Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Driving Demand For Retrofits Through Neighborhood Outreach
Can demand for residential retrofits be driven by targeted neighborhood outreach? Here’s what we’re doing to find out.
Locations: Stockton, Sonoma and Los Angeles, California
By Mark Berman, Alliance for Residential Building Innovation
Relevant BAP Gaps & Barriers
1. Difficulty in recruiting homeowners to participate in home evaluation upgrade programs. (Recruitment)
2. Need to develop sustainable retrofit business models (Biz Models) – Review business models in Better Buildings Program & other
programs
3. Lack of attractive financing options (Financing Options) – Which options gain traction?
4. Need to develop a method to identify savings potential at community level (Community Savings Potential)
5. Data mining – need to analyze utility bills to get a sense of whole‐house efficiency (Aggregate Results)
2
Overview: Stockton CA
• Locally branded: “The StocktonEnergy Challenge”.
• Targeting neighborhoods of similarhomes to create economies of scale.
• Single‐contractor model: fulfillingboth assessment and retrofit functions.
• Customized marketing approachand tactics to reach targetneighborhood/homeownersaudience.
• Co‐funded by California EnergyCommission.
3
Overview: Sonoma
• Single‐contractor model. • Targeting twoneighborhoods: RohnertPark and Santa Rosa.
• Incentive strategy to attract“early adopters”: pricereductions for first ten homes.
• In coordination with EnergyUpgrade California program. – Part of the Better BuildingsProgram.
4
Overview: L.A. County – Contractor Pilot
• Working with two contractors. • Neighborhoods: Palmdale (4
subdivisions). • Enlisting “Energy Champions”:
non‐profit groups (HOAs, faith‐based org) who receive $ forevery completed retrofit.
• In coordination with EnergyUpgrade California. – Part of the Better Buildings
Program.
5
Overview: L.A. County – Marketing Pilot
• Open to multiple contractors. • Neighborhood targets:
Walnut and Diamond Bar • Enlisting “Energy
Champions”: non‐profitgroups (HOAs, faith‐based org) who receive $ for everycompleted retrofit.
• In coordination with EnergyUpgrade California. – Part of the Better Buildings
Program.
6
Commonalities
• Financial incentives for homeowners: rebates and CHF state loan program: 100% financing at 3% for limited time.
• Traditional marketing collateral: brochures, flyers, direct mail.
• Door‐to‐door canvassing (Stockton & Sonoma)
• State Program/Energy Upgrade California partnerships.
7
Commonalities (cont.)
• Battling the strong headwinds of debt aversion and perception of homes as toxic assets.
• Facing the challenge of conveying long‐term rewards (reduced utility bills, cleaner indoor air, increased comfort).
• Mitigating fear of upfront investment.
8
Program Differences
• City participation: strong inPalmdale (L.A.) and Sonoma,weak in Stockton.
• Hosting kickoff event (Stockton)v. focusing energy on findingearly adopters (Sonoma andPalmdale).
• Collaborating with non‐profitEnergy Champions (L.A.).
• Different housing styles: dealingwith mixed types (Stockton) v.production congruity (Walnutand Diamond Bar).
9
Program Differences (cont.)
• HOA involvement: concerted effort in Sonoma, unfruitful in Stockton, not available in L.A.
• Levels of partnership with Energy Upgrade California: lead role/co‐branding (LA, Sonoma) v. background support (Stockton).
10
Program Differences (cont.)
• Incentives disparities: different utility‐rebate programs. +$2K per house in L.A. (before Labor Day), $300 for early adopters and PACE opportunities in Sonoma, ½ off assessment in Stockton.
• Contractor participation: One or two vs. open market, and the challenges of controlling quality and process.
11
Status of Programs
• Stockton – Program kick‐off event May 1, 2011. – Initial home energy upgrades underway.
• Sonoma and L.A. County – Soft Launch late‐July
• Tracking Systems – In beta testing.
12
What Might We Learn?
GAP 1 ‐ RECRUITMENT • The usefulness of Energy Champions? • Techniques for motivating early adopters. • State‐wide branding vs. local branding?
GAP 2 – BIZ MODELS
• Small Contractor Group vs. Open Market? • Where can economies of scale be
generated? – Are they passed along to the
homeowners?
13
What Might We Learn? (cont.)
GAP 3 – FINANCING OPTIONS
• The effectiveness of different funding/financing models.
GAP 4 – COMMUNITY SAVINGS POTENTIAL
• Is there a “community effect” that can be leveraged?
• The value of HOA/municipal government involvement.
GAP 5 – AGGREGATE RESULTS
• Usability of Earth Aid for community‐wide assessments.
14
More Gaps & Barriers
• How can high participation rates be achieved in targeted neighborhoods? – Can retrofits go viral?
• Where can economies of scale & efficiencies be developed? – Assessments – Modeling
– Package Design
– Bulk Purchasing
– Installation
15
More Gaps & Barriers (cont.)
• How can the retrofit industry develop financing models as attractive as PV leasing? – Guaranteed utility bill savings – Secondary market for financial instruments – Credible savings in light of “take‐back”
• Need a new metric
• Develop the metric – Based on cooling and heating energy per degree of OA to IA delta?
– Pre‐retrofit vs. post‐retrofit.
16
Questions?
17