Sent: Mon Mar 26 17:25:30 2012
Subject: Re: "Cost Effectiveness" requirements...? - Thanks for the support!
Subject: Re: "Cost Effectiveness" requirements...? - Thanks for the support!
Hello everyone,
Ted Kidd
I was surprised to get such positive response in support of the e-mail I sent Friday. Below are some written responses. I've removed most of the names and retained either a first or last initial.
I suspect a lot of you are concerned about retribution and are holding back. If anyone else would like to comment anonymously through me, please feel free. I will assume you wish to remain anonymous unless stated otherwise:
Ted I know we haven't met but thank you for advocating on behalf of all program contractors and our customers. Sincerely, N
Agreed...thank you. Green Jobs Green New York right? I wish the program wasn't so political. They lose sight of why we do this in the first place... A
I think you are clear, honest and to the point here. This is something they need to take to heart and discuss when considering how they move forward. P
Ted, you are right on target!! H
Ted- You make some very good points of course. I think the HPwES program has gone off the rails since last year's changes which made the RG&E rebate the easiest choice for our HVAC guys to sell. Not being able to tell the customer with certainty that they can expect the NYSERDA 10% rebate killed the program where the dollars would be about equal.
Now TRC has complicated the Insulation and Air Sealing side to the point where I don't talk about any rebate up front. I find the I &AS jobs I have been selling address a specific problem, like moisture in the attic space, or is embraced because of comfort issues and not because of a rebate. Small projects are not worth the effort to get CSG approval.
I have had very positive feedback on the I & AS projects we did last year and that is gratifing, so I see it works on a qualitative level. But the true savings are difficult to know especially from such a small sample, so you are right in requesting quantitative results on a state wide basis, and additionally at what administrative cost!!
I feel that TREAT is outdated, that the CHA report is a bad report to give to the customer and that while the intent of HPwES is worthwhile, the implementation is pretty broken.
There seems to be a lot of people that share this belief but I don't see much being done about it. I expect the sharp decline in the number of projects will draw attention, but too late.
I will be heading down to the ACI meetings in Baltimore tomorrow. I hope to come back with some ideas on what direction this whole industry may be taking. B
Ted,Thank you so much for your response to NYSERDA.I too have been trying hard to be heard, about all the things you have expressed.I managed to get NYSERDA to increase the loan pre-approval time from 60 to 180 days.A 60 day period was not working with the process, and my customers were having to re-qualify, sometimes backing out of the sale.Yesterday I gave my REDACTED notice to REDACTED.I am a hard working, valued member of our company, but working within the HPwES program, is setting your business up for failure.I believe customer service is the key to good business, but the program create obstacles, that leave your company with deep wounds.I wish you the best, and know that you are not alone.Sincerely, M
M followed up with:
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Subject: a shame
To: Ted Kidd <tedkidd@eesny.com>
Ted,I give you permission to use my name for your correspondence with NYSERDA.Ultimately my frustration with the HPwES program, has led me to resign from GHA, as Residential Manager.The program currently sets up contractors for failure.I am unable to provide good customer service, and projects are unable to be completed in a timely manner, due to the programs restrictions. To be successful, we rely on customer referrals. With every project falling into conflict, my customers are exhausted by the end, and are unlikely to refer our business. Our association with the HPwES program has put our reputation at great risk.MaggieMaggie MaurerBPI Certified Building Analyst
After seeing these responses a friend wrote:
Wow - those are some very powerful statements. I know that you were confident about what you stated, but this type of response has to really validate the accuracy of your data and your note. J
Another friend wrote:
Wow, seems there is at least one contractor out there that is very frustrated and has no one to vent too.
this would be nice to get out anonymously.
would be interesting to see what happens. T
Finally, here is a fairly long one that I chopped more than half out due to length and anonymity:
"Ted, I didn't want to hit reply all for fear of being "black Balled" and having jobs pulled after they were done for the Honeywell nazi's to tear apart like a pack of wolves. I called my CSG rep today and asked him about the cost jobs versus the sir bull crap. he said he did not think there was anything to it, but I am seeing price fixing all over that statement coming down the pipe. it is clear that there is no one at CSG NYSERDA or the PSC that cares one bit about the contractor in the field.
...GJNY is a complete bust. I have heard that comfort windows has laid off all but eight employees and is in trouble. Green Homes almost didn't make payroll in the late part of 2011. The free audits are not being policed and there are plenty of "walk through audits" being done and giving the program a bad reputation.
