RESIDENTIAL BERS SURVEY RESULTS

TALKING POINTS

TRAINING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY

What are some ways in which the training materials can be improved?

Content covered in class did not cover most of what was on the test.

The FSEC training programs contain outdated information, are presented in a manner you would expect in a 1990 poorly prepared lecture, have incorrect and confusing information and are in need of significant updating/improvement.

Field inspection & recap really pulled the training together. Manual is very helpful.

The program has greatly improved since 2007 with new training facility that has multiple house units to test from.

Strong education overall but lots of small errors and overlap but just like this survey, it appears there is not a lot of support to make all of the small things fit together as well as a course offered by a private company would be.

Investigate new technology that actually identify energy related matters (ie: IR camera's).

In general, the training program has not been updated since it was created. No doubt this is due to a lack of funding. It is also obvious that many State programs are tied to the Energy Rater program, which is a revenue generator for FSEC, which is a conflict of interest (i.e. they are calling out and soul sourcing a program that they provide and generate revenue from). This is not the only instance of this practice with FSEC. Also, they provide services which compete with the private industry, a conflict of Florida Statute. They make you pay to take the class and then offer the services you just paid for training to offer for free – many of these programs are offered under DOE contracts as to not appear to be a conflict. Courses are too expensive, are not offered in convenient locations as to be accessible to all of Florida, and are not offered often enough to create the team of raters this State needs to accommodate the energy conservation programs that are being pushed through from both the State and Federal Governments. The software is, hands down, the worst software I have ever worked with. You have a few key and passionate individuals that are doing their best to make a bad program work within a worse system which is a result of an outdated monopoly. I would expect that Tei and her team would be the best to offer suggestions regarding improving the program as I suspect they hear the majority of the complaints. I would recommend a small task force of raters meet with Tei and her representatives as well as the DCA to discuss what options are available as that may drive recommendations to improve the program and delivery.

What are some ways that the courses can be made more available?

Availability – there is typically a 3 to 6 month backlog when I have sent new raters to FSEC to get training. Kansas Building Science Institute probably is the best in this category. Most of my raters that have taken this course need to take the RESNET exam multiple times. I think there is a disconnect between the FSEC FL Standards and national standards. The price is double KBSI and the time of the course is also double, but I have a higher success rate with KBSI.

While the training course is great the availability of the classes and limited location make it difficult to attend classes.

Classes fill up quickly.

Sometimes too expensive.

How long should a rating certification course be?

I liked the program much better when I took it about 5 years ago when it was completed within a week instead of spread out like it is now. The condensed format actually taught as much or more than the new format, as you were pressed to get it all in, and was easier to follow/learn. The condensed format was also A LOT less expensive (and as the taxpayers pay for utility staff to receive this training…). The tighter format is preferable all around especially for small business owners who find it difficult to pay for the extended format of the program and to miss that much of work.

Would like to see the classes more drawn out in order to cover necessary material effectively.

Too slow and cumbersome.

Should Florida keep the Rater 1, 2, 3 system or revise the program to follow the RESNET model?

Much of the certification program is derived from the national RESNET Standards. If anything, I would suggest eliminating the Class 3 and 2 designations as they are meaningless nationally and could be confusing to the public and clients.

I tend to think that compared to other HERS training programs, they are at a disadvantage because they have to break up the training in such a delineated way in order to segment each class of rating (R3, R2, R1).

Over the course of the last couple of years, FSEC has made the training more and more broken apart, where you have to have more “preliminary” courses before you take the rater training. I have taken the commercial class and wasn’t able to pass it due to not knowing their software.

I took my energy rater 3, 2 and 1 in the same week. I passed my rater 3 and 2 but did not pass my rater 1. There were 14 people in my class and only one person passed the rater 1 exam. This individual already performed rater 1 services for a FL University. The rater 1 class was not effective if only 1 out of 14 people pass the exam. I was shocked to learn that one of the people who also failed the energy rater 1 exam had taken it several times before. This individual was on staff at FSEC and coordinates their rater software. I believe that if someone is going to be assisting with teaching these classes, they should have passed an exam on the subject matter that there were helping to teach.

Multiple times the workshops are full and take a long period of time before one can complete all 3 classes, in order, in a timely manner. Anywhere else, besides CA, these classes are privatized and happen based on true demand from training companies in industry. This is not the case in FL. You can take the class elsewhere and challenge test at FSEC however FSEC has some specific FL only rules/regulations/guidelines that are only taught through the FSEC courses. In order for me to realistically complete the courses in a timely manner which matched with my business plan I had to travel out of state to Virginia, take a one week’s HERS class, and then challenge test at FSEC. The system does not work with Florida only allowing FSEC to be the sole provider. There is no free market growth in this model. In order to maintain more quality control you could have FSEC run testing but not classes too.

