opportunities for developing the building retrofit industry and market (brim)

1 • December 13, 2010 Retrofit Strategy Meeting•

Opportunities for Developing the

Building Retrofit Industry and Market (BRIM)

John Cleveland, Innovation Network for CommunitiesJoel Rogers, COWS (Center on Wisconsin Strategy)

Chinwe Onyeagoro, O-H Community Partners

December 13, 2010Rockefeller Foundation, New York City


Agenda

Meeting Purpose

Develop a shared framework to guide funder investments in the development of the Building Retrofit Industry and Market (BRIM).

Meeting Outcomes

Agreement on broad approaches to :• Develop a portfolio of promising BRIM development investments• Improve the BRIM TA infrastructure and its post-ARRA design• Improve collaboration between funders & USDOE and the field on

BRIM development and TA

Agenda 10:00 Welcome and Introductions; Agree on Outcomes

10:15 Project Process and Summary Recommendations

10:45 BRIM Market Development Discussion

12:00 Lunch

12:30 TA Infrastructure Recommendation Discussion

1:30 Strategic Collaboration Discussion

2:00 Next Steps

2:30 Adjourn


Project Summary


Project Purpose & Deliverables

Conduct a scan of the technical assistance (TA) infrastructure for the building retrofit market, and recommend steps to support the

design and development of a collaborative applied R&D innovation infrastructure for the industry.

1. Scan major providers of TA for the BRIM.

2. Identify issues in the current TA system and recommend steps towards their improvement.

3. Identify the requirements of an applied R&D and innovation infrastructure for the industry.

4. Facilitate a meeting of Better Building grantees to explore opportunities for collaboration on system development.

5. Facilitate a meeting of funders and USDOE to develop a shared strategy framework for investment in BRIM development.


Process

1. Inventory of TA providers (156 total)

2. Secondary analysis of 78 players

3. Phone interviews with 27 individuals

4. Interim scan findings memo

5. Feedback on Interim Findings

6. Meeting of 19 Better Building sites (Oct 21)

7. Meeting with USDOE staff

8. Final report preparation


Framing Observations

• Long-term, it’s about building a market, not implementing programs

BRIM is not one market, but several related segmentsMost market segments are at a very early stage of developmentMost retrofit initiatives are at an embryonic state of implementationDeveloping markets is very long term work; focused investments

in this market are a recent phenomenon

• BRIM investment needs to be approached simultaneously at the local and national levels

This will require a shared framework for analysis and action

• It requires a long-term view and strategic coordination across multiple players – funders; federal government; local government; private and NGO enterprises

• Philanthropy can play a key role in market development


Three Kinds of Work

ACTIVITY DEFINITION

Program Implementation

Implementing retrofit programs and strategies in local and regional markets.

Technical Assistance

Advising implementers on program design, and linking them to other sources of knowledge and support, including their peers.

Market Development

Investing in knowledge, innovations, standards and institutions that support the development of self-sustaining market transactions

There are three kinds of work that different players are doing in the BRIM niche. This scan focused on the second two – Technical Assistance and Market Development.


Three Primary Opportunities

Coordinate National

Investments in Market

Development

Plan Now for the Post-ARRA

TA Infrastructure

Explore New Structures for

Field Collaboration


Findings & Recommendations – BRIM Development

FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS• Investing in market development is

a specialized activity

• The BRIM is at a very early stage of development

• BRIM has several distinct sub-segments that need to be addressed differently

• Significant investments have been made in key aspects of market development

• There are many promising market development opportunities

• Market development investments are not well coordinated

1. Agree on a framework for BRIM development investments and systematically catalogue current initiatives and investments (funders; feds; private).

2. Create a three way partnership between USDOE , funders and market players to collaborate on market development investments.

3. Develop a network infrastructure to support collaboration and project execution on market investments over the long term.

4. Hold an annual BRIM Development conference.


Summary of Findings & Recommendations – TA

FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS

• USDOE is investing $20+ million in a national BRIM infrastructure

• USDOE Technical Assistance Program (TAP) funding is temporary; most funding ends by CY 2012

• The current TAP is heavily focused on managing transactions; design of a knowledge management system is not yet apparent

• The process for quality control is not transparent

1. Build on the base created by the USDOE TAP initiative.

2. Start now to plan for a post-ARRA TA infrastructure.

3. Make sure that structure has a “learning system” that rapidly disseminates knowledge across players and markets; and use this system to inform market development investments.

4. Develop robust feedback loops and a continuous improvement process.


Summary of Findings and Recommendations – Collaboration

FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS

• USDOE investments are leading BRIM development, but many other players are also playing important roles.

• Two kinds of collaboration structures could help advance the field:

• A structure for formal collaboration between funders

• A vehicle for USDOE to interact with key players in the field, outside of program implementation relationships.

1. Formalize collaboration across funders through a Working Group structure.

2. Explore the best way to organize market stakeholders in ways that can align strategies for market development. (e.g. trade associations; coalitions; intermediaries; Federal Advisory Committees.)

3. Develop MOUs or other structures for collaboration between USDOE and both the Funders Working Group and market stakeholders.


Top Down and Bottom Up…


…With an Integrated Investment Strategy

Funders Working Group

USDOE & EPA

Market Stakeholders


Opportunities for Developing the Building Retrofit Industry and Market (BRIM)

December 13, 2010Rockefeller Foundation, New York City

Supporting Slides


Framing the Building Retrofit Industry & Market

(BRIM) Opportunity


Summary of Key Points

• BRIM is one segment of a much larger “green economy” sector

• Markets develop in stages – BRIM is at a very early stage of development

• BRIM has several distinct sub-segments that need to be addressed differently

• Significant investments have been made in key aspects of market development

• There seems to be consensus on the high level market development opportunities

• Market development investments are not well coordinated


It Is About Building a Market, Not Implementing Programs

Better Buildings Vision:

“A self-sustaining market for building energy efficiency retrofits that results in economic, environmental, and energy

benefits across the United States.”

Living Cities, Lessons Learned:

“Concentrated philanthropic investment together with unprecedented federal funding begs for coordination and

intentional efforts to invest in creating an industry (supply, demand and an enabling environment for scaled

transactions), not just disparate parts.”


