Cambridge Multifamily
Energy Program
Terms of Reference – DRAFT
1. Introduction
During the practicum11.___ Energy Efficiency Strategy, MIT students will engage in the conceptual
development of a multifamily energy upgrade program in Cambridge, focused on achieving broad
adoption of deep energy retrofits in multifamily housing of approximately 2-20 units. The program
concept will be provided for the City of Cambridge’s and local energy utility NStar’s consideration. The
practicum will provide an introduction to: energy efficiency and utility governance; multi-stakeholder
program design; and social entrepreneurship. We aim to develop a viable, transformational model
that can realize deep energy savings and climate change pollution reduction in Cambridge; moreover,
the program will ideally be scalable to broader geographic regions.
This Terms of Reference document prepared by the Energy Efficiency Strategy Project’s (EESP)
research team provides background information to support the design of the program. The document
suggests some further research opportunities and potential program design ideas, which the
Practicum participants can consider and expand upon. This document is not meant to dictate the
content of the Practicum. Rather, it presents a summary of the EESP’s research and thinking during
Fall 2012.
The Challenge of Achieving Efficiency in Multifamily Housing
A variety of opportunities to cost-effectively reduce energy use and integrate renewable energy systems
exist in multifamily housing. A recent analysis suggests that 15 percent of multifamily electricity demand,
and 24 percent of multifamily natural gas demand, can be cost-effectively met by energy efficiency for
the year 2030.1 Indeed, multifamily housing tends to be more energy intensive than single-family.
However, achieving significant uptake of energy efficiency in multifamily housing has proven difficult. A
literature review, and conversations with multifamily housing market participants during Fall 2012,
suggest the following are key barriers to achieving energy upgrades in multifamily housing:
●
●
●
1
Split-incentives - Many tenants pay utility bills, while landlords are typically expected to pay
improvement costs. Conversely, in cases where landlords pay some of the energy bill (such as
heating), tenants have little incentive to conserve.
Landlords are hesitant to improve properties, even when costs are low - Landlords and tenants
often have a strained relationship, with tenants desiring property improvements. Some property
developers noted that any effort to improve properties, regardless of whether it costs landlords
money, as they fear tenants will demand further improvements.
Owners lack capacity - Building owners, especially smaller property owners, often have minimal
understanding of the energy efficiency potential of their property, and the construction processes
The Cadmus Group. May 2012. Massachusetts Multifamily Market Characterization and Potential Study.
Volume 1. Final Report.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
2
necessary to achieve upgrades. They are often wary of committing to manage construction
projects.
Disaggregated owners - While data on ownership is incomplete, interviews with individuals
experienced with the market indicate that a large number of rental properties in Cambridge are
owned by small-scale property owners. Thus, programs must reach and sway a diffuse array of
decision-makers, rather than a few individuals responsible for large portfolios.
Difficulties of financing and managing upgrade process with condominiums - Condominium
associations may face barriers to credit, and be difficult to coordinate to achieve upgrades.
Intrusive construction - Building owners are hesitant to disturb occupants in their unit; however,
many upgrades necessitate work in occupants space. This work must be performed speedily, or
occur during re-tenanting.
A lack of building manager and operator incentive - Building management companies and
building operators have limited incentives to facilitate upgrade projects. Upgrade projects may
entail additional work on their end, and they are not usually compensated for achieving energy or
water savings.
Technical challenges - While cost-effective energy efficiency options exist in multifamily buildings,
they are often pricier than the low-cost efficiency that can be achieved in larger commercial
buildings. Deep energy upgrade measures require specialized design skills in many instances.
Lack of transparency around energy costs - Most tenants do not have a good understanding of
the energy costs and environmental impacts of their rented units.
Convoluted, fragmented energy efficiency programs - Programs offered to multifamily buildings,
particular market-rate buildings, are not wholistic; they offer only a few upgrade opportunities and
do not entail “whole building” upgrades. Additionally, navigating these programs can be
cumbersome for building owners - The presence of various “pre-retrofit barriers”, hazards such
as knob-and-tube wiring or asbestos, can necessitate additional work; this extra work increases
the likelihood that a building owner or manager will drop out of efficiency programs.
Poorly delivered energy programs - Some industry observers noted that utility program vendors
do not always provide optimal service. Moreover, many organizations provide volunteer
outreach and marketing on behalf of upgrade programs, but they have limited communication
with the program vendors and intake personnel - thus, volunteer marketers do not have a strong
sense of what works and why.2
Sources citing these barriers include: Ellen Tohn. October 2012. Tohn Environmental Consulting. Personal
communication; Homeowners Rehabilitation. November 2012. Non-profit housing developer located in
Cambridge. Personal communication. City of Cambridge staff. McKibben, Anne, Anne Evens, Steven Nadel and
Eric Makres. January 2012. Engaging as Partners in Energy Efficiency: Multifamily Housing and Utilities.
ACEEE and CNT Energy.
Figure 1. Energy Expenditure by residential building type. Source: US EIA. 2009 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey.
Given these challenges, uptake of energy efficiency in multifamily housing has lagged comparable (and
still low) rates in single family and commercial buildings. Indeed, in most states (though not
Massachusetts) multifamily program utility energy efficiency budgets are proportionately much less than
single family budgets.
Hypothesized Elements of Better Energy Upgrade Programs
A well designed and executed partnership between utilities, local government, businesses, community
organizations and other actors may 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.
