While many hardware components are becoming simpler, cheaper, and more standardized, successful projects still require coordination across multiple scopes of work — typically without an architect as quarterback or traditional general contractor responsible for the overall outcome.
Traditional projects such as Local Law 11 facade work, elevator modernization, or boiler replacement are comparatively straightforward. There is usually a clearly defined scope, a well-understood procurement process, and a primary trade responsible for execution. Owners have seen these projects before and generally understand what success looks like.
Decarbonization projects are different. Especially deeper ones where the end state is by definition a functionally different building in many ways that must be imagined, understood and explained to stakeholders. Whereas "replace with same" is a devil that is well known.
A board may hear one pathway from a consultant, another from an electrification contractor, another from a manufacturer such as Innova, and yet another from Cadence. The universe of possibilities can feel enormous even when the number of practical solutions is relatively constrained.
The challenge is understanding how all of the pieces fit together into a coherent plan.
Put differently, owners do not need help buying an elevator project.
Owners want outcomes not software. The product the owner is buying is a confident path forward, and today that path is delivered by people, not platforms. The right question is not "how do we get more users?" It is "how do we create more viable projects?"
Owners are not looking for equipment recommendations. They are trying to determine the best pathway for their building — across technologies, infrastructure needs, owner goals, constraints, and priorities.
In many cases, there is a very obvious path forward. J-51 shows up with bags of money for a building with aging infrastructure that is about to be refinanced — and suddenly what looked optional becomes obvious. In other cases, the path is compelling but skeptics need to be addressed.
At Related, after ruling out most of the portfolio, we zeroed in on seven buildings with potentially economically viable scopes (PTHP + ventilation). For each targeted building, alternate scopes had to also be presented — not because they were likely to be selected, but to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives had been evaluated. Telling the CFO that projects only made sense in a subset of the portfolio probably increased credibility.
Legitimacy
The purpose of alternatives is not choice.
The purpose of alternatives is legitimacy.
Decision makers often need to understand not only why a recommended path is being proposed, but also why reasonable alternatives are not being proposed. In many cases, confidence comes less from seeing the answer and more from understanding why other answers were rejected.
This matters more in this market than in most. These are conservative institutions — co-ops, condos, nonprofits — making financial commitments that will outlast most of their current decision makers and in some cases, dwarf anything they have approved before. The questions are not just "which technology?" They are "why not wait for better technology?", "why this contractor?", "why now?"
As James from 565 West 169 put it directly: "I think it's putting this narrative together so that it's compelling and of the moment and just answers all the questions." Each of those questions deserves an answer given with authority, not just assertion.
A board that has been walked through the rejected alternatives — and understands clearly why they were rejected — is a board that can defend its decision to skeptical shareholders. The goal is not a room full of believers. It is a room full of people who can explain the decision to someone who wasn't in the room.
Getting confidence in "not now" is a perfectly acceptable endpoint for a building. "Not now, but I will revisit in X years based on Y trigger" would be even better.
Our advantage over a manufacturer going direct is that we can say:
Here is a pathway that looks across heat pump technologies, complementary measures, relevant financing options, your stated goals and constraints, and your building-specific needs.
The end result is still a short list of standardized solutions — but there is a way to do this so the building decision maker feels understood without requiring a custom consulting engagement for every project.
Narrative
People don't buy things they don't understand on some level.
They need a story they can tell themselves and each other. Scope Builder currently completely ignores this human need — it earnestly presents the what, when it has always been the why and the how that have moved people. Modernizing archaic infrastructure, enhancing resident control of their own environments, improving comfort, opening up views from windows blocked with AC's — this is how you make the case for investment especially to people who live in the building. Numbers are of course also necessary but not remotely sufficient for any compelling story.
The challenge is not simply identifying the correct answer. It is creating a narrative that allows a group of stakeholders to become comfortable acting on that answer. They do not need to become experts. The argument:
We are spending $1 million to install a new boiler because the existing one is very old and we need heat.
is perfectly understood. The argument:
We are installing u-PVC-frame windows because the incremental cost of the better technology is small, it unlocks additional incentives, and we miss out on 30 years of energy and comfort benefits if we don't do it.
is not understood at all.
Seeing the outcome
As James articulated, a board approving a $5 million electrification project needs to be able to picture what they are actually getting — not at an engineering level, but at a human one. A rooftop unit or a box in every apartment with new penetrations through the facade? Me to Emily at 350 Richmond well into a discussion on heat pump scope in Momentum: "do you know what a window heat pump or a PTHP looks like..." Emily: "uh, no." Me: "Ok — let me show you some pictures from the internet..." The gap between "we are installing a decarbonization system" and "here is what your building will actually look like" can be larger than it seems with many decision makers. Helping owners see the physical reality of what they are choosing is part of what makes a decision feel real rather than abstract — and a board that can picture the outcome is a board that can vote for it.