BRIM Is Part of the Larger “Green Economy”Category Brookings-Battelle Sub-Segments

Energy Efficiency

• Battery & Energy Storage Technologies • Electric/Hybrid Drive Technologies &

Vehicles • Energy Efficient Appliances • Energy Efficient Building Products &

Materials • Energy Efficient HVAC & Building Control

Systems

• Energy Efficient Lighting • Energy Research, Engineering, & Consulting

Services • Fuel Cells & Hydrogen • Green Architecture, Building Design, &

Construction • Other Energy Efficient Products • Water Efficient Products

Energy From Renewable Sources

• Biofuels/Biomass • Geothermal Energy • Hydropower Energy • Solar PV Energy

• Solar Thermal Energy • Waste-to-Energy • Wave/Current/Ocean Power Energy• Wind Energy

Compliance & Training

• Regulatory And Compliance• Training

Natural Resource Conservation

• Conservation And Management• Organic Farms And Organic Food Production• Sustainable Forestry & Related Products

Pollution and GHG Reduction; Recycling and Reuse

• Air & Water Purification Technologies • Air/Water/Sewage/Solid Waste

Management & Treatment • Clean Coal & Carbon Sequestration • Environmental Research, Engineering, &

Consulting Services • Green Building Products & Construction

Materials, NEC

• Green Chemicals and Related Green Products • Nuclear Energy • Other Green Products • Pollution Control & Prevention • Public Mass Transit • Recycled-Content Products • Recycling & Reuse • Remediation Technologies & Services • Smart Grid Systems/Smart Metering

Segmentation based on Brookings/Battelle Metro Green project


BRIM Has At Least Five Separate Segments

“Retrofitting of existing buildings to reduce overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Existing Building Stock:

•40% of all energy consumption•72% of electricity•38% of carbon emissions•$400 billion to heat and cool

Single and two family

residential

Multi-family

Residential

Small C/I

Commercial/Industrial

Large C/I MUSH*

*Municipal, University, Schools, Hospitals

Each market segment has significant variations in customers, economics, drivers, and regulatory environments. Many segments have further defined

sub-segments.


Energy Consumption Varies by Building Type

Source: USDOE, “Better Buildings Overview”, 11.10.10


Markets Develop in Stages

Market Stage

Early Market Market Growth Maturity

Market for retrofits can be developed like any other market: by targeting and reaching additional consumer segments

2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16%

Late Majority

Early Adopters

Early Majority

Innovators Laggards

Rogers Innovation Adoption Curve

www.valuebasedmanagement.net

Source: “Market Development for Building Energy Efficiency Retrofits”, RW Ventures and O-H Community Partners


Healthy Markets Have Common Characteristics

SUPPLY DEMANDEXCHANGE

• Perceived customer need• Good value proposition• Good customer

information• Consumer confidence in

performance• Clear performance

measurements• Affordable

• Low transaction costs• Easy for buyers and

sellers to find each other• Trust in the transactions• Feedback loops affect

future quality• Consistent industry

standards that govern transactions

• High quality producers• Adequate labor supply• Occupational credentialing

and certification systems• Well developed supply

chains• OEM supplier standards• R&D infrastructure that

supports innovation

Costs of Production Costs of Transactions Perception of Need

Healthy Market Characteristics


Stakeholders Approach The Market With Many Motivations

Customer Value Proposition

•Reduced GHG Emissions•Economic Development

•Community Development•Poverty Alleviation

Robust Retrofit Market?

How aligned are perceived customer needs with the desired environmental and economic development benefits?

“Will the dogs eat the dog food?”

Environmental and Economic Development

Benefits•Comfort

•Energy Savings•Improved Home Values

•Helping the Environment


It is Not Yet Clear Where Retrofits Fall in the Market Development Spectrum

Source: Bob Weissbourd, RW Ventures

Public Policy Incentives Private Exchange


Some Retrofit Market Barriers

SUPPLY EXCHANGE DEMAND

• Low margins compared to cost of sales

• Difficult to aggregate demand

• Some labor scarcity

• Requires new business models

• High owner transaction costs

• Difficult to assess competence & quality

• Multiple vendors required

• High effort relative to cost and benefit

• Consumers have other priorities

• No metrics to measure savings

• Value not reflected in equity

• Unaffordable for some segments

• Financing can be complicated


Living Cities Market Development Framework


Different Stakeholders Play Different Roles in Market Development

PlayersRoles

Who Primary DriversMain Leverage

Points

Private

“Fund, Transact, Deliver And Consume”

Business and Consumers

Economic Self-Interest

Value Exchange

Public

“Set, Incent, Mandate And Reinforce Standards And

Policies”

Governments & Government

AgenciesPolitical Process

Policy, Incentives and Regulation

Civic

“Build Field and Capacity”

Non-Profits and Philanthropy

Values, NormsSubsidies and

Advocacy

Source: OH Community Partners


There Are Four Main Ways to Invest in Market Development

Knowledge Creation

Research on market dynamics; core technologies; best practices; benchmarking; etc.

Innovation Development of new products, services, technologies that advance the market.

Standards Creation of policy requirements & industry standards that enable consumer protection; fair trade; social equity; quality standards; environmental protection; etc.

Institutions and Structures

Organizations, trade associations, networks and other vehicles for organizing players for collaboration within the market.


There Are Many Markets Where Foundations Have Played Important Development Roles

• Affordable Housing

• Public Education (Choice and Charters)

• Underbanked Consumers

• Sustainable Forestry

Investments have spanned all four

categories:

• Knowledge and R&D

• Innovations

• Standards and Policy

• Institutions and Structures


Examples – Affordable Housing and Education

MarketInvestment

Knowledge Creation

Innovation Standards and Policy Institutions & Structures

Affordable Housing

•Ongoing research on best practices

•Programs in “weak” market cities

•CDFIs financing private developers

•Advocacy and design of public policies: Federal low income housing tax credits; federal housing vouchers; local zoning, land banking policies

•Guidelines for measuring housing affordability

•Building standards for low income housing

•Community development corporations

•LISC; National association of CDCs

•State housing authorities

Public Education

•Studies about drop outs, teacher effectiveness, school effectiveness, etc.

•Start-up support for charter schools

•Support for experiments in school design; school vouchers; teacher pathways; student performance measurement systems

•Consumer access to information about school performance

•Charter authorizer standards for contracting with charter schools

•Advocacy and design for legal framework for school choice and charters

•City-based “centers” to support charter growth

•Various national and state associations of charter authorizers, schools


Examples – Underbanked and Sustainable Forestry

MarketInvestment

Knowledge Creation

Innovation Standards and Policy

Institutions & Structures

Underbanked Consumers

•Develop market intelligence (e.g., customer segmentation)

•Assess existing products and services (e.g., mobile banking)

•Promote partnerships

•Invest in new products and companies targeting underbanked consumers

•Development of industry best practice

•Identify & advocate on public policy issues

•Inform regulatory standards (FDIC, etc.)

