multifamily solutions - michigan · renovations. not having access to tenant apartments presents a...

Multifamily SolutionsJennifer Binkley-Power

Michigan Energy Optimization Collaborative Meeting

December 2014

Presentation Topics 2

1PROGRAM

DESCRIPTION

2 3MULTIFAMILY

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

4PROPERTY

OWNER/MANAGER SURVEY

5BEST

PRACTICES

6STRATEGIC

PARTNERSHIPS

=CUSTOMER1) PROPERTY MANAGERS 2) BUILDING OWNERS

PROGRESS TO DATE

Consumers Energy Multifamily Solutions

1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3

Program Element

Investment for Property Owners

UpgradeScope Examples

In‐Unit Direct Install Free; small to medium time commitment

CFL and LED bulb change‐out, showerheads, and bath & kitchen faucet aerators. Addition of furnace tune‐ups & pipe wrap.

Common Area DirectInstall

Free; small time commitment CFL and LED bulb change‐out, and bath & kitchen faucet aerators. Addition of furnace tune‐ups & pipe wrap.

Prescriptive Small to medium investment; small to medium energy savings

Incentives for HVAC, Lighting, and Building Envelope.

Custom Typically larger investment for creative and/or comprehensive projects; higher energy savings

Custom incentives developed for non‐prescriptive upgrades not found in the MEMD

Multiple Measure Greatest investment; potential for deep energy savings; increased incentives to attract investment.

Whole building upgrades, in‐unit plus common area investment.

Nearly 230,000 tenant units served to date Over 20% served in collaboration with DTE Energy

Number of Households Served

2 PROGRESS TO DATE

4

‐

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Units Served

Units in CE/DTE service areas

4%7%

24%

42%

52%56%

6%10%

36%

61%

76%

83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Cumulative Market P

enetratio

n

All RentalHousingApartments

Over 36,000 MWhs and 800,000 MCF savedthrough 2013

Energy Savings to Date

2 PROGRESS TO DATE

5

‐

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Annu

al kWh Savings

47%37%

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Annu

al M

CF Savings

C&I

Residential

13%

22%

Multifamily gas

accounts for 19% of residential portfolio savings.

Electric Savings Natural Gas Savings

Prescriptive and custom savings represent increasing proportion of savings each year

Drive for Comprehensive Savings

2 PROGRESS TO DATE

6

1%23%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013

Percen

t of E

lectric

Savings

Prescriptive/Custom

Direct Install

2%20% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013

Percen

t of G

as Savings

Electric Savings Natural Gas Savings

Case Study

2 PROGRESS TO DATE

7

CUSTOMERRegency Square ApartmentsKalamazoo, MI Trident Companies

PROPERTY DETAILS7 Buildings144 UnitsBuilt in 1968

PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS‐ Parking Lot Lighting‐ Canopy Lighting‐ Carport Lighting‐ Hallway LED Lighting‐ In‐Direct Water Heating‐ Flat Roof Insulation

PROJECT SAVINGSIncentive: $21,300.00Annual Energy Cost Savings:$11,400.00 (predicted)

A program energy advisor conducted a free energy audit to identify energy saving measures, energy cost savings for the owner, and financial payback schedules. Trident Companies property manager Steven Alkemareports, “the best part of the program was working with the energy advisors who walked us through the program and performed an energy assessment. I will definitely work with Consumers Energy Multifamily Whole Building Program when we purchase another property and lookforward to working with everyone again.”

“Our residents have been thrilled with the upgrades. They appreciate the consistent heat and hot water, which was an issue before we replaced the boilers and domestic hot water heaters.”

