The following dialogue between William Keller of Weatherization Experts and Frank Booker of Weathertech Insulation Company is offered for consideration by those interested in MABEP. Both of us are interested in joining MABEP if there is room for the kind of practicality we represent. We both have extensive contracting and building experience, but are relatively new to the practice of weatherization. We wish to get better, because we feel strongly about the need for energy independence in Maine and the USA, and we feel weatherization is a viable approach.


MABEP Blog
Bill says:
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the email. I have been following MABEP for the last week. The more I dig into everything the more complex it gets. We should have a conversation back and forth about how to take us to a program of home energy efficiency and conservation, then get to work. I want to be able to work the retrofit with all the knowledge about ventilation and moisture cures, health and safety issues in check, all the heating options in mind but the blog in MABEP smacks of special interests, money and over doing weatherization that will make entry harder, jobs more expensive and less work getting done. Some of these guys know more about weatherization and keeping it safe than I do right now. I will learn what they know to do a better job but I still think any carpenter who wants to learn how, can learn this stuff quickly and get to work. On the other hand without a background in construction a person cannot just learn weatherization or auditing and set out to do the work. Here’s my take on a few of the issues that I started writing about. What does Frank say?
Frank says:
I think it’s important that some standards be established, because there will be significant public money spent, and it should be wisely spent. Many carpenters and contractors have a sense that they know how buildings work, but they do not. There is also a great potential for abuse and scams by those who are less than honest. You are one of the good guys. Most of us are, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a significant number of scoundrels. It only takes a couple to create great problems for us in this business for the “right” reasons. I think, rather than taking shots at MABEP, we could join it and influence it. There is much in favor of a simple approach to credentialing weather techs, but there is also much to be said for a more rigorous training than we received. Probably not as rigorous as that being proposed by MABEP, but if we’re in there, we can influence the outcome—what does Bill think?

Bill:
The need to audit:
When I began thinking about how to understand a home to improve energy efficiency, energy auditing seemed to make sense. But when I read work orders that prescribed similar work over and over, particularly in MSHA’s Governor’s Weatherization Program, it occurred to me that since homes had been studied so many times with energy auditing equipment to determine problem areas needing attention, the work could be done more simply and at lower cost by eliminating the auditor function at least for retrofits at the $6,000 mark or lower. The retrofits repeat over and over and could be determined by the Weatherization Technician with his own home review resulting in a lower cost for the work. However, if you add safety and health considerations to the equation then whether this argument is true or not is moot because a good audit will assure that possible dangers are avoided. If a heating system is not properly balanced or balanced in such a way that barely enough air intake is provided, a good air sealing of the home can result in back drafting. Air sealing and insulation traps moisture within the heated space and sometimes requires ventilation. And there are other reasons as well, so an energy audit or something similar to deal with health and safety issues is a must. However…..
Frank:
Surely, the need for an audit for residential units is real for several reasons:

• To prove the need for the work,
• To identify where the specific work needs to be done
• To ensure the health and safety of both the weather techs and the residents
• To quantify results for the homeowner or the agency,

I’m sure more could be stated.

Bill:
These are all good reasons to audit. From another angle , the few good reasons to argue in favor of WT’s monitoring their work as it progressed could be overcome with an audit report that diagramed or photographed blocks in walls or complex parts of a home that couldn’t be easily understood by a WT for air sealing. At every point, cost effectiveness needs to be weighed in. Funds are always going to be limited. There will always be something else worthwhile to spend the money on like alternative energy.

Skill level and training of auditors
Argume

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD

Bill seeks big push to reduce oil usage
State House: Efficiency Maine Trust, a new agency, could boost conservation, investment and new jobs.

 

