We understand that applicants are being asked to develop proposals while some project details are still evolving. We recognize that this can be challenging and appreciate the thoughtful questions we have received. Our intent is not for applicants to have all uncertainties resolved at this stage. Rather, we are seeking a Consultant with a strong approach, relevant experience, and demonstrated ability to work proactively and flexibly in a complex, collaborative, and evolving project environment. Project details and implementation plans will be further developed once the project team is further assembled and work is underway. Thank you for your understanding and engagement.
Pilot Locations
1) Are the pilot locations limited to communities currently served by Eversource's and National Grid's ConnectedSolutions+ programs?
Pilot geographies will be within current or future ConnectedSolutions+ locations. Each utility is working with their system planners to identify distribution system constraints and the locations that will remain in, or be added to, ConnectedSolutions+. The utilities may then narrow this list to a smaller set of locations that are suitable candidates for the pilot. MassCEC and project partners (namely DOER, OEJE, and the Barr Foundation) will then apply a set of criteria to identify a group of potential communities that align with the pilot's target population and conduct outreach to assess interest, readiness, and capacity to participate. Following those conversations, a final community will be selected for each pilot.
The selected Consultant or Consultant Team ("Consultant") may participate in community engagement and selection discussions once onboard and may provide input as appropriate.
National Grid's community selection process is expected to take place in late summer and fall 2026. Eversource's process is expected to begin later in Fall 2026. As a result, National Grid's community selection may be further advanced by the time the Consultant is onboard.
2) Regarding Task 2 outlined in the RFP, is each applicant expected to conduct pilots in BOTH an Eversource service territory and a National Grid service territory?
Yes, there will be one pilot in Eversource's service territory and one pilot in National Grid's service territory. MassCEC expects to hire one Consultant or Consultant Team to work on both pilots.
3) Can we assume that the EDC's and not the proposal project team or Consultant will be responsible for the site selection and that proponents are being asked to develop a draft workplan and budget without the benefit of any specifics about the two-pilot selected DER technology or the type of project site?
Yes, the utility partners will identify pilot locations within areas where they have identified distribution system constraints and where they already have or will be expanding ConnectedSolutions+. See above answers for more detail on the location/community selection process.
We recognize that applicants are being asked to develop a proposed approach, work plan, and budget before key details, including the final pilot communities and certain project-specific implementation considerations, have been determined. Given these uncertainties, we expect proposals to present a high-level approach that demonstrates the applicant's methodology, relevant experience, and anticipated scope of work rather than a fully detailed implementation plan.
The proposal should be viewed as an initial work plan that will be further refined after Consultant onboarding. Task 2 of the Scope of Work includes development of a final project work plan, which will provide an opportunity for the selected Consultant to work with MassCEC, utility partners, and other project partners to clarify assumptions, incorporate pilot-specific information, and finalize project activities, timelines, roles, and budget allocations. We do not expect applicants to have all project details resolved at the proposal stage and anticipate that the work plan will evolve as pilot locations, community partners, and implementation pathways are finalized.
4) Has MassCEC given any consideration to a project selection process that leverages existing DER infrastructure such as Vehicle to Grid resources already deployed and serving low-income renters? Is there any flexibility for the project team to recommend sites where existing DER's can be leveraged to reduce pilot deployment costs while expanding DER functionality?
As part of this pilot, MassCEC and our utility partners are excited to test the integration of new technologies with the ConnectedSolutions+ program. We are particularly interested in technologies that may be more accessible to renters and low-income households (e.g., lower capital costs, portable). Evaluating how these technologies can participate in ConnectSolutions+ is an important objective of the pilots. If applicants think that community engagement should also include encouraging existing DERs to participate in the Connected Solutions+ program, MassCEC is open to that idea, if the team believes that both goals could be achieved with the available budget.
Although the pilot is intended to test new technologies and approaches, the selected Consultant may identify opportunities to leverage existing DER assets, reduce deployment costs, or expand participation in future program iterations. Recommendations of this nature may be included in the final report and considered as part of future program development.
5) Will Eversource and National Grid identify the pilot locations before award?