Maximize 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 could connect buildings
with timely future 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 Cambridge’s multifamily housing market, energy
programs in Cambridge, and industry trends pertinent to program design. Subsequent sections explore
the EESP research team’s program design ideas.
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, and Cambridge offers a unique market for several reasons. To develop a
strategy that will encourage local energy efficiency investments, it is crucial to understand the
dimensions of this market. Several aspects of the local housing 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 targets 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.3 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 more than 5 years, compared to three quarters of homeowners.
In addition to a strong rental presence, many of Cambridge’s residential units are condominiums. These
account for 27% of the city’s housing.4 Some condominium owners rent out their units, creating an
overlap in the rental and condominium sectors.
Resident Demographics
Cambridge deservedly has a reputation as a young, student-oriented city. 27% of its adult population is
currently enrolled in school either as an undergraduate or graduate student. This is reflected in the rental
market - 53% of the primary householders in rental units are under the age of 35. Additionally,
Cambridge’s rental market has a low rate of family residence. While families make up just over half of
owner-occupied housing, 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%.
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.5
3
Unless otherwise noted, all statistics in this section are from the US Census Bureau 2010 Census and 2006-2010
American Community Survey.
4
5
City of Cambridge Community Development Department, 2010 Housing Profile.
City of Summer Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. Trends in Somerville: Housing
Technical Report. 2009
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.
Physical Characteristics
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 more efficient 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 property management trends and energy use in
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 for both electricity and heat; however, many units, especially in larger or oil-heated buildings,
have heat provided central with tenants typically responsible for electricity bills.6 In this case, landlords
have greater fiscal incentive to undertake upgrades that reduce heating costs.
Summary
The characteristics of Cambridge’s multifamily housing market pose serious barriers to an energy
efficiency program. Renters dominate the market, and the rental community is a social demographic in
transition with less incentive to encourage landlords to make upgrades, and less well-established
relationships with landlords. Small-to-medium rental properties tend to be owned by individuals with
6
Personal communications with Peter Shapiro (Just-a-Start) and Meghan Shaw (Cambridge Energy Alliance).
small property portfolios. The transitory nature of renters and the decentralized ownership of properties
will make a coordinated efficiency effort challenging.
Additionally, a sizeable minority of housing units in Cambridge are condominiums. The institutional
barriers to implement energy upgrades in these homes are separate from that of rental housing, but also
imposing. This makes establishing a consolidated energy efficiency program that is able to serve all of
Cambridge’s multifamily market challenging.
Despite the difficulty of reaching this market, there is ample money to be saved and pollution mitigated
by upgrading buildings. Cambridge’s building stock is older, with less efficient energy systems. Also,
although natural gas accounts for the majority of space heating in the multifamily market, 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.
MassSave Homes - 1-4 Unit Buildings
At present the primary mechanism for enabling multi-family energy efficiency in Massachusetts is the
utility-funded MassSave for Homes 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. Available financing....
Low Income 1-4 Unit Buildings
Please include a short description of the Weatherization Assistance Programs available in Mass - the
Low Income programs for 1-4 units.
MassSave Multifamily buildings - Higher Income 5+ Unit Buildings
Briefly explain MassSave for Multifamily.
Massachusetts Green Retrofit Initiative & LEAN - Lower Income 5+ Unit Buildings
Low Income Multi-Family 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 forprofit 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 50 percent of development
households at or below 60 households at or below 80
percent of median income
percent of median income
Funding Source
Utilities (NStar, National Grid, Private
foundations
(Barr
etc.)
Foundation)
and
federal
agencies
(Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development)
Do the utilities not contribute
funds? I doubt it.
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.
Outreach & Marketing Channels
Provide a brief overview of the community outreach strategies... MassSave terms these “community
engagement” and Efficient Neighborhoods+” Note that City of Cambridge & HEET have been outreach
people & expand below.
Note that for LEAN, GRI, much of the outreach has been through affordable housing networks. The
played a role in creating the program & were keen to conduct outreach.
Future Utility Program Directions - The Recent MassSave Plan
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. NStar’s
contractors do not report to the City the status of different projects. 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. Thus, the City and other outreach partners have limited understanding of what marketing
initiatives are effective, and whether they should follow up with buildings that have dropped out of the
process, face pre-weatherization barriers, or are not pursuing deep energy retrofits. 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. The
EPA also requires that home improvement contractors are properly certified in lead abatement.
A variety of home health improvement programs have operated in the Boston area over the
years. The Boston-based Asthma Regional Council of New England has resources on healthy
home upgrades, including their penetration, cost-benefit justification, and recommendations for
implementing programs.
Energy Data
Utilities, businesses, governments, and non-governmental actors are increasingly devising innovative
methods to acquire, analyze, and present data about energy use in buildings. The practicum will
explore ways to publicly disclose energy data, and inferred energy efficiency potential data, in
multifamily buildings. Such disclosure facilitates greater transparency in renters and buyers decisions of
their housing; can help pressure building owners to engage in upgrades; and can provide an engaging
means of educating the public about energy efficiency opportunities in buildings. The subsections
below outline background information and industry initiatives relating to energy data.
Types of 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 a data record of energy used every five
minutes, 15 minutes, or hourly. Having energy use profiles using this data can allow
analysts to infer what equipment exists in properties (the can “read” energy use profiles to
infer the efficiency of equipment, and what equipment is in use). Thus, it can act as a
type of asset data (see below).