By TUX TURKEL, Staff Writer May 18, 2009
A new state energy agency would direct tens of millions of dollars into weatherization, conservation and efficiency programs under a bill facing final consideration in the Maine Legislature.
To be called the Efficiency Maine Trust, the agency would pull together many existing energy-related programs now operating in state government and launch an unprecedented effort to wean Maine's economy from its dependence on oil.
Supporters also expect the public spending to spawn private investment that in time could create thousands of jobs in companies that insulate and inspect homes, as well as make and install alternative energy products and technology.
In its first two years, the trust would rely heavily on federal stimulus money to get off the ground. After that, the agency hopes to receive $50 million a year in lease payments from private companies that have proposed developing energy corridors through the state. It also may issue revenue bonds, and consider the controversial idea of placing a small tax on heating oil and other fuels, similar to the surcharge now on electricity.
The challenge for future politicians, however, will be coming up with enough money to keep the ambitious goals on track.
"I think this bill is going to frame the direction of energy policy in Maine over the next decade," said John Kerry, the state's energy office director.
The bill reflects the work of a special legislative committee set up in the wake of last year's record oil prices. A majority of the panel endorsed the comprehensive plan last week, although Republicans expressed concerns about oversight of the trust and program performance. Those issues will need to be reconciled in the full Legislature before a vote in the next two weeks.
Assuming the bill is approved, a board that will govern the trust, a director and staff will be phased in over the next year. They will take over programs and efforts aimed at upgrading the energy efficiency of all Maine homes and half of all businesses by 2030, and cutting overall heating oil use by at least 20 percent in 2020. Mainers now burn nearly 600 million gallons of heating oil a year, so a 20 percent reduction would amount to 120 million gallons.
Another part of the proposed law would set up a new program in the Maine State Housing Authority to build and rehabilitate affordable rental units and replace older manufactured housing that doesn't meet modern codes. Money would come from revenue bonds and a portion of the state's real estate transfer tax.
This ambitious agenda is taking place against a backdrop of rapid change, and perhaps, fleeting opportunity.
Gov. John Baldacci and other political leaders fear the soaring petroleum prices that threatened Maine's economy a year ago will return after the recession. Facing a crushing budget shortfall, the state is limited in its ability to fund efforts to insulate Mainers from the next oil shock.
Federal stimulus money that could total more than $60 million over two years will give Maine a timely shot of cash to jump-start the oil cutback plan. Expected money from a regional greenhouse-gas reduction plan and an ongoing surcharge on electricity use will contribute millions more.
But in two years, lawmakers and the trust will have to decide how to sustain the programs, said Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett, D-Cumberland, who co-chaired the special committee.
"This is a 20-year process," he said. "But the bill puts in place a road map to achieve energy independence in the state."
A potential source of ongoing money is lease payments from energy corridors planned for Maine. Two companies with Canadian ties – Irving Oil Ltd. of New Brunswick and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., which is owned by Emera Inc. of Nova Scotia – have expressed interest in building energy corridors that could move electricity and perhaps oil and natural gas from the Maritimes through Maine to southern New England.
The law requires that the first $50 million a year of any lease payments go to the trust. The corridor concept has been strongly supported by Baldacci and an influential construction company, Cianbro Corp. They see the corridors as a key for economic development and energy security.
But not everyone's excited about the corridor plans.
Groups that represent organized labor and paper mills teamed up with advocates of liquefied natural gas terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay to oppose any fast-track corridor agreements that they say would give Canada a sweetheart deal. A compromise, stitched into the bill last week, delays corridor development until a study commission reviews the financial value of any leases and the impact on efforts to build LNG terminals and power plants in Maine. A report is due in December.
Ultimately, Kerry and other lease supporters say, it will be more politically popular to get $50 million from Irving Oil than from Maine taxpayers. Without the money, it's not clear how the state will sustain its aggressive weatherization and energy-efficiency efforts.
"That's the $50 million question," Kerry said.
To some participants in the debate, one answer is to extend the small electricity surcharge that funds efficiency programs to heating oil, propane and perhaps wood fuels. Tacking on a 2-cents-per-gallon charge could generate $12 million a year or so in Maine, said Rob Brown, executive director of Opportunity Maine, an advocacy group promoting economic and work force development.
Reliable, sustainable funding is critical, Brown said. Small businesses that insulate homes or install solar panels, for instance, won't invest in equipment and hire people if they think Maine's energy programs will peter out in two years.
But other participants say it's just not possible now for Maine to nail down large, sustainable sources of funding. That's why Republicans on the special committee want ways to measure program performance, and why the trust will be required to report back to the Legislature with future funding suggestions, said Rep. Kenneth Fletcher, R-Winslow.
With money tight, he said, the bill strikes the right balance by using public money to leverage private investment and create long-term jobs tied to renewable energy and efficiency.
"We need a public-private partnership," Fletcher said, "and this is a very good first step."
Staff Writer Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or at:
tturkel@pressherald.com