Software helps structure and communicate this analysis. But every owner who has moved forward with us has done so because a human being walked them through it.
When owners ask "who else has done this?" and "did it work?" and "what happened to their bills?" — they are not asking about upfront costs. They are asking about outcomes.
Installation
Owners ultimately want confidence that:
Equipment will perform
Contractors will deliver quality work
Service issues will be addressed
Warranties will be honored
Intended outcomes will be achieved
Operations
Owners who are focused on getting the project approved often haven't yet thought through what it means to run the building afterward — time-of-use electricity, EMS requirements, and the super's changing role are all part of a transition that starts on day one of operation. It can be very difficult for many people to understand the potential pitfalls of something that they have not gone through themselves, which is why comps and case studies are so important to building confidence.
An "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality is empirically robust and has served real estate well. Change happens when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. But while pain is the symptom, risks — even if not fully articulated by the decision maker — are the root cause. Once the particular type of change that addresses the unique needs and objectives of an owner and building has been preliminarily defined, the risks below must be addressed.
The turnkey design-build contractor is the model that comes the closest to addressing all of these risks today. Locking in with one such vendor early reduces choice but can streamline processes and improve accountability. Such vertically integrated construction is however difficult to scale, which takes off the table the possibility of this model addressing these risks at an aggregated portfolio scale.
The risks fall into two distinct phases. Pre-yes risks block the transaction from happening at all. Post-yes risks become real only once an owner has committed. Critically, having credible answers to post-yes risks is part of what makes the pre-yes narrative possible — a board can say yes partly because they trust that execution is handled.
Pathway Risk — Am I choosing the right approach from too many options?
Multiple technologies, multiple configurations, multiple advisors with different answers. The risk isn't just picking wrong — it's being unable to evaluate with confidence. The "do nothing" option is almost always a viable pathway that must be addressed.
Narrative Risk — Can I bring my building along?
A technically correct recommendation that can't be explained or defended to a conservative board doesn't move. A decision maker must answer "why this path?", "why not wait?", "what did we consider and reject?", and "how will we operate this new infrastructure?" with authority, not just assertion.
Financing Risk — Is there a viable way to pay for this?
All the analysis, storytelling, and risk mitigation in the world is not enough to get an owner to say yes if there is no way to finance the project. Infrastructure transformation is not cheap. J-51 creates a significant window for buildings already going through a financial event — but not every building qualifies, and for those that do, incentive stacking, financing matching, and value engineering all require careful navigation.
Supply Risk — For the recommended pathway, is there a credible technology and installer available at a competitive price?
An owner won't commit to a pathway without confidence that a vetted, competitively-priced way to execute it actually exists. A limited number of players exist in this market. Appliance-like hardware narrows price variance by reducing labor dependence — a product that prices like an appliance makes costs predictable enough to underwrite. But knowing which technologies work for which buildings, which installers perform consistently, and what fair pricing looks like requires market knowledge that no individual owner can accumulate on their own.
Change Order Risk — What if conditions in the field don't match the plan?
Unexpected existing conditions are a reality of construction. What's behind the wall, what the electrical panel actually looks like, what the existing infrastructure turns out to be — surprises happen and they cost money. Appliance-like hardware reduces the frequency and magnitude of surprises by minimizing on-site labor requirements. Any technology that requires heroic installation efforts is doomed.
Schedule Risk — What if this takes too long or residents don't open their doors?
Permit timelines, utility interconnection queues, and building staff availability are all partially outside anyone's control. In multifamily, resident access adds another layer — contractors need entry to individual units, and residents may not be home, may refuse entry, or require scheduling coordination across 50-100 households. This is a unique characteristic of multifamily retrofit with no analog in commercial or single-family work. Both types of delay compound: a project that runs long disrupts residents, strains contractor relationships, and erodes owner confidence.
Coordination + Accountability Risk — Who holds everything together and what happens if something goes wrong?
This covers two layers. Construction coordination: sequencing trades, managing interfaces, ensuring work is done in the right order across a project with no GC or architect in the room. Incentive coordination: filing J-51 at the correct moment, stacking utility rebates, timing NYSERDA applications, knowing which programs stack with which others and in what sequence. Current intermediaries charge 30% of utility rebate value just for this layer. Without someone coordinating the whole, responsibility diffuses and owners are left holding the consequences.