•Creation of a market-engaging innovation capacity (CFSI) with investment fund

•Industry Roundtables

Sustainable Forestry

•Analysis of global forestry markets and systems

•Development of sustainable forestry certification process

•Development of market-based branding partnerships (e.g., retailers)

•Development of sustainable forestry property easements

•Development of sustainable forestry principles and monitoring practices

•Indicators of SF at country and “unit” levels

•Development of certification organization

•Support for NGO advocacy organization


Some Examples of National Investment From Other Fields

Example Purpose

Cooperative Extension Service and Land Grant

Universities

• Land Grant Universities established in 1862; CES in 1914• Roles changed over the last 100 years• Primary focus on the improving productivity of U.S.

agricultural industry

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft

• German network of 57 research institutes focused on manufacturing intellectual property development and consulting

• Areas include microelectronics; process engineering; materials; sensors; etc.

• $1 billion in annual revenues; 50% government funded

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

• Founded in 1986 by President Reagan EO• Originally focused on machine tool industry; now focused on

manufacturing technology• 60+ members• Manages consortial applied R&D projects

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP)

• Organized out of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $120 million annual budget; Centers in every State• Customized consulting and network development for SMEs


BRIM Development Opportunities


Key Points

• There are many promising opportunities for investing in BRIM development – and a reasonable level of consensus on the priorities

• There is no “silver bullet” strategy available – it requires many investments in many facets of the market

• The investments need to be coordinated with each other to maximize learning and adaptive capacity

• Each area of investment is complex in its own right – managing the complexity across multiple domains is quite challenging, but not impossible

• Different players have different areas of expertise; it is important to differentiate and specialize

• In the absence of strong industry institutions, some kind of network structure will probably be needed to coordinate investments


Some BRIM Development Opportunities (1)

Market Problem Development Opportunity

Knowledge of Customers

• Standard definitions of market segments• Longitudinal consumer research on perceptions of the value

proposition

Effective Marketing• Development of common messages and marketing strategies

by segment• Consistent branding of the value proposition for customers

Policy Incentives• Research on impact of specific policy incentives on customer

behavior by segment

Information

• Energy management tools• Energy scoring platforms & building rating systems• National utility data sharing agreements• National energy use databases• Standardized monitoring and verification protocols

Asset Valuation• Building industry comparables for EE buildings and changing

appraisal methodology

Financing

• Industry accepted underwriting standards• Alternative financing business models• Secondary market development• Leveraging utility system benefit charges


Some BRIM Development Opportunities (2)

Market Problem Development Opportunity

Attribute Market Access

• Standards for carbon credit & offset certification• Standards on ownership of carbon credits• Standards for inclusion in forward capacity markets

Talent Supply Chain

• Occupational credentialing and certification systems• Standardized education and training curricula• Labor demand forecasting systems

Contractor Quality• Contractor certification systems• Contractor development systems• Contractor business tools

Information Technology

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems for integrated management of customer transactions

• Data and software interoperability standards

Input Costs • Material and components joint purchasing

Building Technology

• Applied R&D in new building energy efficiency technologies


One Way of Segmenting the “Opportunity Portfolio”

Market Opportunity

Type of Investment

Knowledge Innovation Standards Institutions


Marketing

Policy

Information

Asset Valuation

Financing

Attribute Markets

Talent SCM

Contractors

IT

Inputs

Technology


Another Way of Looking At It…

Market Opportunity

Market Segment

Residential Multi-family C/I MUSH


Marketing

Policy

Information

Asset Valuation

Financing

Attribute Markets

Talent SCM

Contractors

IT

Inputs

Technology


Envisioning a “Portfolio” Within One Area

INFORMATION

Market Opportunity Market SegmentResidential Multi-family C/I MUSH

Energy Scoring Systems

Building Labeling

National Utility Data Sharing Agreements

National Energy Use Database

Monitoring & Verification Protocols


Anatomy of Each Portfolio Project

• What are the deliverables?• Who manages the project?• Who are the stakeholders that

need to be engaged?• What is the project plan?• What is the budget?• Who are the investors?• How does it connect to other

work?• What is the scaling

hypothesis?


Potential Portfolio Project Example

Energy Efficiency Comparables Network

Project Manager • CNT Energy

Deliverables

• A system for establishing comparables for energy efficient homes in 8 markets

• Implemented appraisal methods that value home energy efficiency (“From PITI to PITIU”)

Stakeholders• Better Building sites; National Association of Realtors; local MLS boards

and systems; appraisers; lenders

Scaling Hypothesis

• Market adoption in 8 large markets will speed national adoption through MLS organizations

Project Plan & Budget

• Define target areas; recruit retrofit and MLS partners• Sign MOUs between retrofit partners and MLS organization ($60,000; 6

months)• Develop and implement an MLS retrofit system with verification protocols

($360,000; 12 months)• Implement compliance steps; build up database of comparables; agree on

appraisal methodology changes ($600,000; 12 months)

Investors • TBD

Links to Other Work

• USDOE Home Energy Score• CNT My HomeEQ• Conservation Services Group MLS project in NY


Putting It All Together…

Residential

Multi-Family

Small C/I

Large C/I

MUSH

Market Building in Three Dimensions


Examples of Current Market Development

Investments


A Very Incomplete Set of Examples of Market Development Investments

Market Opportunity

Market Segment

Residential Multi-family C/I MUSH

Customers LBL Driving Demand ResearchMarketing

Policy

Information Residential Home Scoring System

Commercial Bldg Rating System; EPA Portfolio Manager

Asset Valuation EE Comparables Network

Financing HUD Title I “Power Saver” Program

DBA Foundation Multi Family

Database

Attribute Mkts

Talent SCM Residential Retrofit Guidelines

Contractors

IT BPI Home Perf. XML

Inputs

Technology USDOE Building Energy Efficiency Hub; Energy Efficient Homes Partnerships


National Residential Home Scoring System

"The Home Energy Score will help make energy efficiency easy and accessible to America's families by providing them with straightforward and reliable information about their homes' energy performance

and specific, cost-effective energy efficiency improvements that will save

them money on their monthly energy bills.“ (USDOE Press Reslease)

• Part of the Recovery Through Retrofit Initiative

• Pilot process launched in fall, 2010 in 10 pilot communities and states covering all climate types

• Scoring system developed by Lawrence Berkeley Labs

• Scores a home on a range of 1-10, with 10 the most efficient home

• Scores are adjusted for climate zones

• Will be launched nationally in late 2011


National Residential Retrofit Guidelines

Key Content:• Job Task Analyses• Essential Knowledge,

Skills and Abilities (KSAs)

• Technical Standards Reference Guide

• Standard Work Specifications

Purposes:• Lay the foundation for a worker certification & training

program• Increase workforce mobility up and across career

ladders• Help training providers develop course content and

curricula• Build consumer and investor confidence in work quality


Building Energy Efficiency “Innovation Hub”

• One of three hubs – solar energy; advanced nuclear reactors; building energy efficiency technology

• Housed at Penn State University

• $122 million in funding

• Collaboration between USDOE; NIST; EDA and SBA

• The R&D program will incorporate a systematic analysis of the role of policy, markets and behavior in driving the adoption and use of energy technologies in buildings.