●
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, which may contain information on building age,
size, heating systems, wall assembly, etc.
○ Representations of buildings’ size and massing, such as LIDAR data.
○ Thermal images of buildings, from which thermal fluxes may be inferred.
○ Onsite building assessments.
Energy data can indicate the energy costs and pollution associated with living in an apartment. Asset
data can be used to indicate the energy efficiency and renewable energy potential of a building.
buildings can be benchmarked against one another, as well as evaluated for energy improvements.
These opportunities are expanded upon in the following sub-sections.
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 and Disclosure
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
2012.7 This voluntary program encourages utilities to release personal energy data to customers in a
standard format as an XML file.8 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).9
Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform (SEED)
7
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).
7
8
EnerNex. Green Button Data. n.d. http://www.greenbuttondata.org (accessed October 29, 2012).
8
9
Innovation Electricity Efficiency. Green Button: One Year Later. Issue Brief, September, 2012.
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.
This is the DOE Building Energy Performance Taxonomy which SEED is based upon.10
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
10
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
10
greater understanding of a city or region’s building stock as well as enable statistical analyses of
regional or community building performance.11 Efforts to design a database of energy use and building
asset data should be compatible with the SEED taxonomy.
More information can be found at:
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 this project. A few
promising opportunities are noted here.
3.1 Improved Program Administration & Structure
Overview
The MassSave Homes program for 1-4 unit buildings is currently operating well. However, their appear
to be a number of issues hindering the success of the MassSave multifamily program. MassSave and
its vendors are taking action to address these issues. Nevertheless, the case could be made to
experiment with other program administration structures. The EESP team considered the following
options:
●
●
●
Continue to improve the MassSave Multifamily Market Integrator.
Extend and expand the MA Green Retrofit Initiative to all 5+ unit multifamily buildings.
Establish a City administered program.
Program Priorities
Priorities for a new program:
● Integrate healthy home improvements to the greatest extent possible. Have the flexibility to
accommodate new healthy home initiaitives and sources of funding as these come online.
● Better communicate with community and city outreach partners.
Different options exist for how a program could be administered. Outreach and marketing strategies
should stream buildings into different programs based on construction type - the MASSSave Homes
program for 1-4 unit buildings, and a multifamily program for >5 unit buildings. Interviews with market
participants suggest that the management of the MASSSave Homes program works well; thus, it should
11
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
11
not be changed. However, our interviews revealed problems with the program administrators’ offerings
for >5 unit market-rate (e.g. not “affordable”) multifamily buildings:
●
●
●
They are disaggregated into HVAC, Weatherization, Fuel Switching, and other programs, making
comprehensive upgrade measures difficult.
They do not provide insufficient “hand holding” and customer relationship development with
owners, who lack technical capacity in upgrade decisions.
Program management vendors do not communicate with outside program marketers (such as
community organizations or local government) about whether buildings enter into upgrade
programs, making it difficult for these marketers to learn about what marketing strategies are
effective.
Program administrators have made efforts to address these concerns, introducing the Multifamily Market
Integrator program in 2010 to serve as a “one stop shop” for multifamily buildings, and refer them to a
variety of programs. However, it is not clear that the MMI sufficiently addresses these issues.
Thus, the EESP team believes that management of the 1-4 unit market should continue to
operate in its current fashion, but a new program management for >5 unit buildings may be
warranted. The EESP team considered the following options:
●
●
●
Extend and expand the MA Green Retrofit Initiative. The Green Retrofit Initiative (itself an
expansion on the LEAN program) was developed to provide comprehensive whole-building
treatment to affordable multifamily buildings, and richer customer service. It could be extended
to all 5+ unit multifamily buildings.
Continue to improve the Multifamily Market Integrator.
Establish a City administered program.
3.2 Energy Map: A Benchmarking and Disclosure Tool
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.
Certification and Recognition. One barrier to implementing energy efficiency in multifamily residences
is that renters typically do not consider the energy efficiency of a home in their search for housing. To
give energy efficiency a greater role in the real estate market, home energy scorecards and labelling
systems are being given greater attention in the efficiency field, and the Energy Upgrade California
program found that energy efficiency certification can increase the resale value of a home.12 One
example is the DOE Home Energy Score.13 Other programs offer more immediately visible recognition to
participants through the use of yard signs.14
3.3 Demand -Side Stakeholder Engagement & Marketing
Overview
The goals of demand-side engagement and outreach are two-fold. First, we hope to directly recruit
participants into energy efficiency upgrade programs. Second, we hope to indirectly achieve energy
savings by soliciting energy consumption data from individuals, allowing us to create analytical tools that
move the multifamily housing market towards efficiency.
To achieve this, we will need to conduct a thorough outreach campaign to various stakeholders in the
multifamily housing sector. The Cambridge multifamily sector is a crowded space, including both a wide
range of stakeholder views and a number of distinct market segments. As such, it will be challenging to
develop a single program with broad appeal in the market.
Fortunately, several useful tools allow us to identify and deploy effective strategies to push the market
towards efficiency. Two of these are Stakeholder Analysis and Community-Based Social Marketing.
Below, we discuss the complexity of the multifamily sector and the basic principles behind each of these
methodologies. Additionally, a preliminary approach to conducting a stakeholder analysis in the
Cambridge multifamily context is included in the Appendix.
