A group of home performance contractors submitted a proposal for Mass Save RCS program redesign at the August 10th EEAC (energy efficiency advisory council) meeting.
The proposal identifies the existing Lead Vendor roll in the Mass Save RCS program as an inhibitor to achieving increased contractor participation, deeper energy savings, and to meeting the cost-effective goals of the Green Communities Act.
Although there has been a lot of discussion from program designers regarding the need for major program design changes for January 2011- when existing Lead Vendor contracts expire- it was determined that there was too much inaction and gross disparity between what was stated as the intentions of some utility Program Administrators, and what was being actualized in RCS intermediary changes and home performance pilot programs.
The proposal for redesign is meant to be entirely relevant and helpful to the existing process.
It is a working document. It is structured with an understanding of the challenges inherent to providing cost-effective residential energy efficiency services as well as awareness of how other programs have handled similar challenges. The proposed changes in the Mass Save program, if implemented, will carefully open up the retrofit market in Massachusetts using a scalable whole-house approach to achieve deeper energy savings.
Hi Mark
Am really impressed with the efforts to open up the market for energy audits–the program recommendations and approach to the state are very strategic and thoughtful.
Had a similar problem a couple of decades ago with the MA hazardous waste site cleanup (SARRS) program. As a project manager for a major national environmental engineering firm with a lot of experience in the business, we were able to land some contracts from DEP but almost all of the projects went to a very few contractors who had historically close ties to DEP. I was able to pick up a few specialized projects and began to develop personal professional relationships with DEP but found that breaking through at a corporate level was extremely difficult.
One observation which might have some application for your efforts–meeting the extensive administrative and financial accounting requirements was extremely burdensome, and seemed to be even more so for those who were not part of the inner circle. We had similar contracts with other states and EPA in which we were quite successful, but found that the work required to respond to MA DEP’s highly detailed reporting requirements and other burdens which were basically unbillable costs made participation in the program unprofitable for us. This is a big issue which needs to be addressed explicitly so that you all don’t end up with a “Pyrrhic victory”.
It is understandable that a state agency is more comfortable working with a firm with which it has had a long, (usually) successful history and which understands and is responsive to the agency’s needs.
However, it is critically important that additional contractors must be given a fair and and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities, including a startup period in which the agency and the firm make extra efforts to 1) build a professional relationship and 2) develop a functional understanding of the opportunities and requirements of the program and the most efficient ways to meet those.
It should be recognized that this startup period requires extra time and effort by both the agency and the new firm to communicate actively and in good faith–both in an initial orientation and during the technical and administrative implementation of the first projects.
Good luck with your efforts.
Rick
Richart Keller, AICP
120 Pulpit Hill Road #27
Amherst MA 01002
413 835-0011
401 486-2677 (c)
richart.keller@gmail.com
[...] is perhaps a new take on the ‘Livermore chart’ identified in the Efficiency First Proposed Mass Save Redesign. It is intended to show how multiple pathways can happen simultaneously with strong centralized [...]