“The mission of this Energy Innovation Hub is to research,

develop and demonstrate highly efficient building components,

systems, and models which are applicable to both retrofit and new

construction.”

Technology Focus Areas:

• Computer simulation and design tools

• Advanced combined heat and power (CHP) systems

• Building-integrated photovoltaic systems

• Advanced HVAC systems • Sensor and control networks


Energy Efficient Home Partnerships

Partnership Grantees1.Advanced Residential Integrated Energy

Solutions (ARIES)2.Alliance for Residential Building Innovation

(ARBI)3.Building America Retrofit Alliance (BARA) 4.Building America Partnership for Improved

Residential Construction (BA-PIRC) 5.Building Energy Efficient Homes for America

(BEEHA)6.Building Industry Research Alliance (BIRA) 7.Building Science Corporation (BSC) 8.Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings

(CARB)9.Habitat Cost Effective Energy Retrofit Program

Team 10.Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy

Systems (CSE) 11.Integrated Building and Construction

Solutions (IBACOS) 12.National Association of Home Builders

(NAHB) Research Center Industry Partnership for High Performing Homes

13.National Energy Leadership Corps (NELC)14.NorthernSTAR Energy Efficient Housing

Research Partnership Team 15.Partnership for Advanced Residential Retrofit

(PARR)

“These partnerships will research and deploy new technologies and demonstration projects, and

provide systems engineering, quality assurance, and outreach for retrofit projects throughout the

country.”

• A total of $30 million in grants, ranging from $500K to $2.5 million

• 18 month grant agreements; $20 million per year will also be made available for the partnerships for three potential one-year extensions

• Focuses Building America on existing vs. new homes

• Partnerships will be paired with Better Building sites for applied R&D applications


Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation Energy Efficiency Database

Project Purpose: Create a database of100 New York City multifamily properties that will allow an evaluation of energy and cost savings due to the implementation of efficiency measures. Database will be used to inform bank underwriting standards.

“If you approach a lender now with a plan to spend

more to implement a green technology with the

idea you will save on operating costs, they are

skeptical and want to know what kind of proof

you have. If you could be armed with an assortment of data, it would inevitably help you get financing and

even increase your financing because your

bottom line would go up.” (New York Times, 6.1.10)


HUD Title I Power Savers Loan Guarantees

• Covers loans for up to $25,000 of home improvements

• 90% insurance coverage for lenders; maximum of 10% of portfolio

• Creates effective loan loss reserve fund of 9% for qualified lenders

• Two year pilot launching in 2011

• Targeted at communities with retrofit initiatives; Better Building communities automatically eligible

• FHA is working with Ginnie Mae to develop secondary market options

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/title/presentation.pdf


State Energy Efficiency Action Network

SEE Action Network Goal:

“To help the nation achieve all cost‐effective energy efficiency by 2020 through assisting state and local

governments implement energy efficiency policies and programs.”


BRIM Development Recommendations


Recommended BRIM Development Action Steps

1. Agree on a framework for BRIM development investments and systematically catalogue current initiatives and investments (funders; feds; private).

2. Create a three-way partnership between USDOE , funders and market players to collaborate on market development investments.

3. Develop a network infrastructure to support collaboration and project execution on market investments over the long term.

4. Hold an annual BRIM Development conference.


Potential Investment System Features

• Database of key market development investments projects, with project profiles – on-line; searchable; links to data sources; staff; etc.

• Investment advisors by content area:Assessment of current portfolioAdvice on investment opportunitiesHow to tie the investments together

• Periodic stakeholder meetings (2 X Year?) to review portfolio and generate new ideas (SVN/Investors Circle format?)

• Connect to track at annual BRIM development conference


How It Might Work in One Niche

Portfolio of National Projects

Local Innovation & Implementation

InvestorsInvestor Advisors


Technical Assistance Infrastructure


Summary of Key Points

1. USDOE is investing $20+ million in a national BRIM infrastructure

2. USDOE Technical Assistance Program (TAP) funding is temporary; most funding ends by CY 2012

3. The current TAP is heavily focused on managing transactions; design of a knowledge management system is not yet apparent

4. The process for quality control is not transparent


Segmentation of TA Players


Our Research Process

1. Develop database of potential providers (156)

2. Segment based on market taxonomy

3. Conduct secondary research (78)

4. Interview a representative sample (27)

5. Summarize key findings and research

See attachment file with one-page profiles of organizations: “Building Retrofit Technical Assistance Provider Inventory”

Sources:

•U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) Network •Innovation Network for Communities (INC) database•DOE Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes directory•GuideStar, national database of tax-exempt entities•Hoovers, national database of public traded companies•Capital IQ, national database of public and private companies•LexisNexis•Public literature scan, using targeted key word searches


Define market landscape Identify and segment players Develop profiles and market investment recommendations

Framework for Segmenting TA PlayersTechnical Assistance Service Areas:

Retrofit Program Design

Customer Marketing/

Demand Stimulation

Workforce Training/

Preparation

Contractor/Auditor

Training/ Preparation

Building Energy

Technology Products

Retrofit Installation

& Operations

Building Testing/

Assessment/Certification

Financing Retrofit Program Manage-

ment

Job Standards/ Targeted Hiring &

Contracting

PACE OtherRetrofit Program Perform-

ance Evaluation/Monitoring

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Building Type:

Residential Commercial/Industrial Institutional

Single-family Multi-family Less than 10k sq ft More than 10k sq ft Churches Hospitals Municipal Schools Universities

Organization Type:

For-profit Not-for-profit Government

Architecture/Engineering Firms Banks/Financial Institutions Contracting FIrms Energy Service Companies (ESCOS) Equipment & Building Supply

Companies Management Consulting Firms Other

501 (c)(3)/Civic Organization Bank/Financial Institutions Industry Trade Associations Management Consulting Firms Universities

