I am sorry I am away for two weeks and unable to participate directly in this important process. I will do my best to take part by e-mail.
 
The BPI building analyst and envelop standards are not intended to be complete evaluator (energy auditor) and installation standards, the MaineHP Standards are.
 
The MaineHP standards are appropriate for a program that moves beyond the MaineHP pilot for a number of reasons. First, they are current and comprehensive. They cover most situations in the field for both energy audits and installations. Second, they are based on the low-income weatherization program standards, 2005 version, written by me and a very capable advisory group made up of low-income program energy auditors. As such, it is appropriate to think of the MaineHP Standards as the middle/upper-income program analog to the Maine Weatherization Standards 2005 (low-income program standards). Third, they include a comprehensive QA procedure. Of course standards like this require regular updating, but I think that can wait for another year or two. I have attached these standards (they are also available on the MaineHP website www.mainehomeperformance.org).
 
Another issue: In Bob’s “Recommended elements. . .” notes, there is no mention of an association with ENERGY STAR. I think the benefits of ENERGY STAR (EPA) partnership are certainly worth the effort. ENERGY STAR is a well recognized brand. Related to this brand issue is MaineHP as a brand. Although there has not been a comprehensive and ongoing marketing campaign during this three-year pilot program, there is name recognition that should be leveraged.
 
Perhaps more importantly, MaineHP has a well developed structure that this new, much larger program could fit into quite nicely. I strongly recommend this new program replace MaineHP rather than risk confusing Maine residents by starting a program with a new name.
 
An issue that concerns me is the quality of installation. Currently, I know of only one or two installers in Maine who are air sealing as they should be. Of course there might be more, I don’t know. I expect there are less than ten installers of dense pack-cellulose installers who are installing cellulose in walls correctly. Installers or weatherization measures must use verification methods whenever possible. This means using a blower door DURING air sealing activities, using an IR camera to check for completeness of cellulose coverage in walls, performing core sampling to check insulation density, regularly testing the take-off pressure on insulation machines, etc. Just as we expect evaluators to rise to the next level of professionalism with their analysis and test-out inspections, we must expect installers to become better by using performance techniques and personally verifying the effectiveness of their work.
 
Rick Karg
Senior Technical Consultant
MaineHP
 
R.J. Karg Associates
220 Meadow Road
Topsham, Maine 04086
207-725-6723
www.karg.com

CLICK HERE For a link to BPI test in/out procedures.

CLICK HERE for a link to the Technical Standards for Building Analyst

CLICK HERE for a link to Shell/Envelope Standards

CLICK HERE for a link to the BPI List of Standards Page

http://www.bpi.org

     I have received several comments in response to the recommendations our steering committee submitted Friday, April 17th to Efficiency Maine regarding the $9 million in stimulus money it will received over the next two years and which can be used for energy efficiency improvements.  I am submitting those comments below.  The recommendations can be viewed by going to the Legislative Activity page.  Please submit additional comments on this or any topic.
Bob Howe

Bob,
      Having not been party to the discussions, I am a bit fuzzy on some of the recommendations.
      First, you mention that work should be performed to BPI standards.  Does this mean that workers should be BPI certified Envelope Specialists?  If so, the entire crew or some of the crew?  (It seems to me that a 4-5 man crew performing the work should include at least 2 Envelope Specialists equipped with the proper equipment for the work including blower doors and thermal imagers to verify work.)
     As for the post-audit – seems it would make sense that you simply require a 3rd party BPI certified auditor.  If that is done, I see no need for further QA by Efficiency Maine (do they have the required BPI auditors to perform verification?).
     You mention training the workforce through apprenticeship.  I would urge formal training to prepare them for BPI certification – at least for 40% of the crew.  This is necessary to ensure that the crew knows how to approach the work and understands thoroughly the techniques of air sealing, foam usage, and cellulose insulation techniques.  Far too many contractors are installing air blown cellulose into walls at densities that do not do the job and are missing large areas because of lack of diagnostic equipment.
     Lastly, I believe that your numbers are too low for a typical old stock Maine home.  In order to solve all three of the normally encountered problems (HAM – Heat, Air, Moisture), more $ are usually required.  Solving any two of the three issues will result in either little energy savings, damage to the building, or health issues for the inhabitants – none of which are acceptable.
Steve Seekins
Building Analyst/Envelope Specialist
Evergreen Building Performance
207-975-5435 (Cell)
207-594-2244 (Office)

