BuildVoltRequest a demo

INTERVIEW ARTIFACT

The 4 steps of electrification feasibility today.

This is how we've heard feasibility work happens across ESCOs, EPC firms, and portfolio owners. If any step is wrong, missing, or in the wrong order for your firm, we want to hear it.

[ DRAFT · FOR INTERVIEW REVIEW ]
  1. 01Building & portfolio intake
  2. 02Modeling & scenarios
  3. 03Feasibility report
  4. 04Handoff to development

STEP 01

Building & portfolio intake

The engineer gathers the inputs needed to evaluate a building — utility data, drawings, equipment information, and context from the site.

Inputs

  • Utility bills and interval data
  • Floorplans and drawings
  • Equipment information
  • Site visit notes
  • Customer goals and constraints

Outputs

  • Structured building profile
  • Baseline energy use and load shape
  • Existing equipment inventory
  • Shortlist of candidate measures

Software tools

  • Spreadsheets
  • CRM
  • Document storage (SharePoint, Dropbox, Box)
  • Email and phone

Data sources

  • Utility bills and meter data
  • Aerial / satellite imagery
  • Public building records

PAIN POINTS WE'VE HEARD

  • Getting complete inputs from the customer takes weeks
  • Artifacts arrive in inconsistent formats across customers
  • Critical context is often only surfaced in person

INTERVIEW PROMPTS

  1. What input is hardest to get from the customer?
  2. Where in intake do you spend the most time waiting?
  3. What spreadsheet or template do you start a new building from?
  4. Which inputs do you skip when the customer can't produce them?
  5. How often does a missed meter or document force you to re-do work?

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  • ASHRAE 211 audit levels

STEP 02

Modeling & scenarios

The engineer picks the relevant measures for this building, models them in a standard workbook or sizing tool, and compares scenarios on energy, cost, and capex.

Inputs

  • Baseline load and tariff
  • Equipment characteristics
  • Measure assumptions
  • Customer's stated priorities

Outputs

  • Per-measure energy and cost savings
  • Capex range and payback per scenario
  • Recommended bundle of measures

Software tools

  • Spreadsheet templates
  • HVAC sizing tools
  • Solar modeling tools
  • Storage / microgrid sizing tools

Data sources

  • Utility tariff databases
  • Weather files
  • Equipment spec sheets
  • Comparable past projects

PAIN POINTS WE'VE HEARD

  • Different engineers reach different answers from the same inputs
  • Modeling is fast once inputs are clean — clean inputs are the constraint
  • Hard to keep assumptions consistent across measures and across buildings

INTERVIEW PROMPTS

  1. Which calculator or workbook drives the actual decision at this stage?
  2. Where do two engineers most often disagree on the same building?
  3. What assumption do you trust least in your current model?
  4. How do you label or document where each assumption came from?
  5. When the utility's reviewing engineer pushes back, what do they push back on?

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  • ASHRAE 90.1
  • NEC interconnection articles

STEP 03

Feasibility report

The engineer turns the modeled output into a client-facing deliverable — a go / no-go view per scenario with savings, capex, and payback.

Inputs

  • Modeled scenarios
  • Site photos and context
  • Firm-standard report template

Outputs

  • Feasibility report (typically Word or deck)
  • Per-scenario savings, capex, and payback
  • Recommended next step

Software tools

  • Word / Google Docs
  • PowerPoint / Google Slides
  • Spreadsheets for tables and charts

Data sources

  • Modeled outputs from Step 02
  • Prior reports for comparable buildings

PAIN POINTS WE'VE HEARD

  • Writing the narrative takes meaningful time once modeling is done
  • Hard to keep one comparable view across many buildings in a portfolio
  • Reports often get reused as templates, with assumption drift over time

INTERVIEW PROMPTS

  1. What output would be credible enough for a go / no-go decision?
  2. Who actually reads this report — and what do they skim past?
  3. What does your firm's report template not let you express?
  4. Do you ever skip the report entirely and go straight to a proposal?
  5. What's the first thing a customer asks after you hand it over?

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  • Firm-standard feasibility report template

STEP 04

Handoff to development

Promising buildings move forward into deeper engineering, design, or development — and the feasibility output becomes a prioritization signal for the portfolio.

Inputs

  • Completed feasibility report
  • Customer go-ahead and priorities

Outputs

  • Ranked portfolio of candidates
  • Scope for the next engagement phase
  • Inputs for proposal or bid work

Software tools

  • Project management tools
  • CRM
  • Proposal / bid software

Data sources

  • Completed feasibility report from Step 03
  • Client portfolio and priorities

PAIN POINTS WE'VE HEARD

  • Inputs get re-collected at higher fidelity in the next phase
  • Prioritization across the portfolio is often informal
  • Knowledge moves with the engineer, not with the project

INTERVIEW PROMPTS

  1. What gets re-collected at the next phase that you wish was captured cleanly here?
  2. How is portfolio prioritization actually decided across multiple feasibility outputs?
  3. What survives from feasibility into development, and what gets thrown away?
  4. Who owns the relationship after handoff — same engineer, or someone else?
  5. When a feasible building doesn't move forward, what's usually the reason?

WHAT WE'RE ASKING

Does this match how feasibility actually runs at your firm?

  • 1. Are the four steps in the right order? Anything missing?
  • 2. Where in this chain is the biggest time-and-cost sink for your team?
  • 3. Which tools and reference materials do you actually rely on today?
  • 4. What would a feasibility tool need to produce for you to trust it for a go / no-go?
Send feedback← Back to overview

Last updated 2026-05-04 · Draft for interview review · Send corrections to matti@galaxyandsons.com