The Segmentation of the Multifamily Market
12
13
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods/stories_eu_california.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/residential/hes_index.html
14
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods/innovations.html?tab=2&list=10&div=10#gro
uped
The multifamily housing sector is an heterogeneous mix of market segments, each with their own
barriers to and opportunities for energy efficiency. Some of these segments share a unique trait that
may demand that program administrators devote additional resources that target specific barriers.
Others may present an unusual opening for and efficiency program that is not present in the remainder
of the multifamily sector. Below, we identify several market segments that must be considered in any
program design and outreach process.






Resident-Landlords. While it is difficult to determine their exact number, a number of
Cambridge’s landlords reside on-site in otherwise rental properties. Unlike most property owners,
these individuals share the same self-interest in efficiency upgrades as single-family owners
and—if they can be identified—could be targeted accordingly. Additional incentives could be
designed to encourage landlords to invest in efficiency upgrades for the other units in their
property as well as their own.
Oil-Heated Homes. While smaller than in other parts of the state, a significant number of
Cambridge’s multifamily properties are heated by fuel oil. Because of the difficulty of metering
multi-family tenants individually for oil heat, it is likely that the property owner pays for space heat
in these buildings. These landlords may see energy efficiency improvements as an opportunity to
reduce their operating costs without losing revenue and could be targeted by traditional financial
incentives.
Student Housing. Students account for a sizeable portion of Cambridge’s multifamily housing
market. An efficiency program could take advantage of this fact by creating student-specific
program outreach strategies, either through formal university channels or through informal social
networks. Partnerships with universities could result in co-branded marketing, student-specific
webpages, and support from student services offices that provide resources for students to
advocate for efficiency with their landlords or that advertise a list of preferred property owners.
Alternately, a marketing campaign that encourages tenants to share their energy data could take
advantage of the unique social network of student populations (and could also resonate with the
open-data ethos of MIT’s student body specifically).
Major Employers. In addition to their broad student bodies, Cambridge’s universities are also
major employers in the city. They, along with other anchor institutions, such as the vibrant
biotech community in Kendall Square, could be targeted for partnerships that provide tailored
program outreach to employees, similar to the Michigan Saves program mentioned above.
Condominiums. Currently, there are very few efficiency programs that specifically target
condominiums and address the specific barriers that they pose to energy efficiency. Despite this
difficulty, condominiums compose a notable percentage of Cambridge’s housing market, and it
may be necessary to develop resources that specifically target these units. For example,
program administrators could create a marketing campaign encouraging condominium owners to
discuss energy efficiency with their neighbors and provide marketing materials that are intended
to explain program benefits specifically to condominium boards.
Property Management Firms. Many landlords in Cambridge contract with specialized property
management firms to take care of their properties and deal with tenants. This introduces an
additional level of complexity to an energy efficiency program design as there is little direct
interaction between landlords and tenants in these buildings. However, this could also be an
opportunity to recruit property managers to act as advocates for energy efficiency.

Vacant/Available Units. Units available on the rental or real estate markets can act as valuable
points of entry for efficiency program managers. Potentially working in partnership with realtors
and property brokers, a program that offered certification or recognition of energy efficiency
improvements could be effective in changing the rental market by increasing demand for efficient
units.
While this list certainly does not account for the whole of multifamily sector in Cambridge, it includes
some of the markets segments that could realistically be given special attention in a program design
process. Understanding the specific needs and opportunities of these segments is a crucial step in
sketching out the parameters of an efficiency program. These parameters may be further set using the
methodologies discussed below.
Stakeholder Analysis
Program administrators often make the mistake of designing a program based on what they think will
work, rather than on what targeted groups have told them will work. Unsurprisingly, understanding the
perspectives and interests of stakeholder groups and incorporating them into a program design can be
very useful in building a successful program. Stakeholder analysis provides a formal means of
determining the categories of actors that are relevant to a program as well as a methodology for
mapping their interests.
In a stakeholder analysis, planners begin by assembling a preliminary list of the actors that they believe
are relevant to the problem at hand. In the Cambridge multifamily sector, stakeholder groups might
include landlords, tenants, property managers, property brokers, building contractors, and institutional
actors. After identifying the preliminary list, analysts reach out to the identified actors, gauge their
interests and concerns on a given issue, and ask what other groups may have a stake in the issue. This
process is repeated until planners are left with an array of stakeholders and issues that fully represents
the range of perspectives and opinions on a given issue.
This array is an excellent starting point in the program design process, as it provides administrators with
a means of developing a program that speak to all parties’ interests. In this context, a stakeholder
analysis would allow us to determine which actors are likely to act as assets or roadblocks in a given
program design. It will act as a resource in proposing options that have high probabilities of success.
Community-Based Social Marketing
Another useful program-design methodology to consider in this project is Community-Based Social
Marketing (CBSM). CBSM draws heavily from social psychology and helps program administrators
target the behavioral changes that can help to achieve program goals. The formal CBSM process has 5
components:15
McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: Community-Based Social Marketing.
McKenzie-Mohr and Associates, 2010.
15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Selecting the behaviors to be targeted.
Identifying the barriers to changing these behaviors and the benefits of doing so.
Developing strategies for influencing the targeted behaviors.
Conducting a pilot program to test these strategies.
Implementing successful strategies at scale.
