Latest input from program (Helaine Barr) seeking to approve a purchase with vendor Cloudsyte, to be handed over to Sustainable Jersey:

I reviewed my notes from the 2/3/25 meeting and I think there was some confusion with DOIT/Knute – we did discuss a similar tool developed by Princeton for Minnesota.  That was merely an example, as one option, obviously when we put out the DPA, we received many compelling bids, using different software/tools/etc.  Below is the summary of why in the end, Princeton’s proposal was not selected;

• Princeton’s proposal had critical faults:

  • Academic/partner delivery model (i.e., staffing/partner dependence) creates higher continuity risk than a single commercial platform vendor

  • Lack of clarity on how they will take their ideas and incorporate it into a web-based tool, as their proposal included individual components of the application and put a lot of trust in that it will work and combine well together, adding risk and uncertainty

  • Using municipal archetypes aren’t specific enough to a municipality, while other bidders use continuous variables with sensitivity. This methodology does not meet the expectations of the RFP, as they are requesting user-input data by each municipality beyond the aggregated four major regions

• The optional feature of municipal resources and customization was not included in the base budget, when other proposals did

• Included a low royalty license fee option of $10 per year, whereas no other bidder included a fee

Additionally, the tool with be hosted by Sustainable Jersey. We have a separate contract with them to incorporate the tool into their municipal sustainability actions.

Please let me know if you need any other information. This is being funded via an EPA grant which needs to be spent by June 2027. Any hold up in the contracting will negatively impact our capacity to hit that deadline.

anticipating issuance of an RFP in October 2025

Meeting today included: Jensen, Knute [DEP]; Hanna, Peg [DEP]; Barr, Helaine [DEP]; Mukund, Aishwarya [DEP]; Matsko, Mike [DEP]; Tenebruso, Peter [DEP]; Jaegers, Kurt [DEP] Hyjack, Richard [DEP]; Witcher, Angela [DEP]; Marinucci, James [DEP]; Benton, Douglas [DEP]

Draft Agenda/Project Approach (with Meeting Notes in RED:

Confirm priority and value

1. Even in the event of this project largely occurring through vendor services/development, we want to ensure a conversation puts everyone on common footing

2. This project carries priority 3 here : IT projects with Air Quality, Energy and Sustainability owne and also shows

   1.  GHG tool is 5^th in order out of 13 pending project ideas for AEMS.

   2. There are another 9 active projects for AEMS

   3. We lack good means of comparing project value – but use/uptake or results from tools we model on might be informative

NOTES: Knute to pick up this conversation more routinely with Nicole

Consider possible platform or underly technology

1. EPA and other models considered (how about CURB excel model?  complex- used by big C40 cities)

2. Minnesota tool and info at Greenhouse Gas Strategy Planning Tool - Metropolitan Council

3. R tools – while some are free, DEP has inquired and is unable to secure R-shiny Cloud services (cannot publish R products to the web)

4. Can we get code? Probably - MAPC describes posting on Github. I found this from 2017 rksriram91/MAPC: These are R scripts created for specific automation tasks at Metropolitan Area Planning Council

5. Can code translate to other platform?  Tableau which we already own?

6. Can Sustainable Jersey secure R-shiny cloud and host?

7. Does any other platform or component considered require license or purchase? By and for who?

8. Does this project call on true GIS?  Or just municipal-level data?   

NOTES: We came to an understanding that Princeton, who did the work for Minnesota, would be DEP’s vendor (likely using DPA for purchase) who would use the free R toolsets, plus bring their emissions expertise to copy, configure and tune the model for NJ data producing an output and public tool that Sustainable Jersey will host using R-shiny cloud licensing. Sustainable Jersey already has DEP funding intended to include R-shiny licensing. DOIT does not need to build or host anything and does not need to acquire any licensing.

Data access, storage, maintenance (some may be in Github details)

1. What NJ or DEP data needs to be connected?  All public and free?  

2. Who has it and how is it accessed? 

3. Just access once, regular or continuous, or dedicated storage with periodic updates?

4. Who can keep access or storage maintained?  Sustainable Jersey? Vendor- ongoing costs? Multi-year agreement?

NOTES: Sustainable Jersey has or can connect directly to all sources for the data. DOIT does not need to enable access to or provide outputs of any DEP data. There is future potential to add DEP data into new models that might enhance the predictions and planning, but these are not anticipated within the initial tool build or release. Should DEP data be desired or needed in future to produce better modeling, it would be expected to be non-sensitive or public data and provided to Sustainable Jersey annually via some manual file exchange, not requiring connections, access or sophisticated transfer.

Purchase route (with tech understood and viable)

1. Do we know Minnesota vendor or any vendor capable?

2. Could they translate R-code to other platform if needed?

3. Reachable under T3121?

4. Any contracted vendors capable – Carrolton? Tyler?

NOTES: Program expects to craft an SOW for the work and deliverables from Princeton which make clear that no new technology is being built, hosted or maintained at DEP, but will be transferred to Sustainable Jersey. A DPA is expected to be utilized for the purchase. Funding does not allow full pass through to Sustainable Jersey, requiring DEP to do the contracting with Princeton and because NJDEP has vested interest in the policy implications embedded in the model. We raised the value of either a contract or MOU with Sustainable Jersey as well to govern the expectations of taking over, hosting and maintaining the DEP-funded tool.

Possible ACTIONS at program's discretion:

1. Develop SOW with Princeton toward DPA purchase of services and publishable tool as deliverable

2. Engage Sustainable Jersey toward contract or MOU covering expectations for tool

3. Initiate a TIP with NJOIT that will inevitably be needed for their review of the purchase. Emphasize lack of any IT implications for the state

   1. no new data, no data or IT product to take possession of.

   2. no hosting, licensing or IT resources of any kind needed.

   3. purchase by DEP serves common interest but deliverables all go to Sustainable Jersey.

   4. Grant requirements prevent passing all money direct to Sustainable Jersey