Strategy Notebook
Buying a Transformation - an attempt to define market needs
Decarbonization is Different #
While many hardware components are becoming simpler, cheaper, and more standardized, successful projects still require coordination across multiple scopes of work — typically without an architect as quarterback or traditional general contractor responsible for the overall outcome.
Traditional projects such as Local Law 11 facade work, elevator modernization, or boiler replacement are comparatively straightforward. There is usually a clearly defined scope, a well-understood procurement process, and a primary trade responsible for execution. Owners have seen these projects before and generally understand what success looks like.
Decarbonization projects are different. Especially deeper ones where the end state is by definition a functionally different building in many ways that must be imagined, understood and explained to stakeholders. Whereas "replace with same" is a devil that is well known.
A board may hear one pathway from a consultant, another from an electrification contractor, another from a manufacturer such as Innova, and yet another from Cadence. The universe of possibilities can feel enormous even when the number of practical solutions is relatively constrained.
The challenge is understanding how all of the pieces fit together into a coherent plan.
Put differently, owners do not need help buying an elevator project.
They need help buying a transformation project.
Why Owners Haven't Used Momentum #
Owners want outcomes not software. The product the owner is buying is a confident path forward, and today that path is delivered by people, not platforms. The right question is not "how do we get more users?" It is "how do we create more viable projects?"
The Two Confidence Questions #
Owners are ultimately trying to get comfortable with two questions.
1. Is this the right way to spend my money? #
Owners are not looking for equipment recommendations. They are trying to determine the best pathway for their building — across technologies, infrastructure needs, owner goals, constraints, and priorities.
In many cases, there is a very obvious path forward. J-51 shows up with bags of money for a building with aging infrastructure that is about to be refinanced — and suddenly what looked optional becomes obvious. In other cases, the path is compelling but skeptics need to be addressed.
At Related, after ruling out most of the portfolio, we zeroed in on seven buildings with potentially economically viable scopes (PTHP + ventilation). For each targeted building, alternate scopes had to also be presented — not because they were likely to be selected, but to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives had been evaluated. Telling the CFO that projects only made sense in a subset of the portfolio probably increased credibility.
Legitimacy
The purpose of alternatives is not choice.
The purpose of alternatives is legitimacy.
Decision makers often need to understand not only why a recommended path is being proposed, but also why reasonable alternatives are not being proposed. In many cases, confidence comes less from seeing the answer and more from understanding why other answers were rejected.
This matters more in this market than in most. These are conservative institutions — co-ops, condos, nonprofits — making financial commitments that will outlast most of their current decision makers and in some cases, dwarf anything they have approved before. The questions are not just "which technology?" They are "why not wait for better technology?", "why this contractor?", "why now?"
As James from 565 West 169 put it directly: "I think it's putting this narrative together so that it's compelling and of the moment and just answers all the questions." Each of those questions deserves an answer given with authority, not just assertion.
A board that has been walked through the rejected alternatives — and understands clearly why they were rejected — is a board that can defend its decision to skeptical shareholders. The goal is not a room full of believers. It is a room full of people who can explain the decision to someone who wasn't in the room.
Getting confidence in "not now" is a perfectly acceptable endpoint for a building. "Not now, but I will revisit in X years based on Y trigger" would be even better.
Our advantage over a manufacturer going direct is that we can say:
The end result is still a short list of standardized solutions — but there is a way to do this so the building decision maker feels understood without requiring a custom consulting engagement for every project.
Narrative
People don't buy things they don't understand on some level.
They need a story they can tell themselves and each other. Scope Builder currently completely ignores this human need — it earnestly presents the what, when it has always been the why and the how that have moved people. Modernizing archaic infrastructure, enhancing resident control of their own environments, improving comfort, opening up views from windows blocked with AC's — this is how you make the case for investment especially to people who live in the building. Numbers are of course also necessary but not remotely sufficient for any compelling story.
The challenge is not simply identifying the correct answer. It is creating a narrative that allows a group of stakeholders to become comfortable acting on that answer. They do not need to become experts. The argument:
is perfectly understood. The argument:
is not understood at all.
Seeing the outcome
As James articulated, a board approving a $5 million electrification project needs to be able to picture what they are actually getting — not at an engineering level, but at a human one. A rooftop unit or a box in every apartment with new penetrations through the facade? Me to Emily at 350 Richmond well into a discussion on heat pump scope in Momentum: "do you know what a window heat pump or a PTHP looks like..." Emily: "uh, no." Me: "Ok — let me show you some pictures from the internet..." The gap between "we are installing a decarbonization system" and "here is what your building will actually look like" can be larger than it seems with many decision makers. Helping owners see the physical reality of what they are choosing is part of what makes a decision feel real rather than abstract — and a board that can picture the outcome is a board that can vote for it.
