Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.

Ahhhh, Connecticut...

but not funny Ha Ha! funny. ;-)

Some good news, per the call they have agreed to pay the remaining $1000. They are very interested in my using the program again and are willing to at least look at modifications to make it more user friendly. We'll see.

Comments

  • Funny coincidence

    Dan's newsletter article on Connecticut's trouble with greening up comes on the same day I am to hold a conference call to resolve the little issue described below. Note the original date. 3 weeks ago I appeared before the council in Hartford to read it into the record myself. This is all public record so I don't see posting it here in it's entirety as being an issue. Dan can contact me if he would like me to delete any or all of it:

    From:
    Marx Diversified Interests
    70 Yorkshire Dr
    Hebron CT 06248
    (860) 643-8787

    Submitted to ECMB on 4/8/09


    Report with regards to experience with Energy Efficiency Services incentive
    Project # CE-08-G-040 DPUC Docket# 06-10-03
    Music Studio
    Manchester. CT 06040

    1. Initial proposal submitted sometime near the end of July. Assured by NU Official approval would take only two weeks.

    2 Upon submitting proposal I explained several times that I was quoting installation of heating only unit but would in fact install a reversible heating/cooling unit.

    3. End of October we received LOA dated 9/26/08 and signed by CL&M official John Dobos dated 10/20/08. Well over two weeks from date of first proposal. Numerous calls to expedite process went unheeded.

    4. LOA examined by client and his lawyer, signed by client 11/11/08 after Marx Diversified agreed to cover any shortfall from NU in regards to paragraph 12 of standard terms and conditions document.

    5. Begin project shortly after agreement is signed

    6. By this time weather had turned cold and ground had frozen. Additional costs to project due to delay consisted of:

    Rental of excavator plus labor as ground was too frozen to dig by hand. ~ $385. Asked if CNG would supply one for a couple hours to do the digging we needed and was flatly refused.
    Addition of hot water charge ($5.50) and accelerator ($11.95) per cubic yard to 30 yards of concrete: $523.50
    Addition of laborers to finishing crew due to need for speed in cold weather: $900
    Addition of concrete pump truck because it was too cold to move concrete to rear building by hand: $900
    Total cost overrun caused by 3 month delay and subsequent cold weather pour: $2,708.50

    7. At some point we were told that they had figured for a heating only unit but because we had installed a reversible heating cooling unit they had recalculated and they were deducting 3% form the originally agreed incentive figure of $14,128.75. Our calculations of deducting 3% revised that figure to $13,704.89. The project had already started, too late to reconsider and back out.

    8. Request for partial payment denied sometime around end of February, beginning of March, job at least 75% completed. All equipment onsite and installed, not yet running.

    9. Due to the delay in receiving any kind of check I went over 30 days on ~ $2500 in materials at supply houses this month. Additional costs include loss of 2% discount for paying in under 30 days and addition of 1.5% in service charges.

    10. Job running 2/25/09 and inspected shortly after, not sure of exact date. Ian Russel should have that info.

    11. Check available 4/3/09 and picked up by me 4/6/09. Check total: $13,128.38, which is short of first agreed upon figure by $1,000.37


    12. Explanation given by Ian Russel, "We miscalculated." The he said the consulting engineer miscalculated. He then proceeded to tell me I was lucky I was getting what I was because they had made such a gross error in calculations we should have only gotten $6,500 but they were going to "honor their agreement". Had they offered this amount at the outset the upgrade to high efficiency equipment would have never gone through. We had already rejected an initial offer of $9,800 prior to receiving the recalculated offer of $14,000+.

    13. Last point, CCF savings on this system were calculated over an expected lifetime of 15 years. The Robur GAHP, any model, is designed for an expected lifetime of 30 years. As such, we (myself and my customer) believe we were shorted an additional 15 years worth of savings incentives at the first agreed rate of $14,128.75 per 15 year period.

    Questions for the Committee:

    1. When can I expect a check for the remainder of what is owed to me?

    2. How would you rate my experience with the incentive program?

    3. Do you think, as a licensed HVAC contractor in CT, I would be interested in initiating another project using the incentive program as it is now?

    Thank You,

    Mark P. Falade
  • Jean-David Beyer
    Jean-David Beyer Member Posts: 2,666
    It does not seem funny at all.

This discussion has been closed.