• Over a million rental units state wide About 40% of units are within Consumers Energy service area Wide variation in:

• Building vintage • Heating types• Number of units

Michigan Multifamily Market

3 MULTIFAMILY MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

8

Building Vintage and Heating Fuel


9

16%

8%

13% 13%

19%

12%

11%

9%

<1%0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Utility Gas, 74%

Electricity, 18%

Delivered Fuel, 5% Other, 3%

Building Vintage Heating Fuel Type

Facility Diversity


10

PROPERTY MANAGERS

BUILDING OWNERS

MAINTENANCETECHNICIANS

BOARD REPRESENTATIVES

OTHER

• CONSUMERS ENERGY MAY PROVIDE ELECTRIC, GAS, OR DUAL FUEL SERVICE

• BUILDINGS MAY BE SERVED ON RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL RATE CODE

• UTILITIES BILLS MAY BE PAID BY PROPERTY MANAGER/OWNER OR TENANT OR A COMBINATION

• FACILITY SIZE CAN RANGE FROM A FEW UNITS WITH ONSITE OWNER/MANAGER TO LARGE COMPLEXES MANAGED BY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRMS

• PROGRAM STAFF WORK WITH MULTIPLE DECISION MAKERS IN A VARIETY OF ROLES

• Consumers Energy conducted a survey to gather insight on: Awareness of programs Barriers and drivers to participation Opportunities for program enhancements

• Interviewed 73 property owners and managers that participated in the program in 2013

• Respondents represented 26% of electric savings and 29% of gas savings achieved

Property Owner/Manager Survey

4 PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER SURVEY

11

Survey Respondents


12

73RESPONDENTS

covering all program segments (with some participants in multiple segments)

60 DIRECT INSTALLS

10 CUSTOM

08 PRESCRIPTIVE

01 COMPREHENSIVE

10‐1920+

5‐9

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONOF RESPONDENTS

Survey Respondents 13

FACILITY SIZE n=73

22%3‐24 UNITS

9%25‐49 UNITS

15%50‐99 UNITS

28%100‐199 UNITS

26%200+ UNITS

ROLES AT THE FACILITY

61%PROPERTY MANAGER

n=4363% ‐ Onsite37% ‐ Offsite

20%BUILDING OWNERn=14

13%MAINTENANCETECHNICIAN

n=9

4%BOARD

REPRESENTATIVEn=3

3%OTHERn=2

Program Awareness


14

54%

20%14% 11% 11%

7% 6% 4% 1% 1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

UTILITYREPRESENTATIVE

PRINTEDAD

CONTRACTOR MEDIA OTHERBLDG. MGR.

BROCHURE /DIRECT MAIL

EMAIL APARTMENTASSOCIATION

OTHERUTILITY

WEBSEARCH

HOW RESPONDENTS HEARD ABOUT THE PROGRAM n=70 r=92

MARKETING MATERIALS RECEIVED

51%BOOKLET / CATALOG

N=71

13%MAIL

10%CONTRACTS/ RELATED

DOCUMENTS

5%EMAIL

5%FACT SHEET

3%BILL

INSERT

3%TENANTNOTICE

89%OF RESPONDENTS

RECEIVEDMARKETING MATERIALS

Percen

tage of respo

nden

ts

Communication Needs and Preferences


15

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED PRIOR TO PARTICIPATION

55%OF RESPONDENTS

SAID THEY NEEDED ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION TO PARTICIPATE

n=57

COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES n=72 r=104

58%EMAIL

38%DIRECTMAIL

19%PHONECALL

14%IN‐PERSON

VISIT

7%BUSINESS

COLLEAGUES

3%EMAILED

NEWSLETTER

1%BILLBOARDS

1%NEWSLETTER

21%

14%

5% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

MOREDETAIL

SPEAKINGTO REP

LIST OFAPPROVEDPRODUCTS

OTHERPROGRAMSAVAILABLE

OTHER REBATES/BENEFITS

INSTRUCTIONSFOR FORMS

APPROVAL

SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

NEEDS


16

The Multifamily Solutions program relies on direct, personal outreach to initially engage customers and inform them of the program and help them through the stages of participation.

IN UNIT DIRECT INSTALL

MEASURES

COMMON AREA

MEASURE INSTALLATION

MULTIPLE MEASURE (WHOLE BUILDING)

IMPROVEMENTS

Multi-step Journey for the Multifamily Customer

PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER

INVESTMENT

Participation Barriers


17

Why did you participate in the program?

n=73 r=99

“We were apprehensive about costs associated with [DI] the program.”

“We were concerned about the amount of paperwork.”

38%OF RESPONDENTS REPORTED NOT HAVING ANY PROBLEMS OR BARRIERS.