In the context of a multifamily energy efficiency program, the types of behaviors that might be targeted
by a CBSM program are those that would either help drive participants towards home retrofits or make
energy data more publicly accessible. These might include soliciting tenants to donate their energy
consumption information to a crowd-sourced data collection effort, asking condominium owners to make
energy use an item of interest for their homeowner associations, or encouraging landlords to sign up for
a free energy audit through Mass Save. In a CBSM program, these and other behaviors would be
evaluated to determine which are most useful in achieving the goals of a program.
Once the targeted behaviors have been determined, CBSM program architects investigate the barriers
and benefits of given behaviors. This step would entail an information-gathering campaign to help
planners understand why targeted populations aren’t already adopting the desired behaviors, and what
could be done to convince them to switch. The methods included in this step could include focus groups,
surveys, a literature review, or direct observation.
After assessing the barriers, program designers then begin to formulate strategies for intervention. The
strategies selected in this step vary dramatically based on the local context and the problem of interest
but there are several general tactics that have proved useful in the past. These include: providing a large
number of resources to early adopters and relying on social networks to diffuse their behavior,
advertising local community members who are (and are not) adopting desired behaviors, and soliciting
token commitments from community members before asking that they engage in deeper behavioral
changes.
CBSM principles can be useful in achieving the demand-side outreach goals declared above.
Furthermore, combining these methods with both a thorough understanding of the segmentation of the
local housing market and a robust stakeholder assessment would ensure that the outreach and
marketing strategies selected through the CBSM process are uniquely tailored to the local context.
Recent Activity in Energy Efficiency Program Outreach
In designing an outreach and marketing plan for Cambridge’s multifamily sector, it is useful to
understand the types of approaches that have been tried elsewhere. A number of program managers
across the country are experimenting with new ways of driving demand in for energy efficiency, and it is
worthwhile to be familiar with their work. In particular, DOE’s Better Buildings Neighborhood Program
(BBNP)16 has worked as an incubator for new and innovative program design elements, and several of
the approaches that have been tried though the initiative are discussed below. However, the existence
of these options does not preclude the necessity of the program design methods discussed above, and
16
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods/
program administrators in Cambridge should not merely replicate methods that have been tried
elsewhere.
●
●
●
●
Incentivizing Community Organizations. Currently, NSTAR’s multifamily energy efficiency
program conducts outreach through a number of community organization partners. However,
these organizations are not given a clear incentive to participate other than the opportunity to
offer a service to their constituents. Some energy efficiency programs, such as Los Angeles
County’s Energy Champions program,17 offer financial incentives to local non-profits that
successfully recruit program participants. In Massachusetts, Next Step Living is currently
implementing a similar approach.
Deadline-Based Marketing. Some energy efficiency program implementers--such as Efficiency
Maine18--use deadlines to more effectively market energy efficiency program. By offering a lowcost installation for a limited period of time, these programs are able to motivate potential
participants to take action.
Bulk Purchasing. Some programs coordinate the purchasing efforts of multiple participants with
a single contractor to achieve discounts from bulk purchases. Solarize Portland has been
particularly successful in negotiating low prices for solar panels through this approach.19
Leveraging Anchor Institutions. Similar to community organization approaches, some
programs leverage trusted organizations in the target community to conduct program outreach
through. For example, the Michigan Saves program partnered with Grand Valley State University
in Grand Rapids to market and implement their energy efficiency program.20
Potential Practicum Work Items
Obtaining buy-in from landlord and tenant groups and condominium associations will be a crucial
element to the success of any multifamily energy efficiency program. Over the coming months, we
propose to conduct outreach efforts to the many stakeholder groups involved in Cambridge’s multifamily
housing sector in order gauge their interests and concerns regarding energy efficiency. The
methodological tools provided by stakeholder analysis and community-based social marketing will be
very useful in guiding this process. Specific actions that may be taken are listed below, and a preliminary
approach to a stakeholder assessment is laid out in detail in the appendix.
Stakeholder Mapping – A preliminary set of stakeholders is provided in the appendix. This is not,
however, an exhaustive list of the individuals who are concerned with a multifamily energy efficiency
program in Cambridge and who must be consulted in its development. We must reach out specific
individuals in the identified groups and, through discussions with those groups and individuals, identify
additional stakeholder groups and develop a matrix of interests and interested parties.
17
https://energyupgradeca.org/county/los_angeles/energy_champions_home
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods/maine_profile.html#driving
19
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/405686
20
http://bbmgr.org/wp-content/themes/Starkers/media/01172012BBMGR_GVSU_INFO.pdf
18
Focus groups - Due to the fragmented nature of the rental community in Cambridge, it will be
prohibitively difficult to conduct outreach to each stakeholder that would be impacted by a program.
Instead, we plan to conduct focus groups with representative samples of property owners, tenants, and
other stakeholder groups. Through these interviews and focus groups we discuss 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 in various settings.
Interviews with building owners and managers - An important aspect of these discussions will be to
identify and interview multifamily properties fitting our target profile that have already implemented
energy efficiency upgrades. We intend to interview a sample of landlords and tenants in this group to
understand why the decision to invest in an upgrade was made, and what factors acted as important
drivers in that decision. These findings would be crucial in developing an effective program design.
Deployment of intervention strategies - The previous steps will be useful in revealing the potential
levers—behavioral or otherwise—that could be pulled by a multifamily program design in Cambridge.