Federal Government Agencies

Public Private Partnership

Public Private Partnership


Secondary Analysis Segmentation

Total 77 (100%)

For Profit25 (36%)

Non-Profit40(57%)

Government3 (4%)

By Entity

By Building

Type

By Technical

Assistance Category

Residential (multi family)84%

Residential (single family)77%

Commercial/industrial (more than 10k sq ft)63%

Institutional63%

Commercial/industrial (less than 10k sq ft)53%

Not specified 1%

Retrofit Program Design 47% Financing 41% Building Testing/Assessment/Certification 39% Retrofit Program Performance

Evaluation/Monitoring 34% Retrofit Program Management 30% Retrofit & Installation Operations 26% Contractor/Auditor Training/Preparation 24% Building Energy Technology Products 21% Customer Marketing/Demand Stimulation 21% Workforce Training/Preparation 10% Job Standards/Targeted Hiring & Contracting 7% PACE 4% Other

1%

By Sub-Entity

Management Consulting Firms 68%

Energy Service Companies (ESCOS) 16%

Architecture/Engineering Firms 8% Bank/Financial Institutions 5% Contracting FIrms 4% Other

4% Equipment & Building Supply Companies 0%

501 (c)(3)/Civic Organization 53%

Industry Trade Associations 38% Universities 5%

Federal government agencies 100%

Public Private Partnerships 100%

Building Type

TA Service Areas

Public/PrivatePartnership

2 (3%)


Secondary Analysis Profile List

Notes: * Represents DOE TAP Network Providers.

1. Affordable Comfort, Inc.2. Alliance to Save Energy3. American Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy* 4. Apprise Inc5. Ballard Spahr*6. Blue Springs Energy7. Bright Power8. Building America Retrofit Alliance9. Build it Green10. Building Performance Institute11. Catalyst Financial Group, Inc*.12. Center for Climate Strategies*13. Center for Neighborhood Technology Energy14. Change to Win15. COWS (Center on Wisconsin Strategy)16. Clean Economy Development Center17. Clean Energy Advocates, Inc.18. Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.19. Clinton Climate Initiative20. Conservation Services Group21. Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings 22. Consortium for Energy Efficiency23. Economic Development Research Group24. Efficiency Cities Network25. Efficiency First26. Emerald Cities Collaborative27. Energy Efficiency Finance Corporation*28. Energy Futures Group*29. Energy Programs Consortium*30. Energy Services Coalition*31. Enterprise Green Communities32. Environmental Finance Center*33. EP Systems Group*34. Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy

Systems35. Green for All

36. Groom Energy37. HarcourtBrown, LLC38. ICF Incorporated* 39. ICLEI USA40. Institute for Building Efficiency (Johnson Controls)41. Institute for Market Transformation42. Integrated Building and Construction Solutions43. Honeywell44. Laborers' International Union of North America 45. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab*46. LI Green47. Living Cities48. Lockheed Martin*49. Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance*50. National Association of State Energy Offices* 51. National Governors Association*52. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 53. Natural Resource Defense Council**54. Next Step Living Inc.55. Northcross, Hill, & Ach*56. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership*57. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance*58. Oak Ridge National Laboratory*59. Partnership for Working Families60. PSD Consulting (Performance Systems

Development)61. Pike Resarch62. Policy Link63. Public Technology Institute*64. Recurve65. Renewable Funding, LLC*66. Sentech* 67. Shorebank Enterprise Cascadia68. Southface69. Southwest Energy Efficiency Project*70. Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future*71. Strategic Energy Innovations72. The Cadmus Group*

73. The DC Project74. The Jordan Institute75. University of Delaware Center

for Energy & Environmental Policy*

76. Urban Sustainability Directors Network

77. US Green Buildings Council78. Vermont Energy Investment

Corp*


Organization:

Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.

Year established:

2000

Staff size:

8 staff

Website:

www.cleanenergysol.comExpertise: • EE Financing / Utility Efficiency Incentives Pgrm. Design / Energy Perf. Contracting / Energy Engineering / Renewable Energy Technologies / Emissions Credit Trading / Combined Heat & Power, and Utility / Distribution System Interface / Community Mkting. Strategies / Program Evaluation / Customer Energy Education Curricula Design

TA service areas:• Retrofit Program Design• Financing• Retrofit Program Management• Retrofit Program Performance

Evaluation/Monitoring

Mission:To significantly reduce carbon footprints, electricity demand, and energy use across all residential and commercial/industrial sectors.

Key relationships:Programs, services and products:• Business planning • New market development • Complex program designs • Financial engineering • Mergers and acquisitions • Distributed energy and utility initiatives• Evaluation of proposals and business plans • Contract negotiations • Organization planning, job definitions,

candidate evaluations • Budget design and implementation

Residential (single-family)

Residential (multi-family)

Commercial/ Industrial (less than 10k sq ft)

Commercial/ Industrial

(more than 10k sq ft) Institutional

Not specified

X X X X X

Entity typeEntity

sub-typeGeographic

scope

For profit Management Consulting

National

PROFILE EXAMPLE


Direct Interviews (27)

Person Organization

David Bank Civic Ventures

Colin Bishop Clean Economy Development Center

Dana Bourland Enterprise Community Partners

Eric Bloom Pike Research

John Bracey Southface

Will Byrne DC Project

Eric Coffman Affordable Comfort

Steve Cowell Conservation Services Group

Cisco Devries Renewable Funding

Eric Dirnbach Change to Win

Merrian Fuller Lawrence Berkeley Lab

Karen Gajewski City of Philadelphia

David Gershon Empowerment Institute

Benjamin Goldstein USDOE

Jeremy Hayes Green for All

Ben Hecht Living Cities

James Irwin Efficiency Cities Network

Grace Kelly Southface

Jeffrey King Clean Economy Development Center

Person Organization

Molly Lunn USDOE

Amy Malik ICLEI

Dennis Murphey Kansas City

Julia Parzen Urban Sustainability Directors Network

Joel Rogers COWS

Chuck Schwarz Long Island Green

Arah Shuur Clinton Climate Initiative

Joel Simon CAEL


Observations

• Providers evenly split between non-profit and for-profit (48% -- 52%)

• For profits are overwhelmingly management consulting companies (70%)

• Vast majority receive some funding from federal government agencies

• The focus and capacity varies widely across the field

• Top 5 TA service areas are roughly the same: retrofit program design; financing; performance evaluation; program management

• About 35% of the players have emerged since 2000

• 59% have fewer than 50 employees

• Most say they are national in scope, but based on capacity, many in practice are regionally focused


Secondary Analysis Profile Summary

Regional12%

National88%

Geographic Scope Year EstablishedTBD11%

2000 - 201035%

1980 - 198915%

1990 - 199925%

Before 198014%


Secondary Analysis Profile Summary (Continued)

Staff

TBD23.00%

500+ on Staff5.00%

100 - 499 on Staff6.00%

50 - 99 on Staff6.00%

20 - 49 on Staff20.00%

5 - 9 on Staff12.00%

10 - 19 on Staff15.00%

1 - 4 on Staff12.00%


High Level Taxonomy of Players

Type ExamplesNational integrated service providers.

