each month.
As part of the energy assessment for each building, property managers respond to approximately 27
questions regarding the physical characteristics of each property. WegoWise’s main value-add is in
automatically tracking monthly energy consumption and payments. Property managers share e-Bill
account numbers and passwords with WegoWise. WegoWise then screen scrapes data every 20 days
to update energy consumption.
WegoWise offers their clients comprehensive analysis of building energy information. Users can build
custom reports to compare specific buildings and specific energy consumption. Generated charts show
how the client’s buildings perform compared to physically similar buildings in the same climate zone and
with the same type of heating system in WegoWise’s database. Users can also specify a geographic
location for comparison. For example, perhaps they only want to know how their buildings compare to
buildings in Massachusetts, or even more specifically in Boston. They are showed how their buildings
compare to efficient buildings. This efficiency threshold is based upon performance information of the
top 25% of similar buildings in WegoWise’s database. WegoWise also offers the option to compare the
energy performance developments, not just single buildings, which may be valuable to expansive
property owners.
WegoWise offers a simple, easy-to-use energy monitoring tool to property managers. Automatically
capturing utility bill information saves the time of users having to enter information manually. Moreover,
graphs and charts help property managers understand which are their low- and high-performing
buildings. WegoWise has been used to show changes in building performance after retrofits, to help
qualify a building for other energy funding, and to verify LEED performance criteria.
A main obstacle with WegoWise is getting utility data if building tenants pay their own utility bills.
Property managers must have tenants sign releases of information and acquire their individual utility
account numbers and passwords. This can slow the process and some tenants do not want to release
their information. However, if property managers are able to obtain the permission of 50 to 60% of
tenants, WegoWise can calculate an average consumption pattern for units and then create a building
estimate. Some buildings overcome this obstacle by including a data release provision in leases.
WegoWise has developed and extensive network within Massachusetts, but is working nationally with
presences in New York, California, and other areas as well. WegoWise is looking to expand its market
by developing a similar online platform for commercial buildings and single-family homes. Online energy
management is a young market and WegoWise is one of only a few companies in the arena
[EnergyScoreCards is a potential competitor].
Case Study - EnergyView
PDF Report
Community map of building energy performance and individual ratepayer comparison calculator.
● Building Type: Multifamily/residential/commercial
● Asset Data:
○ Tax assessor records and geographic survey information
■ 35 features were collected from these data sets
● Operational Data
○ Monthly electric and gas data from NSTAR
● Visualization Tool:
○ Color-coded map which ranks building performance. This tool was only ever hypothetical
and never launched live.
○ Online calculator for an individual to enter household data outputs graphs on:
■ Monthly electricity use compared to similar homes
■ Electricity usage distribution
■ Monthly gas use compared to similar homes
■ Gas usage distribution
EnergyView was developed by an MIT PhD student and faculty member to model energy consumption
in residential and commercial buildings. Their approach used exclusively remotely available data,
meaning no home visit was necessary, nor did anyone need to collect descriptive information from
building owners or tenants.
Using tax assessor records, geographic survey information, and monthly energy information provided by
the local utility NSTAR, the authors created models to predict energy usage for 6,500 buildings in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. These models were able explain about 75% of observed variance in energy
consumption given building characteristics.
From their models, the authors designed two potential tools. For utilities - which are able to access all of
their clients’ data without privacy restrictions - the authors developed a map which color codes buildings
by energy consumption; this tool enables utilities to readily see which buildings which are consuming
more energy than would be expected by their given features. For individual ratepayers, the others
created an online calculator where users can manually enter their monthly energy information and then
see resulting charts which compare their energy usage to the predicted energy usage of similar
buildings.
The authors noted the difficulty in assigning specific utility records to buildings. If utilities were able to
include a Building ID code which matched with tax assessor parcel IDs, this would facilitate the analysis
process. The authors also stated knowing whether buildings were owner-occupied or tenant-occupied
would be helpful, but that information was not available in tax assessor records.
The authors faced another challenge when multiple meters were associated with one building. They
didn’t necessarily know which meters were attached to units and which were associated with common
spaces. This suggests a potential difficulty in conducting remote energy analyses; without tenant or
owner input, it may hard to know what space meters represent.
EnergyView faces limitations in that due to privacy restrictions, only utilities can use the mapping feature.
Moreover, utility energy data sets do not necessarily identify which meters are for occupied spaces and
which are for common spaces, making the analysis more complicated. However, even with these
obstacles, EnergyView and similar platforms have the potential to be scaled up and offer utilities
mapping tools which could enable them to target efficiency programs at high energy users.
This relationship diagram explains how different data relates to each other in EnergyView.
Case Study – Cambridge Solar Map
http://www.cambridgema.gov/solar/
Academic Paper by Christoph Reinhart and Alstan Jakubiec
Ranks solar potential of roofs and provides info on solar potential, financial costs, environmental benefits,
and installation information.
● Building Type: Multifamily/residential/commercial - indiscriminate
● Asset Data:
○ LIDAR scan
○ RADIANCE/DAYSIM simulation
○ Standard local weather data
● Operational Data:
○ None
○ Potentially this could be added to make an even more convincing tool.
● Visualization Tool:
○ Interactive map which color codes solar suitability on roofs
■ Users can search for specific addresses or zoom and move map
■ Generates numerical breakdowns for individual roofs of solar potential, financial
costs, and environmental benefits.