Based on these steps, we will have a clearer idea of what interventions are both feasible and likely to
succeed, and we will be able to craft a program design that includes them.
3.4 Financing - An On-bill Tariff Repayment Scheme
Overview
The EESP team believes that an On-bill Tariff Repayment mechanisms can facilitate the financing of
energy efficiency in multifamily housing, and other building types.
Background
Financing challenges in large part have precluded the widespread adoption of energy efficiency
measures. High upfront costs for efficiency upgrades, as well as the split incentive problem between
landlords and tenants, have often dissuaded customers from making investments in energy efficiency.
In addition customers often lack information about financing programs, perceive them as costly or timeconsuming or face credit barriers to accessing financing, and lenders often lack data on energy savings
projections and see energy efficiency as a risky proposition in the absence of this information (Deutsche
Bank 2012). Effective financing programs for multi-family efficiency must proactively address these
issues.
On-bill financing presents a promising approach to tackle many of the aforementioned challenges.
Under on-bill financing utilities make upfront investments in energy efficiency measures and the
ratepayer then pays back these initial investments over time via a monthly surcharge on his/her energy
bill. As a result the upfront cost barrier is largely eliminated, and the customer further benefits if the
payback terms are structured such that the resulting monthly energy savings exceed the monthly
repayments. By tying these repayments to regular utility bills, on-bill financing also presents a
mechanism to use customer payments as a proxy for creditworthiness and reduce overall risk to lenders
(ACEEE 2011).
On-bill financing can also overcome the split incentive barrier in multifamily and rental properties if
structured properly (ACEEE 2011). There are two main types of on-bill financing measures: on-bill loans
and on-bill tariffs. On-bill loans are non-transferrable and stay with the borrower, so even if a tenant
moves out of a unit or a building is sold before the upfront efficiency investment is entirely repaid, the
tenant or building owner in question is still responsible for paying off the balance of the loan. As a result
the split incentive problem persists, as neither landlords nor tenants are willing to take on payments for
which they receive no benefit. On-bill tariffs, on the other hand, are tied to specific properties via utility
meters; when a tenant moves out or a building is sold, the new tenant or building owner assumes
responsibility for the monthly repayments where the previous tenant or owner left off. As a result on-bill
tariffs present a powerful strategy for addressing the split incentive challenge, as they ensure that
landlords or tenants can benefit from efficiency investments without facing a longer-term financial
burden.
While on-bill tariffs present an attractive solution to many energy efficiency financing barriers, their
implementation comes with its own set of challenges. Perhaps most notably, on-bill financing can often
require complicated modifications to utility billing systems (ACEEE 2011), and NSTAR in the past has
declined to implement on-bill financing in Cambridge for precisely this reason (Cascadia Consulting
Group 2008). However given the City of Cambridge’s and NSTAR’s current mutual interest in
developing a pilot multifamily efficiency pilot that can be a model for long-term programmatic change, we
believe the time is now to revisit these issues and think critically about strategies to implement on-bill
tariffs in the multifamily sector.
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).
In conjunction with on-bill tariffs, Cambridge and NSTAR can consider several other strategies to
address financial barriers to energy efficiency. These include providing energy data before or at the
point of loan application to enable lenders to incorporate cost and savings projections into their
underwriting (Deutsche Bank 2012), using financing products to bundle together multiple energy
efficiency measures to spur deeper retrofits (ACEEE 2011), and using public benefit and utility funds to
provide credit enhancements or buy down interest rates (ACEEE 2011). Employing a portfolio of these
approaches will ensure that both customers and lenders can access important information, reduce their
overall financial risks and have stronger incentives for participation.
Program Recommendation
Potential Practicum Work Items
●
●
Develop guidance for establishing and managing a Fund through which on-bill repayment could
be made.
Pro-forma, suggesting what IRR of measures could be included in projects, given different terms
of financing.
3.5 Upgrade Ordinances
Overview
Residential Energy Conservation Ordinances (RECOs) 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.34 The City should consider
opportunities to implement energy conservation ordinances. Likewise, the Massachusetts Green
Communities Designation and Grant Program and the Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and
Standards should provide a standard energy improvement code for existing construction, which leading
Green Communities can adopt.
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.
The EESP team believes that, ultimately, requiring upgrades may be necessary to realizing deep energy
efficiency across a broad range of properties. However, it is politically difficult to get such requirements
established. Thus, efforts to grow the voluntary market for upgrades are justified.
Background
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
and Berkeley use energy upgrades as a selling point for buyers,35 and in Austin, realtor groups
negotiated and support a watered-down ordinance that requires energy audits, but not mandatory
upgrades.36
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
34
Beth Williams thesis.
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
36
Pat Coleman thesis.
35
specifically target multi-family housing.37 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.38
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.39 In Boulder, landlords must be
licensed by the city, providing an additional leverage point for enforcement.40
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. 41
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, any attempt to enact a RECO is likely to face opposition from landlord and
real estate interests. Additionally, the Cambridge city government lacks certain legal authorities over
landlords—such as the ability to withhold rental licenses—that have been assets to programs in other
areas. Therefore, implementing a RECO in Cambridge may be both politically and logistically difficult.