The SIR thing should completely go away entirely. Rate of return is something that almost everyone knows and understands. Let's ask ourselves a questions here on investment, if you get a call for someone that has a comfort isuues why do we need to make it pass any sort of scrutiny from another entity? If the customer is willing to spend the money borrowed or not ... why do we have to beg or worse change something that will get the glorious 1.1 SIR to do the work.
...The Green jobs and the changes have put more people out of work and made it more difficult that this needs to be.
...I personally belive that they don't want to fix it. The goal for green jobs all along was to put unionized people into the homes to do the work. If they drive the small companies out and there are just a few core companies doing the work it will be easier to make that happen. Don't ask me how that would work but this is what I have been told twice (the unionized part).
There are several things that could fix all of this:
...The SIR thing disappears.
...The customer should be the one to say that they want to spend the money one a give project and not the blessed gods at nyserda and the psc. I think CSG is a puppet right now that is stuck betwwen the contractor and nyserda, i am not defending them just what i think.
...There has to my knowledge been no training on what they are really looking for in a treat file. We can be 99% accurate and they will still hold the project up with questions that are so dumb that even typing a repsonse makes one laugh. At the ACI conference in Saratoga at one of the seminars I asked if they could (CSG) put together all of the reasons why a job got rejected for the last month be sent to the contractors in the program. the response was that they don't track it and it would be difficult to do. If they put forth the effort our costs would go down, our jobs would flow faster, CSG would not have the frustration of sending file back and forth for days on end, and holy cow we might make a buck doing it. Again a failure in the system.
...i would like to have someone at NYSERDA go to a 4500 sq ft house with natural gas for a fuel source do an audit and all of the paperwork associated with that project go back and tell the customer that they can't help. Or better yet have them do all of the paperwork necessary to do a AHP job and see how long it takes them to do, and oh by the way they can't get a pay check until the job is entirely complete...The contractor in the field has no help with Treat files, marketing, and for that matter anything besides himself to get through this. Can someone step forward to help?
...There are several more items, but I have been frustrated enough over this whole thing. I am guessing that there are contractors dropping out of this mess left and right. There are also some on the verge of bankruptcy.
...They are not looking at the big picture. People who have nothing can get it all, food stamps, HEAP, Empower etc. The people how are struggling to pay there bill and want comfort in there hoem and are willing to pay for that are left out or it takes a god awful long time to get it done. What a sad statement when there are truly millions in the bank of NYSERDA to spend."
When I asked this writer for permission to "Publish" his response, he replied:
That sounds good. As you can see there is a good man there that has to bail because he can't make a living for his family.
Folks, lack of guideline clarity, transparency, and arbitrary contractor treatment by CSG carries a huge part in this failure. I think a lot of the troubles with the program track back to bad guidance from from CSG management to CSG staff, and CSG management to NYSERDA.
Might be nice if we had a new program implementer.
Again, if I can be of assistance or be message conveyance to NYSERDA about CSG or other issues, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Ted Kidd
(585) 205-8674 Office
Learning from our mistakes means admitting to them first. It takes all of us to build a better system. - Dr. Sanjay Gupta
SUMMARY: The program appears to be going off the rails. As if the comments above weren't proof, below are more comments that came in after I'd sent this e-mail.
NEXT: John Ahearn responds to this e-mail, and I respond to his comments.
16 comments:
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:38 AM
TED I WAS A BPI CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR IN NEW YORK FOR 10 YEARS BEFORE I LET MY CERTIFICATION EXPIRE LAST DECEMBER. THE REASONS WERE THE SAME THAT YOU WENT OVER IN YOUR EMAIL PLUS A FEW MORE.
OVER MY 10 YEARS I TALKED TO CSG AND BPI ABOUT ALL THE KNEE JERK CHANGES THEY KEPT MAKING THAT MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. WHEN THEY DROPED WINDOWS AND MADE INSULATION NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO CONFORM UNLESS YOU LIED ABOUT THE NUMBERS, IT WAS OVER FOR ME.
WHEN I CALLED BPI TO TELL THEM I WAS OUT, THEY NEVER EVEN WANTED TO KNOW WHY. WHEN I TALKED TO MY CSG REP I COULDNT EVEN BELIEVE WHAT I WAS HEARING . HE SAID DONT WORRY ABOUT THE GUIDLINES, NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO CHECK. SO BASICALLY HE WAS TELLING ME TO FALSIFY NUMBERS.
