Concord committee reviews ESCO draft, explores Power Options building decarbonization service

Town of Concord staff briefed the Climate Action Committee on work to advance an energy savings performance contract and on a possible alternative through Power Options.

Committee member Eric (staff member) told the committee that “a draft has been given to town counsel” for review and that the RFQ language is based on the Department of Energy Resources model and a recent Salem procurement. He said counsel expects to return markup by the end of the week and that the next steps include circulating the draft internally and collecting building data for any procurement.

The nut graph: The committee is pursuing a traditional ESCO pathway while exploring whether subscribing to a Power Options membership service could shorten procurement and provide a building-decarbonization-as-a-service option; members pressed staff for clarification on contract length, performance metrics and how audits would be handled.

Eric said he had been contacted by Power Options and that Power Options is running an RFP to select a vendor for a similar service; he told the committee that responses are due this month and Power Options expects to pick a vendor in May. Eric said that if Concord becomes a Power Options member (for example by buying natural gas through them) Power Options could offer the service to members and that could reduce or obviate a separate town RFQ.

Committee members discussed how performance should be measured if the town moves forward. Several members urged the committee and the town to favor emissions-reduction metrics over a narrow energy-savings metric. One member noted that an energy-savings metric can sometimes permit like-for-like equipment replacement (for example a new gas boiler) that would save energy but not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Eric described how the Power Options approach appears to mirror the traditional ESCO model — including investment-grade audits and the option to roll audit costs into a performance contract — but said Power Options would not share the full RFP text with him because it is currently available only to potential respondents. He said he is continuing to gather detail and will report back. The committee did not take action but asked staff to bring any additional materials or clarifications (contract term, performance metric options, vendor-selection timing) to the next meeting.

Ending: Committee members said they want more detail on how vendor selection would work, whether audits would be consolidated across town and schools, and the legal/procurement advice from town counsel before deciding whether to proceed with a town RFQ or the Power Options option.