Potential Practicum Work Items
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 enact an ordinance. Instead, through conversations with stakeholders occurring
throughout the engagement process, RECOs should be discussed as one possible solution for
achieving energy efficiency in Cambridge. If a universally beneficial solution can be found, an energy
37
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
37
38
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
39
ACEEE.
http://www.iamu.org/services/electric/efficiency/Attachment%20B%20Residential%20Energy%20Conservation%20
Ordinances%20ACEEE.pdf
40
Find a source.
41
Beth Williams thesis, ACEEE.
ordinance may indeed be implemented in Cambridge, but it should only be considered as one of many
potential solutions.
3.6 Comprehensive, Deep Energy Upgrade Measures
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.
·
Status of rent controls.
Conclusion
Appendixes
Program Summary
Prog
ram
Tec
hni
cal
me
asu
res
&
ava
ilab
le
inc
enti
ves
Inc
o
me
Cri
ter
ia
Fun
din
g
Sou
rce
Ad
min
istr
atio
n&
Co
ntra
ctor
s
Ass
oci
ate
d
fina
nci
ng
me
cha
nis
m
Out
rea
ch
Cha
nne
ls
Mass
Save
Hom
e
Ener
gy
Servi
ces
Prog
ram
(1-4
unit
buildi
ngs)
Tec
hni
cal
me
asu
res:
Inst
ant
savi
ngs
me
asu
res
(CF
L’s,
pro
gra
mm
abl
>6
0%
of
A
MI
Utili
ty
rate
pay
er
fun
ds
Ad
mini
stra
tors
:
NSt
ar,
Nati
onal
Grid
,
oth
er
utilit
ies
0%
HE
AT
loan
for
qual
ified
me
asu
res
–
up
to
$25
,00
0
Con with
trac 7tors yea
Utili
ties,
cont
ract
ors,
non
prof
it
and
com
mu
nity
org
aniz
atio
ns,
loca
l
e
ther
mo
stat
s,
fau
cet
aer
ator
s),
ins
ulat
ion,
air
sea
ling
,
hea
ting
/ve
ntil
atio
n/H
VA
C
syst
em
s
Ava
ilabl
e
inc
enti
ves
:
75
%
off
up
to
$2,
000
:
Nex
t
Ste
p
Livi
ng,
Coop
Po
wer,
Gre
enT
ek,
etc.
r
pay
bac
k
busi
nes
ses
on
ins
ulat
ion,
nocos
t air
sea
ling
,
reb
ate
s
for
hea
ting
equ
ipm
ent
Mass
Save
Multi
Fami
ly
Prog
ram
(5+
unit
buildi
ngs)
Tec
hni
cal
me
asu
res:
Ene
rgy
effi
cie
nt
ligh
ting
upg
rad
es
and
con
trol
s,
occ
upa
ncy
>6
0%
of
A
MI
Utili
ty
rate
pay
er
fun
ds
Ad
mini
stra
tors
:
NSt
ar,
Nati
onal
Grid
,
oth
er
utilit
ies
Loa
ns
I
beli
eve
HE
AT
Loa
ns
are
avai
labl
e
for
bot
Con h
trac unit
tors &
:
buil
Con ding
serv own
atio ers
Utili
ties
sen
sor
s,
wat
er
hea
ting
equ
ipm
ent,
do
me
stic
hot
wat
er
me
asu
res
(lo
wflow
sho
wer
hea
ds,
aer
ator
s,
and
pip
e
wra
p),
pro
gra
mm
abl
e
ther
mo
stat
s,
n
Ser
vice
Gro
up
?
So
me
oth
er
loan
type
exis
ts
that
can
pro
vide
larg
er
loan
s to
buil
ding
own
ers.
See
the
pro
gra
m
des
cript
ion
they
hav
e
this
stuff
.
ins
ulat
ion,
air
sea
ling
,
hig
heffi
cie
ncy
hea
ting
and
coo
ling
equ
ipm
ent
upg
rad
es
and
con
trol
s,
EN
ER
GY
ST
AR
®
qua
lifie
d
refri
ger
ator
s
and
oth
er
eligi
ble
app
lian
ces
Low
Inco
me
Multi
Fami
ly
Prog
ram
(LEA
N)
(5+
unit
buildi
ngs)
Tec
hni
cal
me
asu
res:
Re
pla
ce
me
nt
or
rep
air
of
hea
ting
syst
em
s
and
/or
con
trol
s,
repl
ace
me
nt
or
rep
air
of
hot
wat
er
hea
50
%
of
uni
ts
at
or
bel
ow
60
%
of
A
MI
Utili
ty
rate
pay
er
fun
ds
Ad
Gra
mini nts
stra
tors
:
Acti
on
for
Bos
ton
Co
mm
unit
y
Dev
elop
me
nt,
Acti
on
Inc.
