1. No category

Existing Multifamily Request for Proposals: Requests for Clarification Responses
April 10, 2015
Contracting and implementation
1. On p. 27 of the RFP, Energy Trust says it “strongly prefers contracts that are
consistent with Energy Trust’s standard terms and conditions.” Would Energy
Trust please provide a copy of its standard terms and conditions?
While Energy Trust does not provide a copy of its standard terms and conditions for our
negotiated PMC agreements in the RFP process, respondent can expect that terms in
any resulting PMC contract would include the following: appropriate license and
certification requirements; timely and accurate invoicing requirements; requirements
stating that written contracts with any of the subcontractors performing any portions of
the program are required and must include provisions requiring such subcontractors to
adhere to requirements incumbent upon the contractor in its contract with Energy Trust;
intellectual property provisions ensuring that work or product developed for the program
shall be the property of Energy Trust; conflict of interest disclosure requirements;
confidential information nondisclosure requirements; indemnification for third-party
claims and limitation of liability provisions, and insurance requirements.
2. Want to determine if Energy Trust of Oregon is willing to accept multiple bids from
individual contractors. Specifically there may be two scenarios a company would
like to consider:
Scenario 1: Bidder would like to submit a proposal for PMC consideration.
Scenario 2: Bidder would partner and sub-contract specific technology or
services to other PMC bidder.
There is nothing precluding respondents from proposing these scenarios.
3. Page 14 of the RFP states that “Energy Trust anticipates that new program
initiatives will be planned and developed in the second quarter and launched in
the third quarter or later of 2015.” Is this meant to be 2016, or are there new
program initiatives planned with the current PMC in 2015? If second and third
quarter of 2015 is the timeframe for new program initiatives, and the incoming
contractor in place by September, 2015, what is the time frame for new initiatives
outlined in selected PMC’s proposal?
The amended sentence should read “Energy Trust anticipates that new program
initiatives will be planned and developed in the second quarter and launched in the third
quarter or later of 2016.”
4. Can Energy Trust of Oregon please provide further clarity on the timeline and
expectations from PMC regarding the Transition plan based on captions from pg 3
and 17?
Is it correct to assume that Energy Trust of Oregon intent is to have an agreement
in place by September 1st, At that time the PMC can start the start-up functions,
make sure the implementation efforts is kept AS IS for first quarter and provide a
seamless transition to new strategies in 2nd quarter of 2016?
From pg. 3: “Energy Trust would expect to have an initial four-month transition
agreement in place with the incoming contractor by September 1, 2015, and all
required contracting complete for full delivery of the Existing Multifamily PMC
services beginning January 1, 2016.”
From pg. 17: “Energy Trust would expect a new program implementer to continue
the program as-is, with minimal market disruption, for the first quarter of 2016.
The proposal must clearly outline a transition plan that would seamlessly facilitate
continuation of existing program efforts and momentum with a goal to introduce
new strategies in the second quarter of 2016.
Energy Trust expects that a transition contract would be in place by September 1st,
2015. The transition period is designed to ensure that the incoming PMC completes all
necessary planning and ramp-up activities to begin fully delivering the program as of
January 1st, 2016. The existing PMC remains responsible for delivery of the program’s
energy savings to Energy Trust through December 31st, 2015 as well as continuing to
develop savings pipelines for 2016.
As noted in question 3, above, Energy Trust anticipates that new initiatives would not be
planned until the second quarter of 2016, and launched in the third quarter or later.
Utility data and energy usage
5. Do we expect or are we able to use utility data provided directly from utilities? If
so, will we be required to sign the Utility Customer Information Confidentiality
Agreements?
Yes. Consistent with agreements with its 4 funding utilities, Energy Trust receives a
limited set of customer utility and energy usage data for use in implementing,
administering, and/or evaluating Energy Trust’s programs. All such data is subject to
specific confidentiality requirements. Access to the utility-provided customer data for
Existing Multifamily purposes will be necessary and will require that the PMC (and any of
its relevant subcontractors) sign a specific company nondisclosure agreement.
Additionally all individuals receiving access to the data are required to sign a specific
individual nondisclosure agreement. These nondisclosure agreements have been
approved as to form by the utilities and are required without modification.
6. Is ETO willing and able to provide meter consumption data for its multifamily
customers, in bulk or aggregated, for the purpose of leveraging data analytics in
this program? If not, is ETO willing to work with the Oregon Electric Utilities to
help them provide meter consumption data for their multifamily to third-party
program administrators?
Energy Trust would be able to provide the PMC with such meter data as it may receive
from the utilities consistent with its existing data sharing and non-disclosure agreements
with its funding utilities. See Question 5, above.