Pilot location selection will occur after applications are submitted. Applicants should not assume a specific community or location in their proposals and should instead propose an approach that can be applied across a range of potential pilot communities. As mentioned above, National Grid's community selection process is expected to take place in late summer and Fall 2026. Eversource's process is expected to begin later in Fall 2026.
Technology Selection
1) The RFP notes that the specific DER technology will be confirmed during workplan finalization. What is the status of technology selection for each utility, will a single DER type or multiple technologies be deployed within a community, and are the selected technologies expected to be eligible for ConnectedSolutions+ participation?
A single DER type, specifically permissionless batteries, will be deployed for National Grid's pilot community. Eversource has not yet determined the technology to be deployed for the pilot or whether a single technology or multiple technologies will be used. Eversource is particularly interested in technologies that meet the needs of low-income renters, are effective at load reduction, can be easily deployed, are capable of connecting to an edge-DERMS or system that allows for remote dispatch and performance verification and operate safely with no backfeed.
2) Who ultimately selects the technology deployed in each community — the selected Consultant or the utilities? Does the Consultant have any role in shortlisting or recommending technologies?
The utilities ultimately select the technology for each pilot. Their decisions are guided by the initiative's goals of expanding access to dispatchable DERs and increasing participation in grid services among renters, low- and moderate-income households, and other underserved populations. The selected Consultant will not be responsible for determining which technology is deployed in each pilot community. However, the Consultant may support subsequent implementation activities, including helping to identify potential vendors, facilitating discussions with technology providers, and supporting contracting or deployment planning activities, as appropriate. Any final technology selection decisions will be made by the utilities.
3) Are specific DER aggregators or edge-DERMS platforms required for these pilots (e.g. EnergyHub)?
No specific DER aggregator or edge-DERMS platform has been identified as a requirement for these pilots. Utility partners will select technologies that can connect with an edge-DERMS, such as EnergyHub, or another system that supports remote dispatch and performance verification.
4) Do any of the technology options require interconnection review? If so, will the EDC Project Partners provide coordinated handling for pilot participants?
Depending on the size and asset type of the aggregation, National Grid and Eversource may require an interconnection review or study. Any study would be led by the applicable utility in collaboration with pilot participants. Interconnection requirements will be determined based on the specific technology and deployment approach selected for each pilot. However, because the focus will be on technologies that meet the needs of low-income renters, are effective at load reduction, and can be easily deployed, preference will be given to technologies that do not require an interconnection agreement.
5) What is the anticipated process and lead time for qualifying a new device class (ex. permissionless batteries) for ConnectedSolutions+ participation, and does that process run through the EDC Project Partners, their platform provider, or both?
The utilities are targeting completion of the selection and qualification of the selected technology/ies for participation in ConnectedSolutions+ by the end of 2026. For National Grid, ongoing testing of permissionless batteries is expected to help inform and streamline that process. Project partners and – if applicable – platform provider will be involved in that process.
6) Managed electric vehicle charging is not included in the list of potential DER technologies. Are EVSEs considered out of scope?
EVSEs are not being considered for this pilot and therefore out of scope. The utilities and MassCEC are prioritizing other technologies that may be a better fit for renters and LMI residents.
Pilot Participation
1) What flexibility does the Consultant have to build in participant protections. For example, allowing a resident to opt out of ConnectedSolutions+ partway through the pilot, or to have the equipment uninstalled if the technology is not working well for them?
The goal of this initiative is to design pilots that create equitable access and participation to DERs and grid services so that the lessons learned can influence future formal programs. We welcome the Consultant's recommendations regarding participant protections, including opt-out protections and participant experience considerations.
2) Is there a target number of households or customer enrollments for each pilot?
No, there is not currently a target number of households or customer enrollments for each pilot, however the RFP-mentioned budget amount of ~$150,000 for the two pilots indicates the scale and cap of what is expected. While a final participant target has not been established, the utilities anticipate that each pilot will likely serve fewer than 100 participants.