Steve,    
     Thanks for your comments.  I'll do my best to respond,  but I hope others present yesterday will weigh in, too.    
     The group could not come to a consensus on how many members of the retrofit crew should be certified, or which certification would be sufficient.  As I understood the discussion, the expense of attaining status as an Envelope Specialist was a cost even some experienced contractors were not prepared to make.  In the end, the group did agree that what was important is that the work be performed to BPI standards and decided not to specify the credentials of those performing the work. 
     Personally, I would lean toward requiring one member of each crew to have undertaken BPI training, but I am not familiar with the differences in the types of BPI certification.     As for the post-audit, the group believed that, in addition to requiring a 3rd party audit in all cases, random sampling of retrofit work by EM would provide an additional assurance of quality.    
     Those present believed strongly that on-the-job training, i.e. apprenticeship, was a critical component of workforce development.  One could argue that both classroom and apprenticeship training are important for all workers.     
     Our recommendations call for grants for the first $10,000 and zero-interest loans for another $10,000.  I think most of us assumed that only a few homeowners would take the job above $10,000, but it's hard to know.  That would mean that most jobs stay at or below $10,000.  My own experience is that, having spent about $11,000 on a very old, leaky house resulted in an improvement in reduced infiltration of just under 50%.  Based on that, I would assume that many homes could achieve similar results for less money.     
     Finally, I would say that this set of recommendations was limited in scope.  We were trying to suggest how EM's $9 million in stimulus funds should be directed.  There will be further discussions on workforce development, including training and certification.     I encourage others to comment on these issues.  Since my list works only from my computer, I will forward all responses to the list.  Perhaps we can get a Google group going soon so that won't be necessary.
Bob Howe

Thanks for the prompt reply Bob,
     I based my consideration of training and certification on my experience with the training provided by Evergreen Home Performance in Rockland.  Richard’s courses include 120 hours of training of which ~ 50% is via interactive web based classes and 50% is hands-on field training.  This course will take students through both the Building Analyst (Energy Auditor) and Envelope Specialist (Retrofit Specialist) certifications and the course costs includes the costs of both certification exams.  What this course does not provide is the hands on training for operation of specialized  equipment like 2-part urethane foam application systems and dense pack cellulose blower systems.  Our technicians can gain these skills over the course of 1-2 weeks of OJT once they have completed the course which teaches the fundamentals of Building Science and provides analytical tool skills (Thermography, Blower Door operation, etc.).
     I realize that we are probably the only training that provides this level of classroom AND field training.  We have had a fair number of folks who went through the Maine MHSA training program come through our program because they did not feel ready to perform real audits.
     I would agree that with limited funding available and limited workforce, it may be necessary to spread the available funds.  However, there are more funds coming – for example the stimulus funds that are expected by banks for re-financing to pay for weatherization that offers rates based on the tested levels of energy savings.  The plan here is that the consumer ends up with combined mortgage and energy payments after the weatherization and re-finance that are lower than their current costs – i.e., a net positive change in cash flow on a monthly basis.  This approach is largely based on the 2030 proposals.
     On another, but related note, I would love to see Maine be one of the early states to enact FIT (Feed-In-Tariff) legislation for alternative energy (solar, wind) that is based on the extremely successful German model.  Opposition of this by the large electric utilities certainly reinforces the view that these utilities have no interest in seeing the US become independent of foreign fossil fuels or in decreasing our greenhouse gas production.  The great thing about this approach is that it works and has been demonstrated (by more than one country and also in localities here in the US).  This approach is also a jobs creator because it creates an almost instant market for solar and wind energy products and installers.
Steve Seekins
Building Analyst/Envelope Specialist
Evergreen Building Performance
207-975-5435 (Cell)
207-594-2244 (Office)

  Steve,
      Your comments make some sense in the perfect world .... unfortunately ..... there are all kinds of limitations.
      Right now it's extremely difficult to get homeowners to do audits.  Those that do seldom move forward with the work.  Our biggest problem seems to be to motivate homeowners to tighten up their houses.   The stimulus money, we thought, would be best spent in trying to make that happen  Of course, we want the most homes weatherized as possible.  To that end we need to spread the $9M amongst many homes.  So we worked hard to come up with an amount that made some sense (to get a reasonable amount  of the low hanging fruit snagged) but still get to more homes.   That was our attempt with our numbers.  We also wanted to offer a 0% loan for $10,000 more in an attempt to get some to do more complete work.   But every homeowner that takes a loan reduces the number of homes that can get the basic incentive.  It's a balancing act and we have little idea how effective we'll be.
      As to the BPI certifications with contractors.  None that I can find have a BPI Building Shell Technician (most didn't seem to really know what that means). Since they're struggling for work right now, they're not happy about having to spend to get someone certified.  Altho, that's not a good excuse in itself, it's still the reality.  So I was fighting for just ONE such certified tech.  We'll be lucky to get that!  At the cost of the expensive equip, I don't think there's a contractor around that feels s/he could purchase any more than the basics.  Money is tight.
  --Dirk Faegre, Camden