7. How does the PMC acquire utility customer information and historical usage?
PMCs must adhere to requirements noted in questions 5 and 6, above, to access utility
data.
8. For how many commercial customers does ETO have access to their interval data
(e.g., 15 minute or hourly consumption) available, either as a result of legacy
interval metering or its smart meter deployment?
Pursuant to data sharing and non-disclosure agreements, Energy Trust receives monthly
usage data from each of our funding utilities. Energy Trust does not receive interval data
from utilities.
9. If available, what is the distribution of ETO multifamily customer base, by annual
electric energy consumption (kWh)?
Section 6 of NEEA’s Residential Building Stock Assessment for Multifamily
Characteristics and Energy Use contains information regarding the Northwest’s
multifamily building stock energy usage, which can be found at
http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment--multifamily-characteristics-and-energy-use.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
Measures and cost-effectiveness
10. Can cost effectiveness or levelized cost limits be measured at a project, in
addition to a measure level? If so, under what conditions?
No. Energy Trust does not apply its cost effectiveness criteria at the project level, only to
individual measures. However, the TRC test may be applied to a combination of two
measures when the savings are greater than the sum of the savings for the two
measures done separately.
11. Would Energy Trust be open to incentive level changes specific only to
multifamily buildings?
Respondents may propose adjusted incentive amounts or models for multifamily
program offerings, as noted on page 11 of the RFP. The benefit of these changes must
be clearly described and include supporting justification in estimated program impacts.
12. What are the Program rules surrounding a single project’s participation in multiple
incentive tracks and re-participation of a previously enrolled project?
There are no restrictions on the number of program tracks or number of measures
customers may receive incentives for over time. All participants are encouraged to
achieve the full energy savings potential for each property. Participants may not receive
incentives on the same measure or receive direct-install services more than once.
13. Is fuel switching or conversion measures eligible?
Energy Trust cannot encourage switching fuels, or provide analysis or comparison
between different fuel types. If a building owner chooses to switch fuels, they may be
eligible to receive incentives for qualifying measures installed.
14. Is the Multifamily program responsible for its own Buy-down promotion or is it
woven into the existing Commercial program, as it appears currently.
Buy down promotions for equipment and appliances in multifamily properties are
managed by the Existing Multifamily PMC. The Lighten Up with LEDs buy-down touches
multiple programs under the Commercial & Industrial Lighting umbrella, with savings for
qualifying measures installed at eligible multifamily properties attributed to Existing
Multifamily.
Program results and participation
15. Are RFP Tables 2 and 3 available for 2013 and 2014?
See Tables 1-4, below, for savings and incentives by measure track for 2013 and 2014.
Refer to page 8 in the RFP for discussion of anticipated savings trends by measure track
in 2015, and pages 11 and 12 for descriptions of anticipated savings in 2016.
Table 1: 2014 Electric Savings and Incentives by Measure Track*
Savings %
Incentive %
kWh
Savings
Incentives
Buy Down Promotions
0%
1%
74,952
$43,177
Common Area Lighting
13%
9%
2,737,122
$368,235
Custom
6%
9%
1,272,260
$355,515
Direct Install
65%
43%
14,114,724
$1,755,583
MPower Pilot
4%
5%
794,470
$195,009
Prescriptive
12%
33%
2,596,064
$1,357,342
Total
100%
100%
21,589,592
$4,074,860
Track
Table 2: 2014 Gas Savings and Incentives by Measure Track*
Track
Savings %
Incentive %
Therm
Savings
Incentives
Buy Down Promotions
0%
0%
279
$2,258
Custom
7%
14%
23,617
$83,711
Direct Install
75%
38%
260,490
$234,935
MPower Pilot
1%
1%
3,172
$3,689
Prescriptive
17%
47%
60,798
$288,425
Total
100%
100%
348,356
$613,018
* 2014 numbers are preliminary and have not been finalized
Table 3: 2013 Electric Savings and Incentives by Measure Track
Track
Savings %
Incentive %
kWh
Savings
Incentives
Buy Down Promotions
1%
4%
138,312
$77,838
Common Area Lighting
18%
11%
2,819,236
$240,808
Custom
4%
10%
605,363
$226,681
Direct Install
68%
41%
10,638,621
$908,355
MPower Pilot
0%
1%
35,050
$30,614
Prescriptive
9%
33%
1,354,065
$724,237
Total
100%
100%
15,590,647
$2,208,532
Table 4: 2013 Gas Savings and Incentives by Measure Track
Track
Savings %
Incentive %
Therm
Savings
Incentives
Buy Down Promotions
0%
0%
121
$1,412
Custom
7%
28%
6,852
$84,700
Direct Install
82%
47%
79,419
$141,309
MPower Pilot
0%
4%
269
$12,996
Prescriptive
11%
21%
10,376
$63,085
Total
100%
100%
97,037
$303,502
16. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide total energy savings under each Savings
Track for 2013 and 2014 preferably by utility?