3) How does MassCEC envision resident participation in ConnectedSolutions+ across different building types and metering configurations common in affordable and multifamily housing? Are there configurations that would make a building ineligible as a pilot site?
Based on the selected technologies, the project team will consider whether there are any building types, metering configurations, code, safety, or other concerns that may deem a building not viable for the pilot. The project team is aiming to prioritize technologies that will be accessible to renters and low-income households, including in multifamily housing. However, eligibility requirements and potential limitations will depend on the selected technology, metering configuration, and program participant requirements.
4) What participant agreements and data-sharing permissions will be required for pilot participation, and who will be responsible for obtaining them?
As described in Tasks 1 and 2 of the RFP, the Consultant will be responsible for identifying and obtaining the participant permissions necessary to support agreed-upon data collection and evaluation activities. MassCEC and utility project partners will collaborate to support those efforts, as needed. Utilities may also require separate data-sharing agreements with aggregators, DERMS providers, or other project partners depending on the technology and implementation approach selected for each pilot.
5) Who is eligible for these pilots? (e.g. renters in master-metered multifamily buildings, single family rental affordable housing, multifamily affordable housing)
Pilot participation may include any of the categories mentioned in the question, but eligibility will depend on the final pilot location and selected technologies. As the pilot design is finalized, the project team will consider whether there are any building types or metering configurations that are not viable.
6) Can MassCEC clarify whether participant compensation and incentive structures for pilot participation and ConnectedSolutions+ enrollment will be predetermined by MassCEC and the EDC Project Partners, or whether Applicants are expected to propose and develop participant incentive offerings as part of pilot design and implementation?
The enhanced incentives for grid services participation are distributed by the utilities through the ConnectedSolutions+ program. The base incentives are provided by the ConnectedSolutions program, which is funded through state-approved energy efficiency program budgets. The marginal incentives that are stacked on top of the base incentives are funded by the Grid Services Compensation Fund (GSCF), as approved in the utilities' Electric Sector Modernization Plans (ESMPs). The combined base and marginal incentives produce enhanced incentives available through ConnectedSolution+.
Incentive amounts and compensation structures associated with ConnectedSolutions+ are determined by the utilities and are outside the scope, budget, and purview of this MassCEC pilot.
7) How will landlord approvals, building conditions, or electrical upgrades be handled if they delay installations?
As National Grid has selected permissionless batteries, we do not currently anticipate the need for landlord approvals or electrical upgrades. MassCEC recognizes that depending on the technology selected for the Eversource pilot, the project team may need to address potential delays related to landlord approvals, building conditions, or electrical upgrades and adjust project timelines accordingly. However, because of the pilot duration, the focus is on easily deployable technologies that are accessible to low-income customers and renters.
8) Does Task 3 cover ancillary work like panel upgrades, permitting, or electrical remediation? Or will customers requiring these interventions in order to participate not be eligible to participate in the pilot?
As National Grid has selected permissionless batteries, we do not anticipate the need for ancillary work like panel upgrades, permitting, or electrical remediation. Depending on the technology selected for the Eversource pilot, the project partner team and the selected Consultant will work together to define eligibility criteria and determine how customers requiring these types of interventions will be addressed.
9) For the participants-ownership model MassCEC is targeting, are there expectations bidders should reflect for renter households specifically, for example, equipment portability at move-out, ongoing maintenance responsibility, and landlord consent?
As mentioned in early questions, technology selection will be led by the utilities. The project team is prioritizing technologies that are accessible to renters and low-income households. Specific considerations related to equipment portability, maintenance responsibilities, landlord consent, and other participant requirements will depend on the technology selected and will be further defined during pilot design and implementation.
Community Based Organizations
Note: Since the RFP was released, MassCEC decided to expand the possible partnership from just CBOs to also include municipalities.
1) The RFP describes MassCEC contracting directly with one community-based organization per pilot (up to $25,000 each). How are those CBOs identified and selected? Does the selected Consultant propose or recommend them, and can an Applicant's named community partners serve in that role?