YOU SAID ALOT OF CONTRACTORS HAVE 1 FOOT OUT THE DOOR , THIS CONTRACTOR HAS BOTH.ITS THE MOST CONTRACTOR UNFRIENDLY PROGRAM IVE EVER BEEN IN. I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT THIS.
MOST OF THE CONRACTORS IVE TALKED TO ARE SO SCARED TO TALK BECAUSE THEY MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE BY THE PROGRAM. K
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:35 PM,
The promise of GJGNY has gone completely south. To a large extent this has happened because efforts by the PSC to prevent inadequate or irrelevant work from being done have made it impossible for any work to be do0ne. And CSG & NYSERDA have been able to tell us all “everyone else doesn’t have a problem with it, what is wrong with you?” We should have BPCA-NYS reporting this frustration loud and clear to the powers that be, but many of you do not sign up or participate there, so they don’t report.
As it happened we had a CSG rep in my office Thursday afternoon, and we had this exact debate with him. His answer was ‘290 other contractors are doing great with it’. My analyst was on the verge of quitting because of that conversation. He, and another of my employees told the rep they felt the Home Assessment Report from Treat was ‘regurgitation’ and they tell clients it is completely irrelevant. As the rep left my office he told me I should reprimand my employee for representing the report this way. I told him he should feel embarrassed by the inadequate software they are forcing us to use and be happy we are not giving up on it entirely. It wouldn’t hurt if he had told my guy who to call when we can’t get him either, as he routinely answers calls within 2 weeks. His response to that was there isn’t anyone else we can call, just wait for him.
I forwarded Todd’s mail to my guy Friday, and he was rejoicing that someone other than him felt this program is at a point of collapse. I agree that there is a real possibility that several firms, especially the smaller ones will collapse or quit due to the bureaucracy. I feel that BPI is heaping it on when they create multiple certifications for each employee to try to maintain. Owners don’t have money trees. When the limits of SIR and Payback limit revenue, but costs keep accruing for certifications and time to do testing, paperwork, software, etc, clients get screwed, employees get screwed more, and owners get screwed the most.
I have considered layoffs, but I have not pulled that trigger yet. I have three more folks working here in analyst and back office positions than I would need if I didn’t have to do program management. Their efforts have yet to sell one job. It doesn’t help when the CBO’s send me leads to clients in bankruptcy or who have previously been assisted by local Weatherization.
This process is broken and it needs to be fixed damn soon or we will lose a lot of trained help, then good companies will follow.
P
Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:41 AM,
Keep it up!! There is alot of talk in the field about this and I have not heard of anyone that disagrees to what you are doing. I think that NYSERDA had very little idea what is going on with the contractors and the customers.
S
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM,
Ted,
A great deal of what you are saying doesn’t mean much to me as I have not been a partner with the program for very long. It is obvious you are passionate about your statements and have the base knowledge to comment the way that you do.
Some background – I have installed insulation measures in the Rochester area for some XX years. It has been a learning experience over the years in regards to installation equipment used to methods used. Having high end install equipment is important and having effective labor force is also important. I am physically incapable of installing now (bad knees from crawling around attics, up and down ladders, and navigating rooftops). I personally trained my staff of installers over the years and have retained many. Pay them well.. make it a career path for them and treat them like family.
I have been recruited by NYSERDA to participate since its inception. I have a fundamental belief that the SBC charge has created a bureaucracy of administrators that chew up a huge chunk of funneled monies. These monies are meant to improve the overall energy efficiency of NYS consumers. Being a participant of PSC mandated RG&E Saving Power program some 25 years ago opened my eyes to unmitigated failure of PSC’s attempt at mandating a firm to implement measures to cause consumers to use less of that firms services. Goes against the grain if you will.
Having said all of that.. the homeowners or property owners themselves need to make the determination if workscopes can deliver what the sales rep says it will. Past history of performance should allow contractors to verify that for their potential customers.
85-95% of the retrofits we perform are subcontracted to us by others. Home improvement companies that are not partners, as well as others who are, are our staple. The other 5-15% is retail that I sell. I have to tell you that I can do a visual inspection audit and come up with a far more cost effective workscope than if it had been subjected to a comprehensive home assessment. This program seems to drive up the cost of installs to double and sometimes triple of what I would normally retail for.
