Efficiency Maine recently requested comments on its draft Request For Proposals for overseeing the expenditure of its federal stimulus funds for energy efficiency.  Here is the text of that letter: 

Dear Friend of Efficiency Maine:

Efficiency Maine is developing a statewide weatherization and home energy efficiency program to be supported primarily with federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. =2 0This initiative will be offered in conjunction with low income programs to ensure that all Maine homeowners will have a unique opportunity to reduce their energy costs.  Efficiency Maine is allocating a significant portion of our ARRA funds for this initiative. 

Our planning is well underway, and although this is not final, we are developing a program which will:

1       Start Maine down the path towards weatherizing all homes within 20 years;

2       Weatherize at least 2,000 homes per year in the next two years, with a minimum of 25% average efficiency improvement in each home;

3       Provide creative financing where needed in cooperation with local financial institutions to maximize available resources;

4       Provide cash incentives efficiently and effectively to encourage homeowner participation;

5       Include an energy audit, installation, and project follow-up in compliance with the highest established national professional standards;

6       Capitalize on existing workforce and business resources here in Maine;

7        Ensure quality control to verify that completed work is performed properly; and

8       Comply with strong reporting requirements for program results.

Efficiency Maine is considering implementing this program through a contractor to be selected through an RFP process. 

We have heard from many people who have ideas or input regarding the possible structure and major components of such a program, the role of private contractors in delivering the program, how consumers can be assured of good value, quality control issues (including professional qualifications of those doing the work), and data management – among other areas. 

If you have suggestions or comments on how a program such as this could be structured and designed to achieve its goals, please let us know.   Please forward your ideas by email no later than July 19, 2009 to Richard.Bacon@maine.gov.  We will carefully review your comments and post all timely responses on our web page prior to issuing the RFP.  Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

John Brautigam
Director, Energy Programs


What follows are comments from MABEP members regarding this issue:

Ed Henningsen:
I liked the letter until I got to the paragraph about implementing the program through a contractor. That just sends chills down my spine. I am an auditor and not interested in weatherization work, too old. All I can envision is the CAP Agencies or Community Action Groups winning the bid. There would be no work for independent auditors then. I’ve talk to PROP and Community Action Group and they want to do the work with their own people. They have no interest in subletting audits. They rather hire people thereby creating a bigger bureaucracy rather than working with what is available. One Community Action Group I talked with admitted they do “for profit” work while they are getting subsidized by the government. Where is the equality there?

All I know, if the contractor(s) ends up being a CAP agency(s) or something similar you can write off all the time, money and effort Efficiency Maine and MSHA have spent on training auditors and weatherization people. Also, I think there would be good grounds for a challenge to the state for enticing people into a field with promises of work then leaving them high and dry.

If the contractor is tasked with using independent auditors and independent weatherization contractors then I have no grip. Or, if I can bid on audits in York County and Portland area that would be great.  But a program needs to be accelerated to save many of the people you’ve trained from leaving the field. We’ve been patient but we can’t wait forever. Homeowners, on their own, will not support a fraction of people who have been trained and promised an income from this field. The homeowner needs a helping hand or oil needs to go over $4.00/gal again. Please remember the independent businesses in your decisions.
 
Edward Henningsen
Henningsen Inspections LLC
Cell: 207-730-1686
Ph: 207-439-1091
Em: ed@HennInsp.net
www.henningsen-inspections.com


Dirk Faegere:
My first and major concern is that the "contractor" will become some big, out-of-state entity wanting to latch onto a bunch of Maine's stimulus money.  Just what we don't need !!  Each state has their own money under this plan.  I'll send my concerns (I have others too) to Dick Bacon but wanted MABEP members to consider this one possibility carefully.   As I recall we recently had some pretty big and lousy contractors "helping" to run the war in Iraq, and the job many did seemed to be designed to mostly line their own pockets (very successfully, I might add).  Let's keep Maine money in Maine with Mainers controlling it.

MABEP members can be as good as anyone as dealing with the bullet items he listed, esp #'s 5 & 6 (I numbered them below).   And number 4 is a MUST (it's what we begged the Joint Committee for).   Seems to me we are already doing #1.    We can do #2 if we have #4.   We're working on #7 (aren't we?)

Everyone:  Please respond to Dick Bacon by this Sunday July 19th.   Here's our first real chance to flex the power and knowledge of our member base.

I encourage you all to bring this up in a concerted effort during the July 23rd meeting.         Cheers. --Dirk


Doug Baston:
You should be concerned about this. It's what's happening elsewhere.  Big Beltway Bandit defenses contractors like Lockhead-Martin are now "efficiency experts".  This happens when there enough zeros behind the contract amounts -- and it doesn't matter what the work is, as long as there is enough money, they will become "experts" .If I were you all, I would align around one proposal from one local prime contractor.
D

Douglas Baston, President
North Atlantic Energy Advisors
Eighteen Sheepscot Road
Alna, Maine 04535
P:   207.882.7221
F:   207.882.4194

Don Protheroe:
     This letter resonated with me for a couple of reasons:  I , too, want to be  involved in auditing, not weatherization ( I hate to say I am too old, but that is a distinct possibility)  I am passionate about helping reduce energy consumption and yes, I would like  to make money doing audits.  I received training last fall through Maine Home Performance like a lot of others.  I invested quite a bit of my kids' college money in equipment that is pretty much collecting dust in my garage now.  I  feel that there ought to be a way for me to participate in the "new deal" in some form  .                

     Maine's business fabric is made up of a lot of small businesses , many of which are part time because of a relatively low population density and seasonal issues.  I suspect that audits will be more seasonal  than any of us would like:  infrared scanning requires a difference in temp between indoor and outdoor and much of the spring/summer does not provide us with these conditions especially in places where air conditioning is not the norm.   Seems to me that having subcontractors available who can provide inspections during the peak season ( cold weather)  is a good business model.        

     The other part of Mr. Henningsen's letter that grabbed me is that I also contacted my local CAP to offer to sub and they told me that they only go out to bid for such services once per year ( next March) and showed shockingly little interest in striking up any kind of relationship. ( "call back next spring")   My sense is that they are happy with their present level of business, and my guess is that they do not have the will or the capacity to expand  their program dramatically as would be required to deliver services on the scale that is planned.  I did not get the impression that such an organization was destined to successfully manage such an undertaking.        

     There does need to be some kind of oversight so that we don't all become accused of being snake oil salesmen.  Let's face it: we are trying to sell something to the public that many don't believe they need and don't have any reason to trust. A totally unregulated program will certainly lead to abuse by unscrupulous contractors looking to "get rich quick" and give the industry a bad name in the process.  Agreed, too, that unless oil goes to $4+ per gallon, most folks won't do anything on their own ( can't afford to) without some form of incentive.    

     If there is a single contractor model adopted, perhaps there should be some language to ensure that those of us who want to be in it for the long haul at least get considered to be part of the program.  Remember the ( failed)  automobile emissions inspection that was given to a single outside ( out of state) contractor several years ago?  One only need  look at the buildings that it occupied that are now other businesses  to be reminded that we need to manage this locally and in a flexible way to avoid having the whole program become a joke.     

    Sorry,  I don't have what I believe is the answer to how the program should be administered, but perhaps I have highlighted ( echoed?)  some potential pitfalls     

Don Protheroe    
Dirigo Home Performance    
South Thomaston, ME 


 

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

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