MassCEC will lead and select the participating communities through a collaborative process with project partners, including DOER, OEJE, the Barr Foundation, and the participating utility. The Consultant will not be responsible for selecting the communities or identifying the community-based organizations (CBOs) that MassCEC contracts with directly. In addition to CBOs, MassCEC is expanding the possible partnership to include municipalities as well.
The selected Consultant may participate in community engagement and selection discussions once onboard and may provide input, including recommendations for potential CBO partners, as appropriate. However, applicants are not required to identify or name CBOs in their proposals.
National Grid's community selection process is expected to take place in late summer and fall 2026. Eversource's process is expected to begin later in 2026. As a result, National Grid's community selection may be further advanced by the time the Consultant is onboarded.
2) Are you looking for applicants to identify or include CBOs that are rooted in the CS+ communities as part of their application? From the RFP, it sounds like the two CBOs that MassCEC plans to contract with separately will serve as the primary organizations leading community engagement and marketing efforts. If that's the case, would you still be interested in applicants reserving funding within their project budgets to partner with additional local CBOs in the CS+ territory or territories that are selected?
Applicants are not required to identify or include CBOs as part of their application. As stated in the Budget section of the RFP, MassCEC recommends that applicants reserve additional money from this $600,000 budget to compensate individual residents to participate in surveys, focus groups, etc. or to serve as community ambassadors and recruit other members of their community (e.g., by offering tours of the selected dispatchable DER installed in their home). If applicants also believe it would be helpful to reserve funding within the $600,000 budget to partner with additional local CBOs, they may do so.
3) Will the CBOs receiving separate MassCEC funding be selected before award or after the consultant is selected?
Based on the current timeline, CBO selection is expected to occur after the Consultant is selected. The process for community selection will most likely be underway when the Consultant comes on board but will likely not yet be finalized. As a result, CBO identification and selection are also expected to occur after Consultant onboarding as communities are finalized.
Budget
1) Was the ~$150,000 Task 3 figure developed against a target number of homes participating or a per-unit cost assumption? Any guidance on the scale envisioned per pilot would help us right-size the engagement and installation budget.
We anticipate around $75,000 for technology and installation costs per pilot. The Task 3 budget was not developed based on a specific participant target or per-unit cost assumption. Rather, it was intended to provide an estimate of the anticipated scale of technology deployment and installation activities for each pilot.
Since the release of the RFP, National Grid has decided to move forward with permissionless batteries. While costs vary by manufacturer, product specifications, and vendor, publicly available information suggests that permissionless battery costs may range from approximately $500-$2,000 per unit. However, total project costs may be higher depending on the selected products, deployment approach, participant support needs, and any associated implementation costs. This information is provided solely to illustrate the potential scale of deployment and should not be interpreted as an expected or required cost assumption for proposals.
As a result, there remains uncertainty regarding the number of participants that may ultimately be recruited for each pilot. Participant counts may also be influenced by the technology selected, deployment approach, and any grid impact or interconnection requirements identified during pilot development.
2) Can project funds be used for direct participant incentives above ConnectedSolutions+ compensation?
MassCEC does not anticipate that project funds will be used to provide additional incentives for grid services participation beyond compensation available through ConnectedSolutions+. The incentive amounts for ConnectedSolutions+ are decided by each utility and are outside the budget and purview of this MassCEC pilot. Participants whose assets enroll in ConnectedSolutions or ConnectedSolutions+ will be eligible to receive the applicable program incentive payment.
As stated in the RFP, MassCEC expects that the Consultant will use Task 3 funding to cover the cost of procuring and installing the selected dispatchable DERs. However, with input from community partners and project partners, MassCEC is open to approaches where participants contribute a portion of the cost and/or technology providers offer bulk discounts. Additionally, MassCEC is targeting a model in which participants ultimately own the dispatchable DERs, although alternative ownership models may be considered.
3) Can discounted equipment or installation support be included as cost share?
There is no cost match requirement.
4) How will equipment cost increases after award be managed?
There is no current minimum deployment target that must be achieved. Therefore, if equipment costs increase after award, MassCEC acknowledges that the project team may need to adjust the number of assets deployed, participant count, or overall deployment approach to remain within the available budget.
