Changing the Rules for the Summer Rebate Bonus Qualification Currently, Efficiency Maine requires that all jobs must be completed and paperwork in by August 31 for rebates to be given to home owners. This will keep many people out of the rebate process because they won't be able to get the installations done by the end of the month. These are people that WANT to do the work but the installers won't be able to meet the ending schedule. This rule is limiting the people that can get the additional rebate. I have clients that have summer rentals and can't get the additional rebate due to the seasonal rental schedule. They do not want to disturb their summer tenants. I also have a client that has lost the rebate because there was an unavoidable problem with a PV installation and his job got bumped into the first week of September. With this current plan, any delay in installation work that prevents the complete job being done, including the test out and completion form sent in, will result in a lost rebate for the client. I have requested that a signed installation contract by the end of the month be the rule, not a completed job. This is my rationale for this change: It takes Efficiency Maine a week or so to process applications, it takes me up to a week to schedule my audits, 3 days to get the report back to the owners, several days for clients to schedule a bidding visit for work, at least a day or two to do the work, time needed to schedule and perform the test out, and file the papers. This virtually kills August for Maine homeowners that want to get the extra rebate. It also is a month that auditors will have a huge drop in business. I went from 2-3 audits per week without the added bonus, to 7-10 when the extra bonus money was added to the deal. These extra audits directly translate to extra referrals to installers. In conversations with Efficiency Maine, I have mentioned that auditors will have to stop processing clients for the summer bonus money well before the end of August to ensure that the jobs can get done. By having to do this, audit work is going to take a nose dive. Andy Meyer told me that, although installers will be very busy, I should anticipate a decline in my work. Not good news when changing the rules for the ending date would avoid this financial hit. Andy argues that the changing of the rules takes away the urgency of getting jobs done. In the field, I see that the urgency is clearly there and will be just as strong if people know that a contract signed by the end of August will seal the deal as well. This will allow more people to get involved and sign contracts right up until the last moment. We, after all, want as many rebate customers as possible. With all of this said, Andy still wants to keep his current plan because he doesn't want to loose credibility (his words) by changing his plan. He would rather not give rebates, decrease the work for auditors, decrease the work that installers get by having auditors not be able to guarantee completions on time, and create all sorts of unnecessary problems for all of us, rather than adjust to current market situations and accommodate more business for us, and more rebates for Efficiency Maine. I am not trying to change the ending of the rebate, although it is a no-brainer to me that the added money is why we have so many jobs being done. I am just trying to adjust the rules to take away all of the potential problems for auditors, installers, and ultimately, the public. I feel like this is a train wreck just waiting to happen. Shouldn’t Efficiency Maine be making things easier for us in the field, and for people that want rebates? Please get in touch with Andy Meyer if you feel that the contract signed model is how the ending date should be handled.
 
 
I will not be able to attend the member forum (on 6/23) but would like to initiate some discussion around contractor/auditor financial relationships.  
  • What are people's experience regarding an auditor's charge for referring business to a contractor?
  • Is a % of the gross job bid common practice to pay an auditor for a referral (10%, for instance)?
  • Should it be?
  • Is there an appearance of collusion when the person overseeing the work has something to gain financially from the contractor?
  • Should the auditor disclose the increased cost to the customer?  
  • Should MABEP create "suggested ethical guidelines" to answer ethical questions such as this?  
I would be very interested in hearing what people have to say. Will there be any reporting of this forum?  
Thanks,  
Mary Beth Nolette      
Weather Tech LLC
75 Gorham Rd. Scarborough, ME 04074
207-671-0839 207-883-9722
 
 
Thought some of you would be interested. Notes from the HESP monthly advisory meeting. June 9, 2010. **We have been asked to use care not to imply ideas expressed at meeting will become plans/decisions or action items.** Guests present: Andy Meyer (EM), Adam Gifford (CSG), Dylan Vorhees (NRCM), Dave Milliken (Horizon RES), Roger Mitchell (MEMA), Shireen Shehally (sp?)(Vreeland Marketing), Richard Burbank (Evergreen HP), Curry Caputo (Sustainable Structures), Rosanna (homeowner, post-HESP recipient). Recap: 1. extra $1K to homeowners who COMPLETE project by Aug. 31, 2010--summer sale. 2. advertising co-op fo $500 for every 5 HESP pre-approvals. Should reference EM or HESP in ad. 3. Marketing plan is ramping-up, radio, newpapers, TV 4. Computer modeling tools expanded (now allowing TREAT and REMRATE) 5. Regular monthly advisory meetings 6. Proposing a "mixer" event with Auditors/HP firms and HVAC companies. Adam Gifford--program activity: 1. Project approvals 9-12/week (not meeting goal). July approval goals increase in July. 2. Approvals to-date, 120-130 (not meeting goal) 3. Project completions to-date, 50-60 (exceeding goal) 4. Approved audits in system, 200 5. Recently focusing on sustained, clear message. 6. Approved "contractors" list is growing. 7. Considering name change from "Participating Contractor," to something like "Qualified Partner." 8. Curry Caputo and Roger Mitchell agreed to meet and organize a "mixer" for HVAC/HP firms. Other topics discussed: 1. Importance of financing for retrofits. 2. Increase messaging regarding financing opportunities for homeowners. 3. Get the word out that any contractor can do the work. 4. Streamlining the pre-approval process (perhaps to not include a homeowners signature). 5. EM HESP score for working well with partners = A.

Curry Caputo
 
 


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