Invitation to comment on the Dept. of Energy's Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy

[Joshua Olsen]

Hello Everyone-

I work for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. The DOE is in the process of developing workforce guidelines for the residential energy market. The guidelines are open for public comment through January 7th. This is an opportunity for the public and the residential energy workforce to provide input on this important document. We would really appreciate the thoughts and input of the experts who contribute to this forum. Please see the link below to view the Guidelines and provide your comments.

Thanks.





There are only 5 days left to submit comments to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades: the public comment period ends January 7. The guidelines will establish quality specifications for weatherization and home energy retrofits and a foundation for better training and certification programs. Be sure your voice is heard by submitting your comments today.

Submit comments to DOE using online form. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/wip/retrofits/

DOE is developing the guidelines in order to foster the growth of a high-quality retrofit industry and a skilled and credentialed workforce. The development of the guidelines involved historic collaboration between the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program practitioners and trainers, home performance contractors, building scientists, organized labor, healthy homes and worker safety experts, and other professionals in the building trades and throughout the retrofit industry.
DOE expects to publish the guidelines in early 2011 after public review is complete. You can read more about the Residential Retrofit Guidelines project on the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site.

[Dancing Dan]

Just downloaded it. DOubt I'll get thru 572 pages by Jan 7 but I'll give it the old college try.

[Ted S.]

What don't they get?

Home Star = Dead

PACE = Dead

Tax Credits = Lame

What point is a set of Guidelines?

[Joshua Olsen]

Thanks for taking the time.

I think that a more efficient approach would be to target sections that you really know well and give feedback on those. The interface for comment allows you to go straight to a section and comment directly on that section, rather than trying to absorb and give feedback on the entire document. The document as a whole is meant to be a technical reference to folks developing training curriculum as well as those setting standards for retrofit work. So it isn't as user friendly as a job-site manual might be. The hope is that a number of use-specific products can be developed using these standards as the foundation.

[Joshua Olsen]

In response to Ted's question: The intent of the Guidelines is not to set up a program- it is to gather technical information in one place that anyone can use to produce quality work. Thus far no one has gone to the effort to codify industry knowledge about home performance in one place, this is an attempt to to that. This is meant to be a tool that can be used by anyone to produce quality work and to train a qualified workforce.

[David Meiland]

I attended a webinar on this 2-3 weeks ago. It was mostly focused on trainers and program evaluators. The intent seemed to be to help folks associated with WAP get going in the private sector after the public money is gone.

Those of us at ground level doing the actual work know that the main problem is that people can't afford much if anything in terms of energy improvements, especially the people who need it most. Some folks get audits, especially if they're subsidized, but few follow thru with the recommended work. The focus needs to be on the finance aspect of the problem. Yes there is a need for greater technical knowledge but if most people can't afford to do much, the result is going to be an industry that's focused on being dirt cheap and produces low-end work.

[Joshua Olsen]

I couldn't agree with you more. From my position, I am able to work on the technical side, but I can tell you that there are multiple folks in the building who spend their entire day working on the financing aspect. As you might imagine, it's complicated.

But, I think that a key component of convincing anyone- homeowner, policymaker etc.,that this is worthwhile work, is building a solid technical foundation for the industry so that folks know what they are getting for their money. That's what we are trying to do with the Guidelines.

[David Meiland]

Guidelines are good, but beyond that you need to rely on skilled auditors who can accurately predict the energy savings from a given set of improvements (and of course they need to be able to specify those improvements). What I am seeing right now appears to be a "dumbing down" of the industry. Maybe that's because no one can afford an audit, or they don't know why they should.

[Rick Westmoreland]

Guidelines are good, but beyond that you need to rely on skilled auditors who can accurately predict the energy savings from a given set of improvements (and of course they need to be able to specify those improvements).

With something like 130 million homes in need of retrofitting across the country and hundreds of thousands of displaced workers that need to find a way to re-purpose their careers into this emerging industry, there are not enough skilled auditors to allow us to scale the design aspect effectively. We need to tie all of the aspects of the field data collection (energy audits), energy assessment, (predicting the savings), procurement (developing a scope of work and releasing it for bid), installations, and test out. This can only be done with a good set of standards that breakdown the work into detailed small tasks. These need to be managed like any other design-build project.

What I am seeing right now appears to be a "dumbing down" of the industry. Maybe that's because no one can afford an audit, or they don't know why they should.

Unfortunately, you are right. Instead of "dumbing down" the industry, we should focus on "breaking it down" into smaller job roles. The pendulum tends to swing too far in any direction. Right now, organizations such as BPI and RESNET are focused on rolling out more and more certification programs aimed at setting their respective members apart as the only quilified workforce. It's my opinion that the government missed the opportunity to scale the industry when they neglected to look at proven management processes that the new home industry has employed for years. Instead, the government chose to focus on just the building science aspect with little or no focus on management integration. Instead of dumbing down the whole task, break it down into smaller parts and train those jobs accordingly.

