Dear Melissa,,
We have completed our review and
there are things that look as if all items are included, and some items
that do not follow the guidelines that NYSERDA has created.
Potential NYSERDA Incentive for
occupancy sensors
Building A = $XXXX
Building B = $XXXX
Building C= $XXXX
Building A = $XXXX
Building B = $XXXX
Building C = $XXXX
·
Building B and C
have only wall sconces and no overhead lights. Fifty percent of the wall
sconces are controlled independently. However, when only half the sconces are
on it doesn’t appear to us that there is a “substantially uniform level
of illumination” (i.e., illumination varies between 1.4 to 8.6 fc).
Consequently, it seems less likely that NYSERDA will approve of this measure
for these buildings.
Please find attached proposal
for additional efforts related to revising the reporting to address changes
based on recently received design information. There is basic
coordination and we have broken out the second issue fees based on the
building. Please note that there are no guarantees regarding lighting
power incentives which are solely at the discretion of NYSERDA, but we feel you
have the best shot with building A. You can decide how you want to
proceed with each building. Finalizing the packages will take about two
weeks when we get the go ahead.
Best-
Could you please post the original email that was sent to you? It would help us a lot.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you are notified, but I had additional correspondence...see below.
DeleteThanks!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere was not an original email. This is based on a series of meetings.
ReplyDeleteBelow is the explanation that, in retrospect, should have been in the original email. comments welcome!
ReplyDeleteDraft:
Melissa,
The main issue is that we never received coordinated drawings with electrical, lighting and controls; despite requesting it numerous times. These documents are required to support and revisions related to NYSERDA Reporting. The analysis and NYSERDA report were based on general descriptions, that we were given by the consulting team, regarding intentions for the design. NYSERDA requested multiple clarifications and explanations of the energy efficiency measures and we worked very hard to support the design in our responses. Unfortunately, NYSERDA was not willing to accept the EEMs based on the documentation that we had.
Consequently, under the typical process (for which our contract scope and fee allows) this would have meant removing the measures from the report and losing the associated incentives.
As a courtesy to the project, we offered you the option of continuing to pursue the measures. Based on NYSERDA’s review, to do so required drawings and other design documentation to support the measures. At our own risk, we’ve coordinated getting this information and looking at it to determine whether we feel that the information seems sufficient to go back to NYSERDA. Based on our review we’ve determined that likelihood of each project receiving the incentive based on actual design information and the nature of NYSERDA’s objections.
If you decide to continue based your perception of the cost-benefit that we’ve summarized, then it will require additional work to revise report, and continue to discuss the revisions and measures with NYSERDA.
To date, we’ve expend far greater effort than normal to the project’s benefit trying to capture what we believed were energy efficiency measures that should be recognized despite not being well documented. Alternately, we’ll cease our efforts, and simply revise the report and incentives based on NYSERDA’s comments.
I’m sorry if you are disappointed with the process, but I hope that you understand that we’ve only tried to do what we believe was in the interest of the projects.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
Best regards,
Emily Kildow
________________________________________
From: Pianko, Melissa [mpianko@Gothamorganization.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:54 AM
To: Emily Kildow
Cc: Ian Graham; Lauren Campfield
Subject: RE: 44th Street Gotham NYSERDA
I don’t understand why this is an additional scope of work? You guys are being paid a lot for this job already. Please explain why you are asking for more money now – and show me in the existing proposals why it is not already covered. NYSERDA processing is part of what you are supposed to do.
the semi colon after controls should be a comma (controls;) Second line.
ReplyDelete