The rest of respondents reported the following

barriers:

29%

15%14%

12% 12%10%

4%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

LACK OFEASY ACCESS

TOAPARTMENTS

TIMECONSTRAINT

ONDECISION

UNCERTAINTYON

INVESTMENT

APPROVALBY

OWNERSHIP

FINANCIALCONSTRAINTS

STAFFTIME

TENANTSPAY

ENERGYBILL

OTHER

Percen

tage

of R

espo

nden

ts

“It took an employee’s day. I had to pay him a day and a half of wages to watch someone else do the work.”

Participation Drivers


18

n=73 r=174

37%

27%23% 23%

14% 12%10% 8% 8%

5%3% 3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

FINANCIALREASONS*

LOWEROWNERUTILITYCOSTS

LOWERTENANTUTILITYCOSTS

IT WASFREE

MAKETENANTSHAPPIER

REDUCEO&M

SAVEWATER

OLD ORBROKEN

EQUIPMENT

PROTECTTHEENV.

IMPROVETHE

BUILDING

OTHER COSMETIC/ SAFETY

Percen

tage of respo

nden

ts

*Includes: Energy/cost savings, Rebate, Energy Efficiency.

FINANCIALREASONS*

LOWER TENANT UTILITY COSTS

LOWER OWNER UTILITY COSTS

SAVEWATER

Equipment Purchase Considerations


19

n=73 r=138

MULTI‐FACETED REQUIREMENTS• Success = savemoney + competent

contractor + limited tenant disruption• “Price, quality, and ease of installation

are key.”

51%

28% 27%

22% 22%18%

14%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

UPFRONT COST EFFICIENCY LONG‐TERMSAVINGS

PERFORMANCE QUALITY/AESTHETIC

WHEN NEEDED EASE/ TIME OTHER

Percen

tage

of R

espo

nden

ts

REPLACE AS NEEDED• “Equipment is replaced as needed.”• Maintenance vs. capital improvements

Challenges and Opportunities


20

Challenges OpportunitiesOver 50% of respondents reported up‐front cost as the number one driver when choosing which equipment to install, but nearly 30% of respondents report efficiency and long term savings as a consideration when purchasing new equipment.

Incentives help to offset the higher first cost of efficient equipment. Lifecycle cost analysis that considers lower operating costs and other non‐energy benefits help to make that case for investment.

Some respondents reported that new equipment was installed only as needed (when other equipment failed).

Help property owners/managers develop a long term plan so that they can choose efficiency when replacing equipment or making major renovations.

Not having access to tenant apartments presents a participation challenge for property owners and managers.

Partner with owners or managers to effectively communicate with tenants about the implementation process and potential benefits to them.

54% of PMOs pay the tenant gas bill and 13% pay tenant electric bills.

Target facilities where the owner pays some or all of the utility bills. Because many PMOs are often responsible for water bills, the nexus of water and energy savings is a persuasive tool for gaining participation

• Barriers to investment in energy efficiency are widely recognized in the multifamily sector Split incentives Multiple decision makers Availability of capital Tenant communication and coordination Equipment savings and performance

Challenges and Opportunities

5 BEST PRACTICES

21

SplitIncentives

Multiple Decision Makers

CapitalAvailability

TenantAcceptance

and Convenience

Savings and Performance Certainty

One Stop Shop: PMO Support

throughout Project Lifecycle

Multiple Participation Pathways: Direct Install

and Rebate Options

Multi‐Measure(Whole Building) Approach

Trade Ally Network

Coordination between Gasand Electric Utilities

FinancingOptions

Best Practice Approaches to Address Multifamily Challenges

5 BEST PRACTICES

22

Challenges

Best Practice Ap

proa

ches

• Multiple participation paths• Increased incentives for deeper savings Multi-measure installations

• Multi-sector funding base Residential and C&I

• Partnership with and others• Adoption of new technologies Example: direct installation of LEDs

• Growing trade ally network http://www.consumersmultifamilysavings.com/trade-ally.html

Multifamily Solutions Best Practices

5 BEST PRACTICES

23

Coordination Opportunities

6 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

24

MULTIFAMILY SOLUTIONS

Energy Savers Pilot

multifamily solutions - michigan · renovations. not having access to tenant apartments presents a...

Documents