Robert,  
     I am a BPI  cert. Energy Auditor and do some work for Ashley at Warmtech.  I was in Curry's class. 
     I recommend that you send announcements of these meetings before they occur to encourage more participation.  I realize that things have been occurring rapidly but going forward I think it would be a good idea. I know others that would have liked to attend had they known about them.  I do not feel that it would be necc.  for work crews to have BPI training provided that they are working with a BPI auditor.  Why should an individual doing and/or overseeing the actual work of retrofitting have to know about detailed combustion safety testing and blower door operation?  It would be an unnecessary expense for the contractor.  That is not to say the work crews should not be trained at a different level more geared to what their task is. 
     I approve of what you are doing, keep up the good work.  
Tony Fitch
afitch@gwi.net www.midcoastenergyconsultants.com
 207-462-7811

Here’s my two cents:
     Most large construction crews (trade doesn’t matter) I’ve encountered have one lieutenant, at least one sergeant and a bunch of privates. It would be nice if 1 out of every 3 or 4 people in a crew was certified. Most can be apprentice level learning the trade from the lead guy.
     I’ll vote for 3rd party test out because that protects the homeowner and polices the contractor. Efficiency Maine or MABEP can intercede on disputes. Actually, it would make a good promotional item to the public. “Know you got what you paid for.” Who handles the money will have to be worked out.
     Training is good. But first I think we need to get MABEP organized and operating. One of its first functions could be to organize and run an envelope training session. 
      When is the next steering committee meeting scheduled for? I’d like a week or two notice, if possible.
Edward Henningsen
Henningsen Inspections LLC
Cell: 207-730-1686
Ph: 207-439-1091
Em: ed@HennInsp.net
www.henningsen-inspections.com

Good Morning Bob and Hello Steve,
      Here are my thoughts.  Let’s keep the conversation going electronically and see if we can develop a consensus that way.
      BPI Building Analyst I certification for all energy auditors.
        A minimum of one BPI certified Envelope Technician on each retrofit crew.
       Apprenticeship/OJT will bring the workforce up to speed leading to eventual BPI testing and certification.  Certification leads to eligibility for supervisory position and increased pay.
       Wage scale for retrofit crews should run from $15 to $20 and supervisors range from $20 to $25 an hour.
        The Community College system should develop a curriculum for BPI certified Weatherization Techs, and one for BPI Building Analyst I certification.
       Test out should be performed by a BPI Certified 3rd party energy auditor for $250.  Results go to homeowner, original auditor, the party performing the retrofit, and Efficiency Maine, who are free to perform random QA checks with homeowner approval.
 
       Here is where I may have a different view than what has been discussed so far. 
       Homeowner receives rebate money after the original audit, retrofit work, and test out audit are all paid in full.  A standard paper trail of paid in full receipts are collected from the homeowner and submitted with the test out audit results.
       Test out audits and paid receipts arrive at Efficiency Maine, data is entered, and rebate checks are mailed.
      At this point Efficiency Maine would have the data to post initial results and develop a system for motivating home owners to submit annual usage reports to verify real results over time (maybe a rebate based on performance).  This makes transparency easy and gives our profession  a tool to use for future funding requests.
Thanks,
Gregor Davens
Home Energy Solutions
322-5183
www.homeenergysolutions.biz

Bob,
       It seems to me like this group is trying to reinvent the wheel.  If we will be adopting BPI standards, they already have requirements spelled out for performance of the work.  They require that only one member of the crew be a Certified BPI Professional but that person is responsible for all the work accomplished.  To me that means direct supervision or post installation inspection to verify the work was done correctly.  If we agree to abide by BPI standards but start changing positions already covered in those standards, we are asking for confusion and discord in the future.
       As far as training goes, there needs to be some allowance for experience.  I have been using the same cellulose company since 1996 , they do great work but have no incentive to become ‘trained,’ they have all the work they can handle.  Will I not be allowed to use them because they don’t carry a specific certification?  Especially when dealing with trade allies, there needs to be some recognition of experience.
Dave Semon
Gulf of Maine Custom Homes