Conservation Services Group; Honeywell; ICF; Sentech; Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Regional integrated service providers.

Center for Neighborhood Technology; Southface; Strategic Energy Innovations

National players with a focused content area.

Ballard Spahr; Partnership for Working Families; Renewable Funding

Regional players with a focused content area.

Environmental Finance Center Network (1 university per region – 10 total); Shorebank Enterprise Cascadia

National membership organizations and networks.

ACEEE, Emerald Cities; Energy Services Coalition; ICLEI; Urban Sustainability Directors Network

Regional membership organizations and networks.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership;Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance;Southwest Energy Efficiency Project

National industry/trade associations.

Efficiency First; National Home Performance Council; Building Performance Institute; USGBC


USDOE Technical Assistance Program (TAP)


Better Buildings

EECBG & TAP


Technical Assistance Program (TAP) Overview

• $20+ million in funding over three years – focused on all 3,000+ EECBG recipients

• Three teams at USDOE: Headquarters Team State Energy Program (SEP) Team EECBG Team

• Technical Assistance Center Call Center On-line Customer Service Center Solutions Center Web Site

• Provider Network Four teams Prime contractors for each team Lead sub-primes 200 total providers


TAC

Organization: Provider Network

Regional Coordinators

NASEO ICF

Program Design and

Implmtn.

Vermont Energy

Investment Corp.

Performance Contracting

ICF

Financial Mechanism

s

Cadmus CCS

DOE Labs

NREL, ORNL, LBNL, PNNL

SEP Team EECBG Team

~50 providers~200 providers

DOE HQ TA TEAM

Michaela Martin, Lead ORNL3 additional staff

TBD, Lead3 additional staff

Provider Network Working Group

TAP Structure

Source: USDOE TAP PowerPoint, “Technical Assistance Overview”, July 7, 2010


Provider Network Resources

State and Local Capacity Building

• Trainings• Workshops• Peer-to-peer matching

Technical • Renewable energy siting and development• Review of technical specs for RFPs• Strategic planning, energy management, and conservation strategies• Green building technologies• Building codes

Program Design and Implementation

• Policy and program development• Coordinating rate-payer funded dollars with ARRA projects and programs• Sustainable community and building design• State and regional EE and RE assessments and planning• EE and RE portfolio program design elements

Financial Program design support and guidance on financing mechanisms such as: • Revolving loan funds (RLFs)• Property-assessed clean energy (PACE)• Loan loss reserves and enhanced credit mechanisms

Performance Contracting

• Designing and implementing a performance contract • Leveraging private investment• Reducing institutional barriers• Tracking and comparing programs



TAP Providers

DOE National Laboratories: National Renewable Energy Lab, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory • Alliance to Save Energy • American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy • American Public Power Association • Ballard Spahr, LLP • Boise State Environmental Finance Center • Catalyst Financial Group • Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. • E. P. System Group • Energy Efficiency Finance Corporation • Energy Futures Group • Energy Programs Consortium • Energy Services Coalition • Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center • HarcourtBrown • ICF International • Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance • National Association of State Energy Officials • National Association of Counties • National Governors Association • National Resources Defense Council • New England Environmental Finance Center • New Mexico Tech Environmental Finance Center • Northcross, Hill & Ach • Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships • Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance • Public Technology Institute • Renewable Funding • Sentech, Inc. • Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance • Southwest Energy Efficiency Project • Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future • Syracuse Environmental Finance Center • Tensleep Advisory • The Cadmus Group, Inc. • University of Delaware Center for Energy and Environmental Policy • University of Louisville Environmental Finance Center • University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center • University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center • University of North Carolina School of Government • Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Source: USDOE TAP PowerPoint, “Technical Assistance Overview”, July 7, 2010 Bold = included in our inventory


TA Request Process Flow

G R A N T E E

Request Touch Points

Grantees Project Officers (Acct Reps) Regional Coordinators TA Provider Network

Rec

omm

enda

tion

s

Types of Resources

• One-on-One• Solution Center• Workshops• Peer Matching

NE

RV

E C

EN

TE

RT

R I

A G

E

B A S I C

TA Assignment

S T A N D A R D

Specialized

HQ EXCEPTION

Feedback



Better Building TAP Structure

Collaborative Working Groups:• Financing• Contractor recruitment and workforce

development• Driving demand/marketing and outreach• Data tracking and collection

Infrastructure:• Conference calls and webinars• In-person meetings• Collaborative working group directory• On-line collaborative web site• Sub-groups

Affinity Groups:• Commercial & Gov’t Buildings• Multi-family and rental properties• Historic buildings• Green and healthy homes• Deep retrofits• New audit tools• New finance tools• New workforce standards• Working with retail partners

Infrastructure:• Kick-off call or workshop• Directory of interested grantees• On-line collaborative web site• Targeted sessions at BB workshops• Active connecting to other federal

agencies or initiatives

Contractor Support and Access to TAP Resources


Funding and Program Status

• Approximately half of the funds have been disbursed to date; the majority of the remainder will be spent by the end of CY 2011

• USDOE is beginning to plan for the post-TAP TA structure

• It is unlikely that the EECBG will be refunded at a significant level

• Pre-EECBG TA funding was modest:• $3 million through NREL• $200K -- $500K through other sources


TA Recommendations

1. Build on the base created by the USDOE TAP initiative.

2. Start now to plan for a post-ARRA TA infrastructure.

3. Make sure that structure has a “learning system” that rapidly disseminates knowledge across players and markets; and use this system to inform market development investments.

4. Develop robust feedback loops and a continuous improvement process.


Collaboration Infrastructure


Collaboration is At An Early Stage

• There is a broad range of players with interests in BRIM development – governments; utilities; NGOs; private enterprises; foundations; organized labor; education; etc.

• Because BRIM is at an early stage of development, the structures for strategic collaboration between players are not well developed. (Although there are some membership organizations that now represent significant cross sections of the industry.)

