Internal Documentation

The Post-Election Edition

November 8, 2024 (Review of Week EOY-8)

Well, y’all, we’re on the other side of a historic election week. It’s taken me the entire week to start to come to grips with the election outcome. I’m still stupendously angry, but we all gotta get back to work (because what else is there to be done about it?)! TLDR for us is that nothing much will change for the short-term. We’ll still focus on completing our national platform and on the key procurements, as we have been. In the mid-term, it makes it less likely that we’ll raise VC in spring 2025, which, in its own way, is helpful to know – we can now focus just on the customers. We will still have a ton of challenging work to do! As we already noted a couple weeks ago, we are back in bootstrapping mode and will minimize net burn.

On a more fun note, I encourage you try to learn and deliver the short “lay person” teaser pitch debuted at Verge. I’m curious what you think of it and what questions you’re left with!

Metrics

  • Unique Buildings: 5,793 (October, +104 MoM)
  • Annual Run Rate: $1.3M (No change MoM)
  • Monthly net burn: $82K (average over last three months)
  • 2024 Transaction fees to date: $45,926 (includes $19,344 invoiced to Carleton)
  • Outstanding invoices as of today: $154,001 (includes $100K grant, $15K NYSERDA reimbursement and Carleton invoice)

Last Week’s Highlights

  • Breaking news: We will be contracted for NYSERDA RFP 5701. NYSERDA called me Friday to ask if we are still game for the data work. More to come this week! (BJ)
  • We did not win Task 4 in the CPC Climate RFP. Instead, CPC will put out a separate software RFP. (BJ)
  • The Clean Fight plans to use Momentum as “rails” to help identify pilot locations for their hardware startups in the upcoming Affordable Housing Decarb Accelerator. (BJ)
  • Marc and I had a good discussion with Willdan to kickoff our 2025 scope of work, where we discussed an idea to start converting some of their typical outreach leads into transactions on our platform. I’m both excited that this is the earliest we’ve started having contract negotiations with them (🤞 maybe this will be the first time we have a finalized scope before year-end) and for the potential to connect the pipeline-building part of Momentum with the transaction part, which will be a huge proof point. (JB)
  • Jeff took a well-deserved break last week, which gave the team an opportunity to “eat its own dogfood” and test others’ changes to validate release 84. We pulled it off but there was a lot to test! This is both good news -a symptom of lots of changes going in-, and concerning -our workflows are complex to validate-. (FH)
  • Nationally, we responded to a GGRF RFP issued by the Opportunity Finance Network who is one of the three largest awardees of GGRF funds for the multifamily sector (MZ)
  • Localy in NY, we made it thru the semi-finals of a competition and received a lot of interest from the NYC Department of Buildings in piloting Momentum and plugging us into this new effort (MZ)

Any missing highlights? Please share in Slack comments.

Crow’s Nest

Looking out for icebergs: What are the risks on the horizon that we’re watching for and navigating around?

Bomee’s list

There are a lot of uncertainties that could affect our ability to grow the business over the coming years. We might as well start thinking about them!

  1. Effect of Trump economic policy on multifamily rehabs: Tariffs on imports could make it more expensive to do construction all around, while keeping interest rates high (via fiscal policy to combat inflation and also bond yields rising in response to gov’t debt). This would mean it’s more expensive to borrow money AND more expensive to do work, dampening the growth in construction spend. This doesn’t mean that the $65B rehab market will dry up overnight, but it may mean that more owners ask for accommodation for financial hardship under LL97, and the over-all growth of the national market may be slower. Short-term in NY: Possibly little effect; Mid-term nationally: slower growth?

  2. Exacerbating housing burden: In general, Democratic policies tend to put more money in the hands of people who tend to use the money for basics like housing, whereas Republican policies (post ‘86) have tended to benefit richer people, who tend to invest or save because their basic needs are covered. Policies like deducting pensions from Social Security (a proposal) would mean, for example, that seniors on fixed income would have less to spend, and since seniors are disproportionately low income and health-burdened, it could mean more housing insecurity. Similarly, inflation generally means the eat-or-sleep tension is greater – also exacerbating housing burden and housing insecurity. Multifamily landlords serving lower end of the market are still struggling with the effect of Covid rent losses – in NY, the rent stabilized segment in particular is precarious even today, with Covid having compounded the effect of laws that made it nearly impossible to increase rents based on doing capital work. How this shows up in ways that affect our work is hard to know, mainly because…

  3. Local policy is where it’s at (again): Built environment policies have always been solidly in the hands of state and local governments. Federal money can always help, but it’s local policy (and economics) that drives what happens with buildings, from codes to BEPS to incentives. This means that the places where climate action enjoys broad support will continue to make their climate-forward policies, though pull-back or slow down of federal resources will make it harder to go faster. And, in places where local leaders find it expedient to stand up as foils to the federal government may do what NY did after Trump 1: move faster. That said, I don’t think we can take it for granted that NYC and NY will be at the pointy end of the spear this time around – there are just too many cross-currents in local politics right now.

I think my take-away from all this is that politics rather than policy is going to be a BIG DEAL over the next 4 years. We should think about:

  • how can we usefully help defend policy gains in NYC and NY?
  • where, outside of NY, are local leaders likely to be aggressive on climate?