[David Meiland]

Rick, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but the major issue is money, on the individual household level. It is very difficult to impossible for most people to come up with the lump sum for a comprehensive energy upgrade. It is easier for them to come up with the money on a monthly basis to pay their exorbitant, wasteful utility bills, so they continue on, rolling the big rock up the hill. Face, it we have tens or hundreds of millions of homes in this country that were built without much concern for energy use or cost. Oops!

Certainly, the industry needs to present easily understandable products to the consumer, and the outcomes of buying these products need to be easily predictable. If I buy a Ford F-150, I will get a basic truck at a low cost that will last me a couple of decades or more with minimal care. It's a great return on investment and I know I will benefit if I use my money to buy it. Until the remodeling industry can offer products like that we will have an uphill sales process, and unfortunately there has to be a "track record" before a large pool of buyers will develop. Would you be the first in your neighborhood to spring for energy work, if no one you knew had ever done it?

[Rick Westmoreland]

David, there are a number of consumer financing vehicles of energy retrofits available. The best one dates back to the early 90s, Energy Improvement Mortgages (the retrofit version of the Energy Efficient Mortgage). The problem is that no one in the housing industry have an awareness of them or how to execute the process. That's where the government missed the boat on workforce development, not addressing the administrative role of the home performance/ weatherization industry.

PACE failed as it should have. You can't expect the mortgage industry to support taking a second position to a locally written and administered tax lien. After all, there are something like 90,000 different jurisdictions across the country and PACE would be defined and by any or all of those jurisdictions respectively. There needs to be a national standard that is accepted by the mortgage industry.

RESNET comes the closest since its roots are actually in the mortgage industry. Unfortunately, BPI has used all of its power to attempt to dominate the retrofit market using its natural channels, the states. I think we can all agree that none of the state run programs have been managed at an acceptable level, including WAP.

The Power Saver Loan is another product designed to fail. It's nothing more than a FHA Title 1 loan with a sexy new name. Essentially, it's the traditional dealer financing that's been exploited by siding salesmen for decades, only now the loan officer has to do the grunt work (no dealers allowed). Again, this is a product designed to not require a HERS rating and be easy to get for consumers. Basically we're bypassing the housing industry instead of embracing them and adopting the proven processes that scaled the housing industry to epic proportions during the last decade.

We need to educate the housing industry on how to shepherd homeowners through the maze of obstacles that pop up during a complicated design-build project such as a whole house retrofit. We need to embrace the displaced mortgage industry and educate them on how to effectively utilize the EEM/EIM products to get them more business while simultaneously creating a demand for energy retrofits.

We need access to financing (Refinancing) to be the catalyst for energy retrofits. In other words, lenders can help more people refinance to historic low rates by recognizing the "Energy Equity" that is available in a FHA Energy Efficient Mortgage Refinancing model.

So far, we've been trying to create a demand for financing instead of having financing drive the demand for retrofits.

[David Meiland]

we've been trying to create a demand for financing instead of having financing drive the demand for retrofits.

I don't see how that's going to work. People are already mortgaged to the hilt, property values are down, and while rates are low, it's much harder to qualify for a mortgage now... a lot of people who are essentially solid just can't do it, especially if they're looking to take cash out, such as for remodeling. I am fully aware of EEM's and EIM's but most of the above applies.

This nut will get cracked when energy prices get excruciating. Right now, people in my market are saying "huh? electricity costs 7 cents...."

[Joshua Olsen]

You guys are engaging an a great discussion related to overall picture of the energy efficient retrofit industry. It is not my place to speak for the entire government, or even the entire Department of Energy as to how the issue is being thought about from a national policy level.

What I can address is David's comment related to the importance of the auditor and Rick's comment about breaking the tasks down. If you take a look at the table of contents for the Guidlines, you will see that the workforce has been broken out by job task and that each has been assigned individual Knowledge, Skills, and Abilites (KSAs). I wholeheartledly agree that a skilled auditor is vital as is a clearly defined job task for every individual in the process. The hope is that the Workforce Guidlines will help to define what and auditor is, does and should know and the same is true for an installer, a crew chief and inspector.

The relative merits of the various existing credentialing programs and workforce programs can be debated ad nauseum, but the need for a nationally accepted set of guidelines upon which to build future programs is fairly well agreed upon. In order to stand up a national market, we are going to need to come to an agreement as to exactly what that market purports to do. That is the intent of the Workforce Guidelines. I will agree with both of you that more needs to be done in many areas, particularly financing, but hopefully the Workforce Guidelines will move us a step down the road in laying the foundation for what is to come.

I appreciate your time and your thoughts. I will keep this forum in the loop as things progress.

[Rick Westmoreland]

Joshua,

The Workforce Guidelines are a much needed tool for the industry as a whole. I would love to incorporate them into my retrofit industry connectivity software. I can see where they would be valuable to contractors and consumers wanting to hold their contracted workforce accountable. the guidelines could/should be used in energy improvement work scope specifications.

Will these be available to market rate contractors?

[Joshua Olsen]

Absolutely- The Workforce Guidelines are intended to be a public resource available to anyone who wishes to make use of them.