See question 15 for savings and incentives broken out by track for 2013 and 2014.
Savings will not be provided broken out by utility at this time.
17. Can Energy Trust of Oregon kindly provide the number/count of Capital Upgrade
projects in 2013 and 2014 preferably by utility?
The program processed a total of 1,519 projects related to capital expenditures in 2013
and 1,619 in 2014.
18. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide the total volume of incoming calls for 2013
and 2014 preferably by each Savings Track?
Refer to page 5 of Appendix D of the RFP for current monthly call volume. These are not
broken down by savings track.
19. Can you provide further breakdown of savings potential by market sector as
documented in the RFP on page 5 (i.e. currently 91 percent of electric savings
come from affordable, assisted, and market rate segments - what share do each of
these segments make up?, i.e. market rate = x, assisted = y, etc.). Do you have
savings (electric and gas) projections for the Attached Residential Owner sector
(this is the only segment not mentioned on p.5 of the RFP)?
See Table 5 for breakdown of 2015 budgeted savings by market segment. Energy Trust
will not provide information on resource potential as part of this RFP process.
Respondents should demonstrate in their responses a working knowledge of each
market segment served by Energy Trust’s Multifamily program.
Table 5: 2015 Budgeted Savings by Market Segment
Market Segment
Affordable
Assisted Living
Attached Residential Owner
Campus Living
Home Owners Associations
(HOA)
Market Rate
Total
kWh
Savings
4,706,201
3,720,512
384,671
598,928
1,090,400
13,669,040
24,169,752
kWh
Savings %
19%
15%
2%
2%
Therm
Savings
15,374
157,347
3,396
33,603
Therm
Savings %
5%
52%
1%
11%
5% 1,225
57% 90,197
100% 301,142
0%
30%
100%
20. Regarding Program Market Segments, pg.4 – Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide
savings per 6 type of market segments for 2013 and 2014?
Savings by market segment for 2013 and 2014 are provided below.
Table 6: 2013 Savings by Market Segment
Market Segment
kWh
Savings
Affordable
Assisted Living
Campus Living
Homeowners Association
Market Rate
Not Captured/Other
Total
1,857,624
2,329,709
95,884
636,361
10,421,218
249,851
15,590,647
Therm
kWh
Therm
Savings
Savings
Savings
%
%
12%
4,689
5%
15%
56,925
59%
1%
12,639
13%
4%
80
0%
67%
21,741
22%
2%
963
1%
100%
97,037
100%
Table 7: 2014 Savings by Market Segment
Market Segment
kWh
Savings
Affordable
Assisted Living
Campus Living
Homeowners Association
Market Rate
Not Captured/Other
Total
3,408,059
2,244,576
852,967
740,076
13,539,143
804,771
21,589,592
kWh
Therm
Therm
Savings
Savings
Savings
%
%
16%
25,570
7%
10%
206,957
59%
4%
32,999
10%
3%
7,325
2%
63%
62,297
18%
4%
13,147
4%
100%
348,356
100%
21. Regarding existing program section, pg. 4 – Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide
the total number of units associated with the 7,000 MF properties mentioned?
This information is not available.
22. What is the expected volume of Direct Install for 2015 and participation volume
since the beginning of the multifamily program?
See Table 8 for quantity of properties and dwelling units served through direct-install
between 2010 and 2014. Anticipated 2015 savings through direct-install can be found on
page 8 of the RFP.
Table 8: Sites and Dwelling Units Served 2010 - 2014
Year
Number of Sites Served
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
56
353
619
602
1,137
2,767
Dwelling Units Served
5,628
23,237
22,989
22,174
37,849
111,877
23. Are there any metrics on inquiries, projects entered, and projects completed
utilizing your on-line Benchmarking tool?
The online benchmarking tool is a licensed third-party tool that Energy Trust currently
makes available to a limited number of program participants. It allows participants to
enter their building data and energy usage so they can monitor impacts of their energy
saving actions over time. Specific measures or projects are not entered through this tool
under the Existing Multifamily program.
24. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide the number of applications processed under
each Savings Track per year for 2013 and 2014 preferably by utility?