■ Provides an installation overview.
While not an efficiency or energy consumption map, the Cambridge Solar Map demonstrates the power
of an interactive map for relating energy information to individual homeowners and to community groups.
Developed by MIT’s Sustainable Design Lab, the map color codes roofs for excellent, good, or poor
photovoltaic potential. The data used to build the map includes a LIDAR scan of Cambridge to establish
urban geometries, a solar radiance simulation model built by Christoph Reinhart, and local weather
station data. The developers used the specifications of a SunPower 185-watt panel to calculate the
annual PV generation.
Users are able to search a specific address or manually move the map and select buildings. Upon
selection, the “Solar Tool” generates PV related information for that building if it has a ranking of
excellent or good. This information generated includes estimates of potential PV size (kW), annual
electricity generation, cost of installation, tax credits and rebates, annual revenue, payback time, and
environmental benefits. The map also provides links to find out more about how to get a PV system
installed.
The power of the Solar Map is that individual homeowners can quite quickly determine whether their
home may be suitable for solar power and see and estimate of financial benefits for installing a system.
Installers or other community groups can use the map to target specific homes or neighborhoods which
would benefit the most from PV installations. Individual homeowners may be able to convince neighbors
to also install solar, and perhaps negotiate a group discount on contractor cost. One of the map
developers also noted that they compared the map to an existing MIT solar installation. The solar
installation seems to be underproducing based on what the map predicts. The system is currently being
analyzed, but this suggests that the map could also be used to verify system performance after
installation.
The Sustainable Design Lab is continuing to work on the map. In the future, they would like to develop a
tool to outline panels on a roof to get more specific information about system configuration. They also
recognized the potential of incorporating actual energy consumption data to enable house-to-house
comparison and augment the financial incentive calculations.
If possible to generate, a community efficiency map could benefit from leveraging similar features to the
Cambridge Solar Map. These include:
● Simple, easy-to-understand color coding
● User-friendly searching and moving
● Speaks to multiple user groups - individuals, community groups, contractors, utilities, and
government agencies
● Includes estimates of savings and financial incentives
Case Study – Next Step Living
http://nextstepliving.com
Next Step Living is a one-stop-shop for home energy assessments and weatherization.
● Building Type: Residential
● Asset Data:
○ Audits
○ Infrared Imaging
○ Blower Door Tests
○ Tax Assessor Records
● Operational Data
○ Utility bills
■ 12 months pre-installation and 12-months post-installation
○ Energy assessment database
● Visualization Tool:
○ Heat Map compares tax assessor record characteristics to audits of similar homes in the
NSL database
Next Step Living (NSL) is a Massachusetts-based turnkey home energy assessment and weatherization
provider. NSL accounts for 90% of the home performance market in Massachusetts and will be
expanding to Connecticut and Maryland. The four-year-old company conducts 25,000 home energy
assessments per year and expects that number to continue to grow.
NSL collects twelve months of utility data from customers before they complete a weatherization of their
home. NSL also asks for 12 months of energy data post-installation. Using this information, NSL is
building a detailed database of home energy audits. Using 20,000 homes worth of data, NSL built a
“Heat Map” of Somerville. They used a handful of important data points pulled from tax assessor
records to compare Somerville homes to similar homes in their database of audits. They color coded
homes so that “hot” homes were the ones with the most potential for upgrade.
Next Step Living’s Heat Map is leveraging an increasingly popular method of analyzing home efficiency
performance by comparing remote, publicly available housing data (from tax assessor records) to
historic energy audits of similar buildings. This enables contractors to develop building profiles before
contacting potential customers. They can identify neighborhoods and communities that offer the
greatest opportunity for savings and target their outreach efforts there.
Case Study – Renew Boston Lean Program
Program management
Case Study – Seattle Benchmarking & Reporting Policy
Covers MF housing >5 units. http://www.seattle.gov/environment/benchmarking.htm
Preliminary Practicum Lesson Plan & Syllabus
[BC5]Ask
JF & RG what of this is readily available. Arc GIS project?
[BC6]Will entail interviews with property management companies.
[BC9]Brendan
presumes we want a benchmarking component, comparing like properties; and a mapping
component, facilitating neighborhood comparisons & targeting specific buildings.
We need to find a means of testing how these tools can best be used. Maybe some sort of experiment
plan for the Spring; focus groups; research into the optimal means of testing these ideas..
[b10]Primarily summarizing existing work.
[b11]Probably outlining the case for value-added data. Can we devise some means of testing its use?
[b12]Do JF or RG have good principles for this?
[b13]What sort of empirical research / literature review should test this? Could such a test be part of the
spring practicum? Focus group effort? In the Fall, we could describe some key concepts/scenarios to
document, focus group these in the Spring, and suggest that the program pilot test them amongst a
sample cohort afterwards/
Resources, Contacts and Organizations
Multihousing News http://www.multihousingnews.com
National Multi Housing Council http://www.nmhc.org/
● NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the larger and most prominent
apartment firms in the U.S. NMHC's members are the principal officers of firms engaged in all
aspects of the apartment industry, including ownership, development, management, and
financing.
●
National Apartment Association http://www.naahq.org/Pages/welcome.aspx
+