Place each building on its regime and pathway, reconcile the consumption record and name what is missing from it, and hold the filing for the professional who certifies and the owner who files.
A meter year closes, and consumption is drawn together from utility accounts, fuel deliveries and submeters.
02
A building is placed on an emissions and consumption reporting regime, not on a physical-condition inspection cycle.
Reason
03
A pathway is set from housing evidence — in New York City, Article 320 or Article 321 — and the evidence is kept.
04
A floor area is reconciled to the assessor record and the prior filing, because the emissions limit derives from it.
05
A gap stays a gap: which meter, which tenant space, which delivery ticket did not report is written down.
Decide
06
A deadline runs on each jurisdiction's own basis, and a New York City non-filer owes §28-320.6.2 under its limit.
07
A pack goes to the professional that jurisdiction requires to certify it, then to the owner, who files it.
Out
08
A source is kept with the figure it produced, because the audit that tests it arrives long after filing.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the record and runs the filing clocks; a registered design professional certifies the New York City report, and the owner files it.
Example workflow
One building, meter year to filing pack
AgentHuman
1Reporting year opensUtility accounts, fuel deliveries, submeter logs and the covered-buildings list
2Regime and pathway setRent-regulation, HDFC and federal-assistance evidence, floor area and space-use mix
3Record assembledConsumption totals, named gaps, computed exposure and confidence
4Controls appliedPathway checks, area reconciliation, certifier checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified or filed at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the portfolio director's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the portfolio director to approve.
Low confidence
Adds a design-professional read first.
Director approval
The record is held with its sources, its named gaps and the confidence.
Approve · Correct · Send to certifier review
Approved — released for certification▼
6Energy systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedGap closure, corrections, on-time filings and post-filing audit outcomes
Corrections
Every director correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Certifying the annual report to the department.
Filing or submitting a report to a city or state.
Concluding that a building meets its emissions limit.
Estimating a missing meter into a reported total.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Place each building on its regime and pathway, with evidence.
✓Reconcile floor area and space use against the source records held.
✓Show which meters, spaces and deliveries did not report.
✓Run the filing clock per jurisdiction and hold the pack.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of certification.
Deciding to pay a penalty rather than retrofit.
Requesting or accepting a deadline extension.
Signing an attestation for a prescribed measure.
Changes to regime, pathway or filing rules.
Example output
One reported input, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the source it came from.
Filing-record output · single buildingIllustrative example
Building
Named gap
Next report due
Rule of record
Confidence
Certifier required
New York City tower
Tenant submeter with no fourth-quarter read on file
1 May 2027
§28-320.3.7
88%
NYS-licensed PE or RA
As receivedTaken from the utility account and the submeter log — nothing on this side is estimated by the agent.
A portfolio-level filing-readiness figure can look sound while a few regimes carry nearly all of the incomplete records. Nestack reports the incomplete-record rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Article 321 rent-regulated stock
7.1%
3.6×
Review
Tenant-submetered office
5.2%
2.7×
Review
Buildings new to the covered list
3.7%
1.9×
Watch
Single-regime Article 320
2.4%
1.2×
Normal
Bar: incomplete-record-rate lift vs. single-regime Article 320 baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The year closes into the regression suite
A cycle closes when the non-filing is a regression case. That suite is what the next year reported is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Incomplete records rise in one regime.
02Diagnose
The building under its limit that owed a penalty anyway is read back until the cause narrows to one.
03Improve
The change goes out with a number, and the reports behind it travel with it.
04Verify
Nothing files while one touched report case is still red.
05Learn
It is kept for good, and the pathway rules are amended in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Next year's detection meets a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, filing workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Portfolio, regime and pathway discovery workshops.
02Utility and property source assessment.
03Pathway, certifier and filing-calendar mapping for each regime.
04Meter and consumption data ingestion.
05Pathway determination and area checks.
06Confidence scoring and exception routing.
07Director approval workflow.
08Utility-data and portal integration.
09Pathway and data cases.
10Guardrails and submission controls.
11Report-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne regime, one portfolioProductionProduction energy systemsAdvancedMultiple regimes / states
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your rule set✓✓✓
Director approval✓✓✓
Data-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by regime—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Utility-data integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime and multi-state rules——✓
Multi-stage owner approvals——✓
Large portfolios——✓
Multi-regime reporting controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your building list and the regimes they report under→Meter and property ingestion and regime bindingWeek 1
02The report filed last year for each building→Pathway-determination baseline and the data-gap registerWeek 2
03Your certifier roster and the licences they hold→Pathway, certifier and filing-calendar mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Utility, portal and property assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Reports you would not want re-filed→Filing cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no certified report may estimate→Confidence scoring, exception routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named portfolio directors to review records→Director approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Widths are read off the weeks the work actually fills, which is why two bands must share the fifth.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Portfolio and regime discovery, pathway mapping and the automation boundaryW2Utility integration and the data-completeness baselineW3Filing workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, certifier checks and failure-mode testingW5Portal integration, pilot buildings and targeted correctionsW6One reporting year run under the portfolio director, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar spans only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Validation closes on live portfolios, and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Real Estate AI agent
Build an energy-filing agent around the regimes your buildings report under.
Show us the buildings, the regimes they report under and who certifies each report. A filing has to survive a New York City audit that is still running, a false-statement misdemeanour under Administrative Code §28-320.6.3, and a §28-320.6.2 square-foot penalty that a building under its limit still owes — so that is what we build the record to carry.