Table 9 shows the number of projects processed for each savings track in 2013 and
2014. These will not be broken out by utility at this time.
Table 9: Number of Projects Processed by Savings Track in 2013 and 2014
Track
Buy Down Promotions
Direct Install
Prescriptive
Custom
Common Area Lighting
MPower Pilot
Other
2013
1,107
521
312
44
98
8
157
2014
634
1,136
782
44
176
28
2
Tenant opt-outs
25. What are the current Energy Trust Multifamily tenant opt out rates?
Below are the tenant direct-install opt-out rates from March 2014 through February 2015.
Table 10: Opt-out Rates for Direct-install
Month
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014*
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
Units Opt‐out rate
2,992
11%
2,504
12%
5,063
11%
2,293
13%
3,493
17%
3,109
16%
2,557
18%
2,289
15%
3,402
17%
2,723
13%
2,696
12%
3,291
7%
* LEDs replaced CFLs for direct-install lighting in November 2014
26. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide the tenant opt-out counts for 2013 and 2014
preferably by each utility?
See question 25 for information on opt-out rates from March 2014 through February
2015. Opt-out rates for 2013, as well as by utility, will not be provided during the RFP
process but could be assessed with the selected PMC if needed.
27. What is the process for a tenant to opt-out with a landlord or building owner?
Landlords are required to comply with all laws and stipulations in tenant leases regarding
notifications and access to tenant units. Currently, at least five days prior to scheduled
appointments, schedulers confirm that required tenant notifications have been
conducted. Tenants may opt-out of one or more of the measures being offered, or optout completely.
28. What are the main documented reasons for tenants denying access to individual
units?
Below are the documented reasons from a sample of tenants who opted out of the
direct-install offering.
Table 11: Reasons for Direct-install Opt-outs*
Privacy
Pet cannot be secured during visit
Already have efficient products
Like existing products
Was not clear on program
27%
15%
34%
46%
4%
Other
18%
* Tenants may select more than one reason for opt-out
29. Does Energy Trust of Oregon have a list of reasons/route-causes for the tenant
opt-outs in the past preferably by market segments?
See question 28 for documented reasons for tenant opt-outs. This information is not
broken down by market segment.
Program delivery
30. Regarding Program Objectives sections, pg. 6 – bullet 10, Is there any specific
area in the current program process that Energy Trust of Oregon expects more
focus and/or improvement by the PMC?
Proposals should focus on building the most efficient and attractive program possible.
While Energy Trust desires low transaction and delivery costs for energy savings, we
also want to ensure that our incentive offerings and services provide strong value to
decision makers when considering making energy efficiency investments.
31. Can you provide a list of marketing channels available through the existing
Energy Trust Marketing department?
Energy Trust of Oregon’s website has a Multifamily site. The PMC team is responsible
for providing content for this site and would be involved in any site design conversations
that impact the program. Energy Trust has a number of electronic newsletters that are
both customer and trade ally facing: Synergy, Energy Portfolio and Insider. These are all
viewable on the website. PMC marketing can make advertising recommendations as
part of the annual marketing plan development, and would design those ads for Energy
Trust review and approval. PMC marketing can also include public relations ideas in the
annual marketing plan, and these tactics would be implemented in collaboration with
Energy Trust. Energy Trust may develop and implement marketing campaigns that cross
business sectors (commercial and industrial) and the Energy Trust marketing manager
may involve PMC marketing in the development of these campaigns.
32. Which, if any, of the program tools used by the current PMC convey to a new
PMC?
Existing Multifamily program materials, including forms, Excel-based calculator tools and
workbooks, survey and other site evaluation and energy analysis templates are owned
by Energy Trust and would remain available for use by the new PMC.
33. Can you disclose the strategic business development efforts the program is
currently engaged in to appropriately pair market segments to incentive tracks (as
mentioned on p.5 of the RFP)?
Respondents should develop and describe strategic business development tactics as
part of their proposal which demonstrate a working knowledge of each market segment.
34. What has been the average frequency and duration for trade ally training by
savings track per year?
The Existing Multifamily PMC is responsible for holding their own program requirement
trainings, Energy Trust overview (for new trade allies), and ATAC trainings as
appropriate and necessary. These may happen on a case by case basis in the form of
one-on-one trainings with new allies to more formal, regular trainings which occur
roughly once a month. The Existing Multifamily team is also expected to participate in
Energy Trust’s cross-program bi-annual forums as well as other cross-programs events
such as Commercial & Industrial lighting, Existing Buildings and residential events
managed by other PMCs (up to 12 per year). Participation in these venues help to
assure an Existing Multifamily presence because a number of the trade allies are
enrolled in multiple programs.
35. Are there existing financing programs to address Multifamily buildings? Would
Energy Trust of Oregon be open to additional finance offerings beyond what is
listed on your website?
