Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-26 09:06
So you're saying we need to give them a safe time estimate for what we can do, but the hope is that they don't end up saying yes anyway?
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-26 12:56
Yes -- would love to send them a quick note on this potential timing tmw.
To confirm... I would love to be a longer term resource to them as a bottom up input to decision making for beyond the steam rate case-- I made that case to them. But who knows what will happen.
Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-26 16:45
I know Robin will have a better idea of level of effort and timing. I think things are better now with Mike on board. But I'd still like to put this off as much as possible and leave us with a big cushion given all the other NYCA and BDP stuff. Can we say sometime in Q3 with reasonable confidence? Maybe it's a thing where we get NTP in July and we have 3 months? I'm assuming that we'd have some intermediate meetings and progress updates to share with them and get feedback, not just go in a cave for 3 months. But something like that.
Robin (BuildSci/Coder) — 2026-03-26 16:52
I wonder how much scrutiny there will be on costs and savings and I would anticipate a plan of several checkins and intermediate deliverables to maintain alignment. Maybe with including getting alignment on scope and data availability(importantly, the list of buildings to analyze, the types/quantity of scopes to generate) we could call it 12 weeks.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-26 17:04
Just to play devil's advocate, what's the least amount of work you could do and give them something they can play with, say, in Metabase? Instead of trying to bulletproof the analysis, what if we just wrap it in disclaimers? We're not producing a Utility study (they passed us over for that, as I recall).
Robin (BuildSci/Coder) — 2026-03-26 17:27
make a python notebook with spreadsheet output that does
a. screens each building for whether we should create a scope or not (e.g., it's a hospital)
b. makes an electrification scope for each building (some scope that eliminates district steam use)
c. makes a non-electrification scope for each building (makes district steam grid decarb easier by reducing load)
d. outputs cost, opex diff, etc
This would probably take ~8 hours of work, then internal discussion on scope and results, then 8 hours more work to finish up and make an output. Being a relatively small (<10k rows) dataset, we could upload to metabase to let them look at it. Or we save the results to a calcs database and have a metabase dashboard connect to it, enabling dynamic updating.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-27 06:34
Ok let's do
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-27 08:29
ok. what is the timeframe on that. And what are we charging? I had told them 50k before.
Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-27 08:30
I hear you on wrapping with disclaimers, but I also know that people tend to anchor on the first pricing they see and ignore those caveats. So we do need to be careful with our numbers.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-27 09:43
Produce the pricing list as a separate thing for them to review?
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-29 22:20
per convo Bomee and I had Friday PM... this is the note I just sent Peggie based on a more scaled back MVP version. I still think we should charge 50k. I also am not sure they have the ability to procure anytime soon. @Bomee (CEO / Coder) I didn't know what to do but copy you in case there is an immediate follow up question. Otherwise, I will check in with her week after next:
"We think it would take us a few weeks to develop the MVP for an internal model tool you all could use to inform your thinking on multifamily buildings connected to the con ed steam grid.
We would need a few weeks lead time to get going on something like this.
And then we then would expect a few weeks of back and forth after sending you the MVP to refine our methodology/assumptions based on your feedback and some further iteration.
Hope this helps. I can jump into any follow on conversations when I get back (availability here) -- but if you have any immediate clarifying questions, I defer to Bomee."
Strategy Notebook
Department of Public Service / ConEd steam grid analysis for Peggie. Marc had quoted $50k; team scoping back to MVP.
DPS Demo Tmw — Mar 26–29, 2026 #
Source: #sales-general
Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-26 09:06 So you're saying we need to give them a safe time estimate for what we can do, but the hope is that they don't end up saying yes anyway?
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-26 12:56 Yes -- would love to send them a quick note on this potential timing tmw.
To confirm... I would love to be a longer term resource to them as a bottom up input to decision making for beyond the steam rate case-- I made that case to them. But who knows what will happen.
Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-26 16:45 I know Robin will have a better idea of level of effort and timing. I think things are better now with Mike on board. But I'd still like to put this off as much as possible and leave us with a big cushion given all the other NYCA and BDP stuff. Can we say sometime in Q3 with reasonable confidence? Maybe it's a thing where we get NTP in July and we have 3 months? I'm assuming that we'd have some intermediate meetings and progress updates to share with them and get feedback, not just go in a cave for 3 months. But something like that.
Robin (BuildSci/Coder) — 2026-03-26 16:52 I wonder how much scrutiny there will be on costs and savings and I would anticipate a plan of several checkins and intermediate deliverables to maintain alignment. Maybe with including getting alignment on scope and data availability(importantly, the list of buildings to analyze, the types/quantity of scopes to generate) we could call it 12 weeks.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-26 17:04 Just to play devil's advocate, what's the least amount of work you could do and give them something they can play with, say, in Metabase? Instead of trying to bulletproof the analysis, what if we just wrap it in disclaimers? We're not producing a Utility study (they passed us over for that, as I recall).
Robin (BuildSci/Coder) — 2026-03-26 17:27 make a python notebook with spreadsheet output that does a. screens each building for whether we should create a scope or not (e.g., it's a hospital) b. makes an electrification scope for each building (some scope that eliminates district steam use) c. makes a non-electrification scope for each building (makes district steam grid decarb easier by reducing load) d. outputs cost, opex diff, etc
This would probably take ~8 hours of work, then internal discussion on scope and results, then 8 hours more work to finish up and make an output. Being a relatively small (<10k rows) dataset, we could upload to metabase to let them look at it. Or we save the results to a calcs database and have a metabase dashboard connect to it, enabling dynamic updating.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-27 06:34 Ok let's do
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-27 08:29 ok. what is the timeframe on that. And what are we charging? I had told them 50k before.
Jason (Product/BuildSci) — 2026-03-27 08:30 I hear you on wrapping with disclaimers, but I also know that people tend to anchor on the first pricing they see and ignore those caveats. So we do need to be careful with our numbers.
Bomee (CEO / Coder) — 2026-03-27 09:43 Produce the pricing list as a separate thing for them to review?
Marc (CRO) — 2026-03-29 22:20 per convo Bomee and I had Friday PM... this is the note I just sent Peggie based on a more scaled back MVP version. I still think we should charge 50k. I also am not sure they have the ability to procure anytime soon. @Bomee (CEO / Coder) I didn't know what to do but copy you in case there is an immediate follow up question. Otherwise, I will check in with her week after next:
"We think it would take us a few weeks to develop the MVP for an internal model tool you all could use to inform your thinking on multifamily buildings connected to the con ed steam grid.
We would need a few weeks lead time to get going on something like this.
And then we then would expect a few weeks of back and forth after sending you the MVP to refine our methodology/assumptions based on your feedback and some further iteration.
Hope this helps. I can jump into any follow on conversations when I get back (availability here) -- but if you have any immediate clarifying questions, I defer to Bomee."