Jason’s List

  • Making it easier for contractors to submit bid pricing is critical for our larger vision. The spreadsheet parsing we have for generic projects should be a step up from the in-app bid form that most CPC CFHF contractors avoided. That spreadsheet bid form is still very structured though, and eventually we’ll need to figure out a way to pull in and make sense of whatever format contractors want to send us.
  • RFPS: We heard late Friday that we didn’t win the version of the CPC GGRF RFP that we part of. But that particular RFP was focused more on traditional consultant-hour powered program support, and only included software as an optional task. But GGRF is a big pot of money, and there are other GGRF RFPs submitted and to come–maybe one or more of those will land.
  • The political climate.

François’ List

  • We’ve refactored tons of hard-coded NY assumptions in support of the GA and MA extensions, and I feel good about the progress and the “recipe” we’ve established for adding new states. Ahead of us are a number of similar non-trivial adaptations: Generic Programs, assigning costs to tenants vs owners, consolidating the building edit detail pages, modeling developments, supporting time-based fines/costs/savings, tracking and reflecting sources of data, UoB, etc. That’s a ton of complexity to navigate fairly quickly.

Marc’s List

  • Uh. the Federal stuff is kind of a thing. We are all watching this closely. Just wanted to flag that local law 97 was initiated as a direct and nearly immediate response to Trump winning in 2016 – and that opened the flood gates for a wave of similar standards in the blue dots that represnt a very large share of our market across the country (MZ)

On Deck for This Week

  • Folks who have a 360 in 2024 should be working on preparing for them. Please be sure to re-read the handbook section and reach out to me or Erika with questions on process. While we get our sea legs with regular 360s, Erika and/or I will be sitting in on most if not all of them. This is a muscle we need to build early, so please make sure you’re carving out time for it. Thanks! (BJ)
  • The team will start work on the new building details page this sprint, an important improvement for many of our customers. Willdan wants this so we can show building fuel types and elevators, CPC wants this for both fuel type and who pays for what (tenant or owner), and it helps us with going national by giving users more options for locations where we may have little data about buildings. But one step at a time–this project will be phased in so we make incremental improvements each sprint. (JB)
  • Dave is transitioning to full time and continuing his probationary period. Welcome (again) Dave! (BJ)
  • We expect to get some further insights into what Climate United is planning on doing with their upcoming tech-focused GGRF RFP (MZ).

  • Here’s what’s on the Company Radar

Please Leave Feedback

Please note your reaction to this update in the Slack channel. It helps us to know what is resonating, what is unclear, etc. Thanks!

  • What are your highlights / lowlights?
  • Did we miss a highlight? Something else you want to react to?

Jason (BuildSci Lead) Nov 12th at 9:51 AM

I’d love more details about how the Clean Fight will be using Momentum. Do we need to do anything product-wise for this?

Jeremy (Contract Coder) Nov 12th at 10:08 AM

Quick question about the “Unique Buildings” metric. Is this buildings that are undergoing work through our platform? Or just buildings that have had scopes generated? Or buildings in the Building Knowledge Base (BKB)? I’m also curious about the strategy of phasing the work around the Building Details Page, but I’ll take that to a more appropriate channel.

Jeremy (Contract Coder) Nov 12th at 10:58 AM

Is this video shareable? I see it’s on YouTube, but is it listed and public and stuff?

François (HOE) Nov 12th at 11:49 AM

Re: Unique Buildings. This is the count of distinct buildings that have been created by users (excluding C1.5 employees) in Momentum, aka TeamBuildings. You can see the code here.

Bomee Nov 12th at 11:53 AM

Annual Run Rate: $1.7M (+$340K MoM) @Erika (Growth Lead) this looks like the gross revenues, not subscription run rate (which is what this metric is meant to be). Can you pls fix? It should be lower now because we have L+M churn Monthly net burn: $98K (average over last three months) Still too high. We need to curb expenses. Folks pls work with Erika to make sure that a) vendor invoices are coming in on time and b) vendor spend is within the planned amounts I’d love more details about how the Clean Fight will be using Momentum. @Jason (BuildSci Lead) in theory, no new work here. They’ll use advanced search. But famous last words! We always end up coming up with something. All to be negotiated. Is this video shareable? @Jeremy (Contract Coder) it is a hidden link. Anyone with the link can view, but it’s not listed publicly.

Jeremy (Contract Coder) Nov 12th at 12:26 PM

Is it OK for me to share that video? I.e. post it on socials, etc? Or is it considered confidential, for internal eyes only? (edited)

Bomee Nov 12th at 1:33 PM

Eh, you can share it to folks in your personal network, but I’d rather not put it up on socials where anyone can view.

Dave Brandt (Coder) Nov 13th at 1:55 PM

Re: thinking about where outside of NY that local leaders would be aggressive on climate I know we’ve had MA and Atlanta in our sights for the next phase of growth. Wondering what are reasons we would or would not consider seriously looking at the West Coast at this point given that things are pretty blue there. Would it be easier to get traction in places like that where there might be less friction?