The BPI training I received was enlightening in terms of air sealing/thermal & air barriers and safety measures. I have incorporated all of that into my retail sales and have counseled my dealers on the benefits of doing the same with their sales staff. I have not gotten involved with any HVAC or window installs whatsoever. Our specialty is our specialty. Wearing other hats seems to be counter-productive to what I have tried to accomplish over the years.
I have toyed with Treat… blechh. Old saying, garbage in.. garbage out. Blower door gaming is another one. Maybe the one true way to implement anything would be to have totally independent auditing done and then with a proper workscope in hand, the homeowner could go out and get multiple quotes based on that audit. To have a contractor also be the auditor is setting it up for gaming. Both test in and test out should be done independently. Leads to transparency if you will. Let the homeowner decide what parts of workscope they want done.
As for incentivizing… I have and always will be a big fan of a direct tax credit. At BOTH state and federal levels. Let the consumer get incentives on their tax returns.
Anyway… I have yet to do a single job through HPwES or any other program and have been a partner since September 2011. Having the certifications and accreditations are almost a must nowadays.. so I carry both. Maybe I will remain a “mom and pop” insulation/ventilation contractor and forgo the involvement.
Any encouragement or advisement from you would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
J
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:19 AM:
I would like to post this to the whole string too.
Does it give you all a warm fuzzy feeling to realize the premier training event of the year, ACI National runs this week all week, and NYSERDA in their preeminent wisdom has decided to have a conference call to solve all problems in the middle of that event?
Great planning again.
P
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM, damian wrote:
Ted, Pat, and others,
I feel I need to respond to Ted's and Pat’s letters because while they are raising some excellent points, we, as contractors, need to get beyond the complaints and start engaging the appropriate parties to solve our own issues ( I am not suggesting that Ted or Pat are arguing against this…).
I believe Ted is absolutely correct about the way we SHOULD be measuring success AND incentivizing projects. However, the disruptions in the HPwES program and the struggles to come to terms with them, are not the fault of NYSERDA or NYSERDA's effort to operate a well constructed program. The Public Service Commission's decision to require the HPwES program to comply with Total Resource Cost testing (TRC) is at the heart of the issue.
TRC, as mandated by the PSC, requires the COST-EFFECTIVENESS of each measure be evaluated before it can be incentivized. TRC is a rather complicated formula that takes many variables into account, most of which have no relevance to HPwES contractors (such as the cost to the State to produce power, etc.). As contractors, we deal with actual homeowners who only care how much energy/cost it will save THEM, not save NYS.
NYSERDA was dealt a losing hand with the PSC ruling, now over a year ago...and thus so were HP contractors. NYSERDA has been struggling since then to find a path forward that will help contractors grow their businesses. My direct experience is that they have seriously considered ANY and ALL ideas to increase program effectiveness (for contractors, NYS, and homeowners) while meeting the stringent TRC rules. NYSERDA is in an unenviable position, lodged between the rocks of the PSC, the legislature/governors office, consumer advocates, homeowners, and contractors needs.
As many may already know, Efficiency First NY has been working with NYSERDA, the staff at the DPS, and the Governor's office to find a solution or work-around to the TRC problems....NYSERDA's newly announced rules are not ad-hoc or the result of some bureaucratic disregard for contractors and the future of the HPwES program...Instead they represent weeks and months of time put into developing work-arounds to requirements handed down from above.
As you consider how these new rules will affect your business, please take a moment to consider where we were versus where we are now...
HPwES and contractors WERE facing:
- ALL measures have to pass the TRC tests and be screened on an individual basis...per measure, per project, per house
- No way of knowing if a measure would meet the TRC requirements because our traditional measure of cost-effectiveness, SIR, was not going to be allowed,
- having to pick and choose measures based on their TRC scoring, so that as different project packages were considered, the allowed measures also changed!
- no oil or propane measures
What has been accomplished through the work of NYSERDA and EFNY:
-we now have a set of PRE-APPROVED measures that do not need to be TRC screened
-we can once again largely look at the project level cost-effectiveness instead of the measure based,
-we can use SIR to explain to homeowners the value of a measure/project...instead of some esoteric "TRC" test
We are now effectively ,"back" to the rules that used to apply to the Assisted Home Performance of 2 years ago. While I am not particularly fond or happy that we are starting from where this program was 2 years ago…it is a reality. This is a operational model that is understandable and workable for most contractors. Had so many contractors not stepped up and had we not found a working partner in NYSERDA, there can be no doubt that we would all be facing TRC measure level screening. Measure level TRC applied without the work-arounds, would have made programmatic HP contracting untenable in NY.