Software helps structure and communicate this analysis. But every owner who has moved forward with us has done so because a human being walked them through it.
2. Will this work out after I spend the money? #
When owners ask "who else has done this?" and "did it work?" and "what happened to their bills?" — they are not asking about upfront costs. They are asking about outcomes.
Installation
Owners ultimately want confidence that:
Operations
Owners who are focused on getting the project approved often haven't yet thought through what it means to run the building afterward — time-of-use electricity, EMS requirements, and the super's changing role are all part of a transition that starts on day one of operation. It can be very difficult for many people to understand the potential pitfalls of something that they have not gone through themselves, which is why comps and case studies are so important to building confidence.
Risks #
An "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality is empirically robust and has served real estate well. Change happens when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. But while pain is the symptom, risks — even if not fully articulated by the decision maker — are the root cause. Once the particular type of change that addresses the unique needs and objectives of an owner and building has been preliminarily defined, the risks below must be addressed.
The turnkey design-build contractor is the model that comes the closest to addressing all of these risks today. Locking in with one such vendor early reduces choice but can streamline processes and improve accountability. Such vertically integrated construction is however difficult to scale, which takes off the table the possibility of this model addressing these risks at an aggregated portfolio scale.
The risks fall into two distinct phases. Pre-yes risks block the transaction from happening at all. Post-yes risks become real only once an owner has committed. Critically, having credible answers to post-yes risks is part of what makes the pre-yes narrative possible — a board can say yes partly because they trust that execution is handled.
Pre-Yes Risks #
Pathway Risk — Am I choosing the right approach from too many options? Multiple technologies, multiple configurations, multiple advisors with different answers. The risk isn't just picking wrong — it's being unable to evaluate with confidence. The "do nothing" option is almost always a viable pathway that must be addressed.
Narrative Risk — Can I bring my building along? A technically correct recommendation that can't be explained or defended to a conservative board doesn't move. A decision maker must answer "why this path?", "why not wait?", "what did we consider and reject?", and "how will we operate this new infrastructure?" with authority, not just assertion.
Financing Risk — Is there a viable way to pay for this? All the analysis, storytelling, and risk mitigation in the world is not enough to get an owner to say yes if there is no way to finance the project. Infrastructure transformation is not cheap. J-51 creates a significant window for buildings already going through a financial event — but not every building qualifies, and for those that do, incentive stacking, financing matching, and value engineering all require careful navigation.
Supply Risk — For the recommended pathway, is there a credible technology and installer available at a competitive price? An owner won't commit to a pathway without confidence that a vetted, competitively-priced way to execute it actually exists. A limited number of players exist in this market. Appliance-like hardware narrows price variance by reducing labor dependence — a product that prices like an appliance makes costs predictable enough to underwrite. But knowing which technologies work for which buildings, which installers perform consistently, and what fair pricing looks like requires market knowledge that no individual owner can accumulate on their own.
Post-Yes Risks #
Change Order Risk — What if conditions in the field don't match the plan? Unexpected existing conditions are a reality of construction. What's behind the wall, what the electrical panel actually looks like, what the existing infrastructure turns out to be — surprises happen and they cost money. Appliance-like hardware reduces the frequency and magnitude of surprises by minimizing on-site labor requirements. Any technology that requires heroic installation efforts is doomed.
Schedule Risk — What if this takes too long or residents don't open their doors? Permit timelines, utility interconnection queues, and building staff availability are all partially outside anyone's control. In multifamily, resident access adds another layer — contractors need entry to individual units, and residents may not be home, may refuse entry, or require scheduling coordination across 50-100 households. This is a unique characteristic of multifamily retrofit with no analog in commercial or single-family work. Both types of delay compound: a project that runs long disrupts residents, strains contractor relationships, and erodes owner confidence.
Coordination + Accountability Risk — Who holds everything together and what happens if something goes wrong? This covers two layers. Construction coordination: sequencing trades, managing interfaces, ensuring work is done in the right order across a project with no GC or architect in the room. Incentive coordination: filing J-51 at the correct moment, stacking utility rebates, timing NYSERDA applications, knowing which programs stack with which others and in what sequence. Current intermediaries charge 30% of utility rebate value just for this layer. Without someone coordinating the whole, responsibility diffuses and owners are left holding the consequences.