Con
trac
tors
:
LEA
N
Adv
isor
y
Co
mmi
ttee
(pro
pert
y
own
ers,
com
mu
nity
dev
elop
me
nt
cor
por
atio
ns,
non
prof
its
and
com
mu
nity
org
aniz
atio
ns)
ting
syst
em
s,
buil
din
g
env
elo
pe
upg
rad
es
thro
ugh
air
sea
ling
and
ins
ulat
ion,
ligh
ting
upg
rad
es,
app
lian
ce
upg
rad
es,
and
ven
tilati
on
upg
rad
es
Mass Tec
achu hni
50
%
Barr Ad
Gra
Fou mini nts,
Co
mm
setts
Gree
n
Retr
ofit
Initiat
ive
(5+
unit
buildi
ngs)
cal
me
asu
res:
Ben
ch
mar
kin
g of
hist
oric
al
ene
rgy
and
wat
er
con
su
mpt
ion,
onsite
buil
din
g
ass
ess
me
nts,
ene
rgy
and
wat
er
retr
ofit
proj
ect
fina
nci
ng
of
uni
ts
at
or
bel
ow
80
%
of
A
MI
nda
tion,
Dep
art
me
nt
of
Hou
sing
and
Urb
an
Dev
elop
me
nt
stra loan unit
tors s
y
:
dev
Ne
elop
w
me
Eco
nt
logy
cor
,
por
Bos
atio
ton
ns,
Loc
non
al
Initi
prof
ativ
it
es
and
Sup
com
port
mu
Cor
nity
por
org
atio
aniz
n
atio
ns
Con
trac
tors
:
Ava
ilabl
e
inc
enti
ves
:
Co
ordi
nati
on
with
exis
ting
reb
ate
or
inc
enti
ve
pro
gra
ms
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 seemed to be under producing 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 - Retroficiency
http://www.retroficiency.com/
Creates building audits with minimal information by using algorithms to model building performance and
making comparisons to prototypical buildings with same characteristics from historic audits.
● Building Type: Commercial
● Asset Data:
○ Builds increasingly accurate building profile, but starts with basic info and improve over
time by augmenting with more information.
● Operational:
○ 15-minute interval data
○ 12 months of historical energy data
Retroficiency developed two different tools to conduct remote energy assessments which are highly
accurate. Retroficiency leases their tools to energy auditing businesses or to utilities which are able to
conduct audits in less time and with less demand of inputs from property owners.
Retroficiency’s Virtual Energy Assessment (VEA) requires only an address and 12 months of historic
energy consumption data to identify end use loads such as heating, cooling, and lighting. (VEA may
also use 15-minute interval data from clients if they have smart meters installed.) VEA can identify
building usage patterns and recognize moments of inefficiency such high use during periods of low
occupancy. From these analytics, VEA can make recommendations for upgrades or performance
measures to reduce energy use.
Retroficiency also offers an Automated Energy Audit (AEA) which uses limited building asset information
to make accurate energy profiles of a building. A building owner or property manager can enter in just a
few building characteristics and the AEA will compare that building to Retroficiency’s library of
thousands of actual audits to build an energy model of the building. As the property manager enters
more information overtime, the model becomes more accurate. Similar to the VEA, this is a remote
energy assessment tool and it also makes efficiency recommendations.
Retroficiency does not currently work in the residential sector though it has been building a database of
multi-family [bigger than houses or garden-style apartments] energy models. In an interview, CEO
Bennett Fisher indicated that Retroficiency’s VEA and AEA tools could be modified to work for
residential homes if demand existed in that market.
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
Appendix: 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,50 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.51
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 rents52 and greater investment in
rental housing53 in Cambridge.
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.
Potential Practicum Work Items
50
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
51
Beth Williams thesis, Jason Jay thesis.
52
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
53
Henry Pollakowski, MIT Center for Real Estate. 2003.
http://www.nmhc.org/files/ContentFiles/ThirdPartyGuide/cr_36.pdf.
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.
Appendix: Stakeholder Analysis Approach
Overview
There is a wide range of groups that must be consulted in as part of a stakeholder analysis. Because
there is little centralized representation within the city of Cambridge for the major stakeholder categories
(landlords, tenants, condominium owners), it would be prohibitively difficult to reach every individual with
a stake in multifamily energy efficiency. However, there are several existing groups that represent
varying interest groups. Our stakeholder analysis process should include conversations both with these
formal organizations and with individuals chosen to represent broad and unorganized groups.
Existing Groups
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,54 the Massachusetts
Rental Housing Association,55 the Greater Boston Real Estate Board,56 and the Boston chapter of
the Institute for Real Estate Management.57 There are also a 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 Committee58
serves as the local Community Action Program. On the city side, the Environmental and
Transportation Planning Division59 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
54
http://spoa.com/
http://www.massrha.com/
56
http://www.gbreb.com/
57
http://www.iremboston.org/
58
http://www.ceoccambridge.org/
59
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/etdiv.aspx
55
tenants. This is made more difficult by the transitory nature of Cambridge’s rental population, particularly
its students. One final group of interest that may advocate tenants’ interests in stakeholder discussions
are Heating Assistance Organizations that provide resources to support residents that are unable to
pay their energy bills during the winter.
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,60 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
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.
Potential Practicum Work Items
One approach to stakeholder analysis would take a three-tiered approach to gathering input. These
steps would include:



60
Interviews with Formal Organizations. Representatives could be easily identified through
publicly available information. Interviews with these representatives would be valuable both in
determining their interests and concerns relating to multifamily energy efficiency and their views
on stakeholder groups that should be consulted in the process.
Focus Groups with Representative Individuals of Stakeholder Groups. Ideally, this would be
a random sample of landlords, tenants, condominium owners, property managers, and other
interested parties. It is likely, however, that we will have to resort to less random methods of
selection, relying either on open marketing, personal relationships, or referrals from formal
groups.
Interviews with Previous Program Participants. Previous program participants could be
identified by NSTAR and interviewed to understand both the factors that weighed on the decision
to invest in efficiency upgrades as well as the categories of actor that were involved in the
process.
http://www.justastart.org/
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