(more than 4096 characters - continued....)
....
We are now effectively ,"back" to the rules that used to apply to the Assisted Home Performance of 2 years ago. While I am not particularly fond or happy that we are starting from where this program was 2 years ago…it is a reality. This is a operational model that is understandable and workable for most contractors. Had so many contractors not stepped up and had we not found a working partner in NYSERDA, there can be no doubt that we would all be facing TRC measure level screening. Measure level TRC applied without the work-arounds, would have made programmatic HP contracting untenable in NY.
My point in all this that we really have NYSERDA and EFNY to thank for having a workable program at all. It is not perfect and we should constructively continue to improve it…but it is workable.
As contractors, we are where the “rubber meets the road”. If anyone can come up with solutions that WORK, it should be us. WE have been remiss in NOT properly paying attention to what has been happening legislatively and administratively in NYS. I believe we finally have an effective vehicle (EF-NY) to begin to fundamentally change the role of contractors in the underlying energy program decisions. Just yesterday, EF-NY had a major “win” with the inclusion of the On-Bill “fix” in the state budget bill. Perhaps unbeknownst to some contractors, there were a lot of contractors who made the effort to send emails and call legislators to ensure this necessary fix was included. A few contractors spent days working through political minefields to make it happen. Contractors were a major part of the solution.
(more than 4096 characters - continued....)
It is my hope that the experiences of the last 2 years or more will point out to contractors the absolute need to get active and make your voices heard...BEFORE there is a wrench thrown in the works. We contractors know what works on the ground …we should demand to be equal partners in the development of new programs, new rules, and decisions that will affect OUR livelihoods more than anyone else's. From my personal experience trying to do just that over the last 2 years with EFNY, we have been astonishingly effective at heading off many nightmarish scenarios for HP contractors and at building solid working relationships with key players in NYS.
Efficiency First NY members have been working hard to represent contractor interests in this industry, but EFNY needs for every contractor to get involved in whatever way they can...through direct action, financial support, or even just keeping the ideas coming. I'd recommend all HP contractors join EFNY and help get contractors needs and concerns addressed in a manner that has proven effective.
(Holy Cow!!! This is the LAST long e-mail I post!!!)
With all that said, I agree with Ted, that the only way to BUILD cost-effectiveness into an energy program is to incentivize based on performance. The only performance metric that matters is that of energy saved relative to cost...NOT savings PROMISED, or number of jobs, or even total job costs...all of which we are presently incentivizing.
Ted, to your point, contractors competing on the field of performance will yield better results for homeowners, better overall savings numbers for the state programs, and a real, objective, measurable metric that companies can be proud of. I have brought this up with NYSERDA and others…it is on the national stage as well with the Home legislation. This industry IS moving towards verification. Lets get together a contractor working group and figure out how this might apply to NYS. I’d be happy to set that up or be a part of it if you, Ted, want to lead it up…? Let me know.
To Pat’s email remarks of last night, I would concur that the modeling software options contractors have at their disposal are woefully inadequate. This is made even worse by the recent death of Recurve…leaving us even fewer options. The software issue has dogged this industry (Nationally!!) for years. With the ability to download apps that will do anything one can imagine…it is very difficult for those of us who are not software designers or programmers to understand why we can’t seem to get any product that is adequate. NYSERDA did put out an RFP to get more software options in their programs, but it has been slow coming. Truthfully, I have not seen ANY software that helps contractors do a better job with auditing and reporting to homeowners. I believe part of the problem is that we are stuck with legacy software that was designed to serve programmatic needs and not the needs of an auditor, salesman, or homeowner…or we have software that is not rigorous or flexible enough to be useful for all the homes we come across. While I would like to see NYSERDA help solve this issue, I think the real root of the problem is that we are a relatively new industry without any national standard relating to this. I am hopeful that we (contractors) at a national level can have resolve this by putting in place data transfer standards (HPXML?) and possible make the case for either a less time intensive methodology for attaining accurate models or for a base calculative platform that can be run from relatively simple “apps”, thereby allowing the innovation of the marketplace to develop good front and back ends while preserving the integrity of the energy modeling.
(Anybody make it this far?...)