• As a result, there is not yet strong strategic alignment across key stakeholders on the strategies for development of the market. There are many different players doing many different innovative things without a “grand design” to maximize alignment with minimal structure.


Three Promising Collaboration Opportunities

1. Formalize collaboration across funders through a Working Group structure.

2. Explore the best way to organize market stakeholders in ways that can align strategy for market development. (e.g. trade associations; coalitions; intermediaries; Federal Advisory Committees.)

3. Develop MOUs or other structures for collaboration between USDOE and both the Funders Working Group and market stakeholders.


Collaboration on Market Development

Funders Working Group

USDOE & EPA

Market Stakeholders


Next Steps


Some Practical Next Steps on BRIM Development

1. Identify which funders are interested in working on this issue in a structured way

2. Conduct the next level of inventory on market-building projects:• List of projects by relevant categories• Develop standard profile for each project• Develop database format for sharing

3. Conduct a high level assessment of the strategy within each niche, using “investment advisors” where appropriate

4. Meet within 3 months to review results and plan next steps


Some Practical Next Steps on TA Structure

1. Identify key players to provide input to USDOE post-ARRA TA planning

2. Develop a Funders Working Group assessment of current and planned foundation investments in TA capacity

3. Hold a meeting in the February time frame with DOE; funders; and key field networks on future TA infrastructure


Some Practical Next Steps on Collaboration

1. Formalize a Funders BRIM Working Group:• Members• Mission• Facilitation and analysis support• Meeting schedule• Priorities

2. Convene a meeting of key market stakeholders to explore how best to organize the field for collaborative interaction (after next level of market building investments has been completed) and to review priorities for BRIM development


DISCUSSION


Supplemental Materials


Selected Interview Quotes


Selected Interview Quotes on Market Building

Serious Work Takes Decades. “If we are serious about building a real market, it will take us over a decade to do it. And much of the impact of our investment won’t show up for a long time. We need to be patient and we need to ratchet up the level of investment. You either believe we are building the post-carbon economy or not. And if you do, you have to be in it for the long haul.”

Current Players Won’t Drive the Market. “The market doesn’t exist in the way that many organizations want it to exist. Many of the players involved now are not the ones that will actually drive the private market.”

Lack of Focus on Market Development. “No one is really worrying about the building of market infrastructure and operating systems to support market development. We have to define the R&D investments we need to make to build this market. No one has done that yet.”

The Market is At A Very Early Stage. “Everybody is talking about the retrofit market, but very few people are actually doing anything about it. The cities are all at an extremely early stage of development. This is really a “pre-nascent” field. Even the mature players are very early in their development. Unfortunately, much of the thinking is just an extension of the old subsidized weatherization program.”

Market Failure. “It is folly to say that this market is developing the way it should. What we have on our hands is a fundamental market failure. There is no evidence that it is developing the way it should.”

Need Focus on the Private Players. “Most of the TA is focused on these public and NGO players who happen to be holding the baton at the beginning of this market. Eventually they will have to pass it on to the private market players – entrepreneurs; banks; contractors; etc. Even while $500 million for Retrofit Ramp Ups seems like a lot of money, it is a drop in the bucket in terms of building a market and not enough to get private sector players to take a risk.”

Not Enough Private Sector Engagement. The private players are largely absent from the dialogue about market building. The people doing the talking about it will not be the ones making the private risk investments.



Lack of Performance Data. “A major barrier is the lack of post-retrofit performance data. Particularly in the commercial industry where building owners are particularly concerned about the results. Without hard evidence that the energy savings are real, it will be hard to see a huge uptick in building retrofits.”

Standardized Data. “We need standardized software and data management systems that allow for the standardization of retrofits. This will help standardize underwriting.”

Access to Utility Data. “It is impossible for us to get utility data. We are all afraid of the local power company. We need some national agreement and standards on utility data sharing and integration with property tax data bases.”

No Data to Drive Appraisals. “Green buildings aren’t appraised at a higher value because the datasets aren’t available for banks and appraisal institutions.”

Data Standards. “We need datasets that demonstrate the success of retrofits – with pre and post data. And we need to track how this affects sale values. TA on the data side is critical. And we need some national data standards so these data sets are comparable.”

Standardized Labeling. “To convey value and change underwriting standards, we need standardized building labeling that measures building energy efficiency – what everyone refers to as the ‘MPG’ for energy. It would be good if this was done nationally, but can also be done in local markets, as long as it is uniform.”

No Link to Underwriting. “We believe the retrofit savings are real that they improve the value of our homes; but the capital markets don’t believe it, and the regulators don’t believe it. Underwriting standards have no way of recognizing the differences in energy performance of homes.”

Universal Access to Utility Data. “We need consistent and updated maps of energy consumption by every parcel of property in the country. This would require utility data sharing protocols; and standardized database tools to integrate utility data with tax base data to get energy use per square foot.”



Large C/I Has Some Momentum. “Large corporations have large corporate campuses, big building portfolios that are better suited for payback on retrofit measures. Have more capital available for this work and helps boost public image. ESCO’s look for large buildings, so this part of the market may already have more momentum”

Small C/I Opportunity. “There has been a lot of investment in the residential retrofit market, but almost none in the small-medium commercial market. And this is a niche with great opportunities for energy saving.”

Small C/I Opportunity. “There appears to be a large opportunity/need for Light Commercial expertise and capacity (3,000-10,000 sf commercial buildings. These projects are too small for the large firms. We need to train the residential players to move up into this market. There are a lot of low/no cost high return strategies that can be implemented.”

Consumer Communication. “We really need a more coordinated way of going after the consumer. They get a lot of individual product marketing making claims about performance that are not in line with what the building science community knows. We need to communicate the ‘whole house’ approach more effectively.”

Marketing for Contractors. “We need marketing and communications resources for contractors. We train them in the technical skills, but then they don’t know how to go out and generate demand.”

Generating Demand. “There is a huge gap in knowledge about how to generate demand for retrofits. We have very little information about what works and doesn’t work. We need market research; methods testing; consumer segmentation; focus groups; etc. to understand this market.”

“Value Proposition is Not Compelling. “People don’t want the retrofit product in it current form. The value proposition is too abstract and service delivery is too fragmented. So traditional marketing is not enough.”



Three Primary Paths. “You need to enter this market from several different doors. And to me, the three primary ones are: 1) remove the upfront capital availability barrier; 2) have standardized systems that create consumer confidence in the transactions; and 3) create data that demonstrates value and brings private capital to the market.”