Respondents are welcome to include financing program ideas in their submitted
proposals, as noted on page 11 of the RFP.
36. Will Energy Trust know if the MPower pilot program, mentioned in the RFP for
2015, will be extended into 2016?
Not at this time.
37. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide a list of outside agencies and/or partners
involved in the multi-family program? (i.e. USDA, Multi-family NW, Clean Energy
Works)
Energy Trust collaborates with a wide range of market actors in the Northwest and
nationally. Energy Trust is interested in respondents proposing key alliances that can be
leveraged in order to maximize the efficacy of the Existing Multifamily program.
38. Is the new PMC expected to continue to contract with the current ATACs to
provide custom services?
The PMC must continue to provide energy analysis of Custom Track measures at
participant properties, however responses may propose alternative delivery models for
these services. Responses which propose a new delivery mechanism for these services
must include a seamless transition and plan and budget accordingly.
Within the current Existing Multifamily program design, Allied Technical Assistance
Contractors (ATACs) are engaged by the PMC to perform assigned site evaluations and
technical analysis studies of potential custom measures and deliver energy savings
analysis information to the PMC according to required procedures, timeframes and
formats. The PMC’s technical experts then perform a quality control (QC) review of the
measure analysis prior to PMC’s issuance of a Custom Track incentive offer to the
Participant for qualifying cost-effective custom measures.
Site evaluations and technical energy analysis of potential custom measures must
continue throughout 2015 for the PMC to continue to generate incentive offers and
pipeline of 2016 Custom Track projects. If respondent does not intend to utilize ATACs,
then respondent must address how it proposes to continue to perform site evaluation
and technical energy analysis work during 2016 to continue to deliver the Custom Track
with similar levels of QC rigor. PMC must account for the requirement that PMC’s QC
component of Custom Track analyses and measures must be clearly independent and
distinct from the preparation of the analysis. Respondent would also need to address
potential budgetary impacts if the site evaluations and technical energy analysis work
would no longer be payable a service incentives to ATACs but would instead be
potentially be performed and billed under PMC’s program delivery budget.
39. Should the continuation of current ATAC services be included in the budget? If
yes, please provide historic budgets and/or spends for ATAC services.
See question 38, above, regarding the requirement to continue Custom Track services
and incentives.
Assigned site evaluations and technical analysis studies are currently payable by the
PMC with service incentives via the annually established Existing Multifamily incentive
budget. During 2014, the program engaged ATACs to perform 19 site evaluations and
20 technical analysis studies. The average incentive for site evaluations was $1,470.
Incentives for technical analysis studies ranged widely based on the complexity of
potential measures studied. The total amount of service incentives paid in 2014 for site
evaluations and technical analysis studies combined was $120,945.
40. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide a list of current Allied Technical Assistance
Contractors (ATAC’s) working on the current program?
Energy Trust will not provide a list of ATACs as part of this RFP process and does not
expect RFP respondents to seek out ATACs prior to Energy Trust selection as PMC.
Letters of commitment are not required from ATACs as subcontractors for the purposes
of this RFP.
IT
41. Can you provide the Web Service Description Language (WSDL’s) we will be using
for integration with your systems?
We provide WDSL’s that are specialized for each partner integration. The web service is
inbound only to import contacts, accounts, site, project, measure and incentive details.
42. In the slides provided (Slide 15) you indicated that the CRM interface was not
ready. When is this system scheduled to be ready for integration testing?
There is no direct integration with CRM. We have CRM integration indirectly through the
main Import Service. For example, when a project is created, the Contacts, Accounts
and Site are created or updated in CRM. Direct integration to CRM is not planned at this
time.
43. Will the WSDL for the CRM be changing between now and when the system is
available?
There is no WSDL for CRM or direct integration.
44. When we are doing integration testing, will your team be providing testing
environment and operator support for your systems?
Yes.
45. Regarding pg. 19 of the RFP, Does Energy Trust of Oregon have a preference
regarding utilization of their systems directly vs. PMC system?
Energy Trust expects that the PMC will use Energy Trust systems as the primary system
of record. PMC can use their systems for program operations purposes but they are
responsible for making their systems integrate with Energy Trust systems.
46. Can Energy Trust of Oregon provide further detail around the current system, its
functionality and overall architecture as it relates to each Savings Track? Slides
13 & 14 of presentation
Projects, measures, and incentives are captured and tracked in FTR and Contacts,
Accounts, and Sites along with all customer relationship activities are captured in MS
Dynamics CRM.
Integration to Energy Trust’s systems is through use of a single interface, single request,
SOAP based Import Service developed in .Net running on Windows Server 2012
R2/IIS8. The web service in inbound only.