Pat, I can’t say that in Rochester we have experienced the sort of disregard that you described from the CSG person. That would aggravate me if we did. The truth is that there are a number of issues with GJGNY…but that is a legislatively driven program. We as contractors were behind the eight-ball on it and still managed to pull together enough to make for a workable program…instead of the disaster it would likely have been. That was a long battle with hundreds of hours spent trying to find a path through the legislatively mandated quagmire. I am still not a big fan of the program’s basic structure, but it is what we are stuck with for now. Despite what sounds like a flippant response from your CSG rep…the truth is that there are many contractors who are doing well with the free or reduced cost audits. I think it comes down to your business model and unfortunately those companies that are fully integrated HP contractors are not positioned to thrive under GJGNY…it favors companies that have a huge customer base and established customer relationships…HVAC companies would be a good example. I think this is a result of the free audit…and that is legislatively mandated. We need to work to put together real data on the effects of the free audits and other program changes on contractors. This data collection is difficult to do because most contractors don’t want to open their books and business practices (and changes in response to market/program changes). We really don’t have any analogous data to use when arguing our case with policy-makers. There are some efforts under-way to try to understand the REAL impact of some of these policy/legislative decisions we have seen in NY…I can connect people with those groups if they would like to be a part of those projects.
Ted, despite the additional work (and obstacles) of "true-ing" up every model, the increased accuracy in promised savings will only help to build the reputations of HP contractors. We are...and need to continue to be...viewed as the objective and "honest" sector of the contracting industry. More accurate models are just the first step down the road to performance based incentives. There are other ways, perhaps, of getting to the same place without having to do overly complicated models…we should figure those out and make the case to NYSERDA, PSC, and law-makers.
This is OUR industry! I too find myself nay-saying much of what is done through the various energy programs…but in the end complaints don’t create solutions. Careful consideration, planning, and innovations create solutions. I propose we try to maintain a positive, problem-solving relationship with program managers, policy makers, and legislatures, instead of always pointing out how wrong they are in everything they do.
Maybe, when we as contractors have issues or complaints, we should bring it up to other contractors and attempt to find a workable solution in collaboration with NYSERDA and others…? If we don’t or won’t understand the political and administrative realities well enough to come up with our own solutions, then how can we fault others for not solving our problems for us?
My 2 cents...
Damian Hodkinson
True Energy Solutions, Inc.
THE END!!!!
FROM NOW ON, ONLY THE SHORT RESPONSES! Anybody with a long response can post it themselves!
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:51 AM,:
I am not surprised. There are 289 contractors that are scared to say anything because they will be scrutinized even more than they are now.
S
A "reply to all":
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Marmo wrote:
I am so happy someone else is being vocal!!!!!!!!
Anthony Marmo
EXCERPT from my friend Phil's shameless plug for what will undoubtedly be part of the answer:
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:09 PM, phil jeffers wrote:
NYSERDA Contractors,
It is not easy being the Lead Sled Dog, but the view is far better than the second sled dog.
I encourage all of you to push forward as many others in the country look to your program for insight and guidance...
...Once again, we will provide our real time energy Auditor Accounts Free of Charge to all NYSERDA program contractors. NYSERDA Letter Attached. NYSERDA's two largest contractor participants have been helping us design, test and revise our Auditor Tool. They now have over 30 reps using Auditor many times a day. Full Auditor Analytics Attached:
We will also commit to implement the HPXML data transfer as soon as the protocol is finalized so you can instantly upload your data to CSG. You can now lock in your customer’s actual consumption and make accurate savings projections with the true up sliders.
Please try Auditor with the link and login information below.
http://yourvirtualhvac.com/application/signin
Use Email: demo@yourvirtualhvac.com
Password: Gizmo
I especially like your arguments about applying incentive to the energy savings and not holding the retrofit companies to both SIR and realization for the incentives.
I like your thoughts about providing incentive that matches to the trued model energy savings (and have the homeowner handle the rest of the cost - I can deal with a $5000 expense rather than $20,000 if I know the other $15,000 will be accurately accommodated by the work being done.
This has got to be the answer - figure the energy savings based on the work scope and determine how that can be handled with On-Bill financing and then leave the rest to the homeowner.
I think that this approach will get the contractors all back on track to be more supportive of the whole process - and it will be the most effective at reducing the fossil fuel energy usage.
J
Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM:
I really do think that getting the program to the essence of the last paragraph is the key - it is critical to the program. Without it, the construction companies are just pawns - mice on a treadmill - trying to survive from job to job.
Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM,wrote:
Ted, you are right on target!!
Post a Comment