“Standards vs. Open Competition. You have to be clear about where there is a need to develop some kind of “standard” for the industry and where you want to just let market competition drive the development of products and services. For instance, in terms of modeling software, that niche in the market is getting pretty well served by multiple vendors.”

States are Also Major Independent Players. “Washington State Referendum 52 would dedicate $500 million to retrofit every school in the state with a 3:1 private capital match. If it happens, this will instantly be the largest retrofit market in the country. This is a big opportunity to do market infrastructure development.”

Need DOE and EPA Alignment. “Also, we need to get DOE and EPA on the same page. They are entering the same market in an uncoordinated way.”

Need DOE and EPA Alignment. “It would be really useful to know what is going on in EPA related to building energy efficiency. We just don’t have the bandwidth to build relationships with them.”

Need for Standards in Several Areas. “Overall, the market needs standards in many areas – building performance metrics; best practices; definitions; etc. As an example, as we have moved into retro-commissioning, we have found that there is very little standardization of practices in that niche.”


Selected Interview Quotes on TA

USDOE Improving. “DOE, in particular, has improved. It is in different position now than it was 3 years ago. Previously, the DOE never had the resources to facilitate this kind of knowledge transfer. Now it has more resources, trying to be more aggressive in information sharing of R&D.”

Different Motivations and Approaches. “There are a lot of different TA providers. Many are very good. Some suffer from tunnel vision. Each sells their own approach to developing programs and have a fair amount of difference in goals. They have very different motivations -- Climate change; Job creation; Social justice; Community building. There is a need for a consistent understanding of the goals and how different goals lead to different consulting and advice.”

Need a Long-Term Strategy. “I think we have a lot of the TA pieces in place now. The problem is that this is all short term. This money won’t get re-appropriated. There are networks in place for some parts of this market that will survive the loss of funding (such as NASEO), but there is no real network to connect municipalities and cities together. The players in this space -- like ICLEI; Green for All; Emerald Cities; ISC – are only working with a small subset of the players. It would be great if we could use this opportunity of everyone having an excuse to be working together to do some creative thinking about a sustainable infrastructure after the funding disappears.”

TAP Program Making Progress. “As one of the DOE TA providers, I believe the DOE TA program is basically a good concept and design that has had some “bumps in the road” in terms of its launch. Primarily related to coordination, since they combined several RFP respondents into a single award. The concept is a good one. They are continually tinkering with it. It suffered at the start from some disconnects but is improving.“

Need Long Term Strategy. “We don’t know how this will live on after ARRA funding ends. It has been really valuable for everyone to get to know each other and work together. I think we are building something – a community of practice – that will stay connected after the program ends.”


Selected Interview Quotes on TA

Lack of System for Coordination. “There is a need for a central location / hub for coordination. For example, a “clearinghouse” for all information related to the financing of retrofits. There needs to be better quality and consistency in the information being disseminated. TAP has a specific charter of quickly providing support for providers. What is lacking is a more comprehensive and robust center of information.”

Connecting Local Learning. “There is innovation in the aspect of finance happening in many different places (e.g. Portland, Long Island). There is a need to aggregate these innovations and disseminate best practices.”

Lack of Depth and an Integrated View. “A lot of people talk about doing some form of TA, but the vast majority of it, in our experience, is lacking in content depth. This is a new and rapidly changing field. There are very few people who have broad experience and can look at the market in a holistic way. Most people are very focused on a narrow content area.”

Lack of Coordination. “In general, the intellectual resources exist, but they lack coordination. There are people doing great work, but how are others accessing this information and knowledge?”

Overbuilding Capacity. “I am concerned that we are building a bunch of TA capacity for a market that does not yet exist. If the market doesn’t emerge, we will have a lot of “once bitten” folks who will never go back into the market. No one right does retrofits as a full time job. There isn’t enough volume.”

Confusion About What Works. “There is rampant confusion in what works and what doesn’t work – at both the consumer level and the program level. We need one-stop shops that can provide trusted information to consumers. The same is true for program implementer who need some way to figure out what works and what doesn’t at their level.”


October 21, 2010 Meeting of Better Building Grantees

on Collaboration Opportunities


October 21 Better Building Meeting

• Prompted by interest in collaboration across sites on system development

• 19 sites participated in a one-day meeting; detailed interviews done with each site in advance of the meeting

• Significant time spent sharing specifications on IT system RFPs

• Multiple opportunities for cross-site collaboration identified – well aligned with USDOE Better Building Affinity Groups and Collaborative Working Groups

• Some interest in post-meeting follow-up, but very limited responses

• Participants confirmed many of the priorities recommended here for market development


Spectrum of Collaboration Opportunities Identified

Type of Opportunity

Description

Information Sharing Sharing of detailed information that can inform peers decision making on program element development and program implementation. Examples include RFP text; lists of vendors; real time information on who is bidding on what.

Peer Learning Networks

Networks of peers who agree to engage in learning with each other (through on-line interaction; conference calls; or in-person meetings) on specific content issues. (Linked to USDOE Affinity Group process.)

Product Sharing Making products developed or paid for by one implementer available for use by others.

Joint Program Development

Issuing joint RFPs for program element development (e.g. IT systems; marketing materials; etc.)

Standards Development

Recommending standards and practices for program elements that should be common across implementation sites.


Common Content Area Concerns

Information Technology•Customer interface•Contractor interface•Financing data•USDOE data requirements•Program administration•On-line energy audits & energy modeling•Utility Data

Marketing•Market research•Message & materials•Outreach to customers •Social media & websites

Finance•Management of/coordination with rebates & subsidies •Developing new finance vehicles

• Loan Loss Reserve Funds• Revolving Loan Programs• Interest Rate Reduction• Subordinate PACE

•Financial institution relationships • Banks• CDFIs• Government Agencies• ESCOs

•Underwriting standards

Workforce Development•Integration between workforce development training providers and contractors•Skill and occupational classification definition•Demand forecasting•Workforce and training vendor management

Program Management•RFP content development•RFP process•QA/QC•Measurement & reporting•Stakeholder engagement•Strategic partner management

Energy Services Contractors•Competence & performance standards •Qualifications processes

• Job quality verification processes•Contractor referral policy/process


Opportunity Matrix

Collaboration Opportunity

Content Areas

IT Systems Marketing Finance Workforce Program Implementation

Energy Services

Contractors

Information Sharing

Peer Learning Networks

Product Sharing

Joint Program Element

Development

Standards Development

opportunities for developing the building retrofit industry and market (brim)

Documents