Proving Demand in Building Electrification Programs

What this covers

Most building electrification programs launch with supply-side logic: train the contractors, stand up the incentive stack, open enrollment. The assumption is that demand exists and the program’s job is to serve it. That assumption is usually wrong, and by the time you find out, the pilot budget is spent.

This essay describes a discovery-first approach to proving demand in electrification programs — one that treats the first 90 days as a structured buying-pattern investigation, not a marketing ramp.

---

The default approach fails quietly

A program launches. Outreach begins. A handful of participants sign up. The team reports “strong early interest.” Six months later, conversion from interest to completed installation is under 10%. The program hasn’t failed visibly — it has failed quietly, because no one defined what demand actually looks like.

The problem is upstream. Before any outreach, three questions need answers:

• Who is already trying to buy this? Not who would benefit. Who is actively trying to make a purchase and hitting friction.
• What does their current buying process look like? Where do they start? Where do they stall? What workaround have they built?
• What would make them move faster? Not cheaper. Faster. Speed is the proxy for real intent.

These are discovery questions, not marketing questions. The difference matters because marketing questions assume the audience exists and optimize for reach. Discovery questions test whether the audience exists at all.

How structured discovery changes the first 90 days

Instead of launching outreach on day one, the first 90 days are spent in direct conversation with 15–25 households or building owners who match the program’s target profile. Not surveys. Not focus groups. One-on-one structured conversations with a consistent question set designed to surface buying patterns.

The output is not a report. It is a set of falsifiable claims:

• “Owners of 1950s–1970s ranch homes in [geography] are replacing furnaces reactively, not proactively. The decision window is 48–72 hours.”
• “The primary friction point is not cost — it is contractor availability for heat pump installs within the emergency replacement window.”
• “Navigators are most useful as concierge coordinators, not as educators.”

Each claim can be tested against the next 25 conversations. If a claim holds, it becomes the basis for program design. If it doesn’t, it’s revised or dropped. This is what proving demand looks like: not a pipeline report, but a set of claims that survive contact with real buyers.

Why this matters for the pilot

A pilot structured around proven buying patterns converts at 3–5x the rate of a pilot structured around assumed demand. The unit economics shift because the cost of acquisition drops — not because the incentive increases, but because the program meets people where they are already trying to buy.

The hardest part of this approach is organizational. Funders want enrollment numbers. Program managers want outreach metrics. Discovery says: slow down, talk to fewer people, and learn something specific before you scale anything. That is a difficult argument to make when the grant clock is running.

But the alternative — scaling outreach into a market you haven’t proven — is how programs spend their budget generating “interest” that never converts. The pilot that cannot convert is a cost. Structured discovery is how you make sure yours isn’t.