5) Section 9 (Budget) recommends reserving at least $150,000 for acquiring and installing dispatchable DERs. We are proposing an integrated solar-plus-battery system in which the battery is the dispatchable element. Can the $150,000 budget line cover the full cost of this combined system, including the solar component and its installation, or must it be limited strictly to the dispatchable (battery) portion?
As mentioned above, technology selection is not a responsibility of the Consultant.
Pilot Goals
1) Do you see this as a proof of concept that you want to roll out as a larger pilot later on as part of a roadmap/future program?
Yes, these pilots are intended to serve as a learning opportunity for Massachusetts to test approaches for expanding equitable access to grid services. A key objective is to capture lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations that can inform future program design, policies, market structures, and potential broader-scale deployment of similar approaches beyond the pilot phase.
2) Referring to Task 2, please clarify whether the pilots are intended to evaluate in isolation particular program design strategies, or, instead, if the pilots are meant to generally evaluate which program design strategies appear most effective or preferred?
The results of these pilots are to translate approaches and findings into practical guidance that can inform future grid services programs, ESMPs, and related policies, helping ensure that grid services deliver system value, customer benefits, and equitable outcomes as they scale over time. As such, the pilots are intended to generally evaluate which program design strategies appear most effective, practical, and or preferred, rather than testing individual program design elements in isolation.
Project Management
1) Just to confirm, you'd be looking for 4 quarterly interim reports for each pilot? So, 8 interim reports in addition to the final report?
If the timelines of the National Grid and Eversource pilots are partially or fully overlapping, the interim reports may be consolidated into a single report covering both pilots. For example, if the pilot timelines were fully overlapping there would only be four interim reports total. If the timelines did not overlap at all, there could be up to 8 interim reports. The project team anticipates some overlap between the pilot periods.
2) Could you please clarify what partners are you and aren't you looking for? (a. Technology providers, b. Local CBOs, c. Installation partners, d. Evaluation/data-tracking partners, e. Affordable Housing providers (for participant recruitment), f. Any others that we didn't mention?)
a. Technology providers: The project partner team is responsible for finding the technology providers. The Consultant may support vendor engagement, implementation planning, and contracting activities, as appropriate.
b. Local CBOs: The project partner team is responsible for finding local CBOs or community leadership, though the Consultant may participate in these decisions once onboard.
c. Installation partners: We anticipate that the Consultant will support installation and deployment activities; however, specific responsibilities will depend on the technology selected and final pilot design.
d. Evaluation/data-tracking partners: Yes, we do expect this to be a part of the Consultant scope.
e. Affordable Housing providers (for participant recruitment): If affordable housing providers are deemed important partners in the locations selected, we would look to the Consultant as well as other project partners to help engage accordingly.
f. Any others that we didn't mention? Applicants may propose additional partners they believe would support successful pilot implementation.
3) Would you prefer a Consultant team rather than an individual Consultant?
MassCEC does not prefer an individual Consultant versus a Consultant team. We are seeking a Consultant or Consultant Team that can successfully deliver the scope of work and demonstrate the necessary experience, expertise, and capacity to support the initiative.
Applicants should propose the team structure they believe is best suited to the work. This may include an individual Consultant or a Consultant team of organizations and subcontractors.
Please see Section 8 for selection criteria.
4) Will enrollment be handled directly by the consultant or through approved aggregators/technology providers?
Depending on the selected technology, enrollment may occur via the technology provider or the Consultant.
5) What process will be used for approving scope or technology changes identified during pilot implementation?
Any change in scope or technology will require written approval and sign off from project partners and an amended project plan.
Other
1) We applied for a different MassCEC grant. If we are awarded that grant, would that affect our chances of being awarded a grant for Equity in Grid Services?
You are still eligible to apply for this opportunity. We may have a follow-up question to ensure that you have the capacity for both grants if awarded.
2) If it is acceptable to apply for (and potentially be awarded) multiple MassCEC grants, would it be appropriate to combine the Equity in Grid Services funding with another MassCEC grant?
MassCEC and the project team will consider the combination of multiple MassCEC grants on a case-by-case basis. If applicants see a potential opportunity for combining this Equity in Grid Services work with other funding from MassCEC or another entity, that can be described as an option in the work plan approach narrative, but applicants should also describe an approach that does not rely on combining this project with other funding sources, unless their participation is contingent on securing additional funding.
3) Can technology providers or installers be included as subcontractors?
MassCEC and the other project partners will select technologies for the pilots, and the selected technologies will determine whether installers are needed, and, if so, which type of installers. Applicants should not include technology providers or installers as project partners at the time of application. However, applicants may highlight existing relationships they have with technology providers and/or installers, if desired.
4) Will project teams have access to EDC / utility data for M&V purposes? This data could include historical electricity data for participating customers for usage and billing analysis, ConnectedSolutions event details, interval usage, event performance, information on congested or constrained regions of the grid for site selection purposes (if needed), or other such data.
Data may be made available as needed, subject to applicable permissions, data-sharing requirements, and utility policies. As part of Task 2, the selected Consultant will work with MassCEC and the project partners to establish and document a set of performance metrics. Suggested minimum metrics could include: participant compensation; number of dispatch events per DER; kilowatts (kW) delivered per event; frequency of participant opt-outs; and DER downtime. Include additional metrics that support utility decision-making regarding whether and how to scale or support these technologies and any metrics helpful to communities. Once the dispatchable DERs are installed, the selected Consultant will work with participants, technology providers, and EDC project partners to obtain the necessary permissions and track the set of metrics agreed upon.
5) Is there any guidance regarding Build America, Buy America (BABA) compliance under this RFP, recognizing that the funding does not appear to include federal dollars? Should applicants consider any BABA-related requirements or preferences when procuring DER technologies and equipment?
This funding does not have any Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements.
6) The Statement of Qualifications section is limited to three pages and requests information across eight subsections (a–h), including organizational qualifications, team expertise, past performance, and a list of state and federal contracts. Can MassCEC clarify whether supporting information such as the contract list described in subsection (h) may be provided as an appendix or attachment, or whether all requested qualification content is expected to be included within the three-page limit?
Supporting information such as those listed in subsection (h) may be provided as an appendix or attachment.
7) Who will own the DER equipment after installation (participant, MassCEC, utility, or another entity) and who will pay for O&M and connectivity after the pilot year ends?
MassCEC is targeting a model where participants will own the dispatchable DERs, but, with input from Project Partners, is open to other models. If participants own the technology after the pilot period is over, the Consultant will ensure their awareness of the technology provider's warranty and ongoing support available from the technology provider if applicable. If the Consultant feels strongly that another approach is needed, please include in your application.
8) What warranty, maintenance, and technical support obligations are expected during the pilot period?
We will work to include the technology providers as partners, but the Consultant should budget for likely being the initial point of contact for participant questions, including ongoing troubleshooting and issue resolution. During the finalization of the work plan described in Task 2 of the RFP, the Consultant, MassCEC, and the project partners can determine whether any additional budget should be set aside for technical support (e.g., installer site visits) beyond some Consultant time to answer questions from participants.
9) Has MassCEC accounted for procurement lead times, permitting, and utility scheduling when establishing the April 2027 deployment milestone?
The milestones were made in partnership with the utilities and reflect a best-case scenario deployment timeline that considers known project activities and assumptions at the time of planning. If timeline shifts need to occur, decisions will be made with the project partners to determine appropriate next steps.
10) How will consultant performance be evaluated if recruitment or enrollment targets are not achieved due to external factors?
As this is a pilot initiative involving multiple partners and variables, we understand that recruitment and enrollment targets may be influenced by factors outside of the Consultant's control. Performance will not be evaluated solely on whether specific recruitment or enrollment targets are achieved. Instead, we will consider the Consultant's ability to implement effective engagement strategies, manage project activities effectively, communicate challenges and opportunities, adapt approaches based on lessons learned, and support the overall objectives of the pilot. We are looking for a Consultant that is proactive, flexible, and capable of navigating a complex, evolving project environment.