I would like the classes to be more in depth for the Class 1 Rating and over a longer time period.

Although I found the FSEC courses effective, I would like to have either mentoring or additional classes performing the functions of a Rater 1 2 3.

Should Florida train for the RESNET test?

Hands-on training was OK (class 1) good classroom training (for class 3 & 2) – seemed to be a lot less “meat” than the last time I attended the program. (See the condensed format comments at bottom of page). There was minimal training for the National ResNET test - little of which was helpful. Also, if I ever planned on doing a rating out of State, there was very little covered that will be of any help.

This goes back to the last question in regard to availability they have a large backlog, typically, when I have sent people to get certified. The testing and certification program is ok, but has flaws because of conflicts between their standards and national standards that are required to be known for the national exam.

Hands-on testing was really good but again, little training or guidance for the RESNET test.

FSEC left out some information that would have proven to be a great deal of help after I became certified. For example, they did not explain the whole process of helping a client out with the EEM applications and process. Also, their curriculum left out a good amount of information that was on the RESNET Core exam. But overall the program is good but needs to be more specific.

How good is the instruction?

As for the caliber of instructors, it varies. It was painful as all get out to listen to Jeff Sonne at the initial training I took. However I learned gobs from a duct testing methods class that Jim Cummings and Chuck Withers offered. That would be a GREAT continuing education class for raters after they have some field experience.

The program has developed into a fairly effective and respected training program. This was not the case in the mid to late 90s when the program was very ineffective. There is still much improvement that could occur through modeling some training methods and techniques of institutions like Kansas Building Institute, Southface and others.

I felt adequately trained.

The personnel at FSEC provide exceptionally high quality training that truly prepares individuals to become raters.

Awesome.

The program is effective and well presented.

The classes are very instructive and hands on.

Tei Kucharski, Betsy Pesce and the FSEC staff have been very knowledgeable and willing to assist.

Residential testing and certification program is good, but the commercial is not due to having to take a separate class to learn their software in order to pass the test.

The process works well.

Effective use of time. Well done for a diverse group with broad levels of education.

This, too, is well done. And improvements continue to be made.

From what I have heard, FSEC provides unparalleled hands-on training. Many training providers teach only to pass a test, instead of using the equipment in the field.

TESTING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY

In what ways can the Program Administrator improve the tests?

Testing could use more hands on field training components, especially for CAZ testing. This applies across the state, even though many people believe there are no gas problems in Miami.

The test questions are poorly written,, neither the materials or the exam prepare you for what you will face in the field. They are the only option so you have no choice. Raters that have successfully been working in other states often face roadblocks due to the exam requirements—i.e. Florida is not reciprocating. I would recommend reviewing the pass rate of the exam and the procedures used as if the pass rate is extremely low perhaps there is an issue with the instruction versus the students.

FSEC’s internal testing was actually much easier than anticipated and I worry too many folks from other disciplines can apply little effort and call themselves a rater. This a new and beneficial industry that will need to be seen as separate from the rest of the building, construction etc disciplines if we are to make a difference.

Testing and recertification is challenging but fair and effectively checks for competence.

There are many questions on the test that have not been properly vetted and do a poor job of assessing the test takers knowledge. Some of the test and test questions are not psychometrically valid.

My computer froze the last time I took the Core Exam. I missed passing by 2 questions.

In what ways can the Program Administrator make testing more available?

Availability is limited to one location (as far as I know.) It might be helpful to offer the class in the South & the North once or twice a year for those who live far from Cocoa. But otherwise very good delivery at the Center.

The testing is sufficient but the availability is very limited.

Testing is given 1 time a month, do to my work schedule it sometimes is hard to comply with the 1 time a month schedule but that has to do with my work also.

Due to limited involvement, my opinion could be more personal than objective. But, Cocoa is far removed from the rest of the world. A central location would be helpful.

Testing is given 1 time a month, do to my work schedule it sometimes is hard to comply with the 1 time a month schedule but that has to do with my work also.

It has been very easy to register for classes and retests.

The primary training and testing administrator should not be a part-time FSEC employee who needs to moonlight and perform ratings in competition with other raters. Although this is a professional, competent person, this arrangement is nonetheless a clear conflict of interest.

In what ways can the Program Administrator provide better feedback on test questions missed without compromising the test?

I think FSEC should provide test results to students to assist them in evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. When tested, you only get a score and don't know what aspects of the test are causing you to fail. In general, most people learn from their mistakes. The current testing protocol for raters does not allow for this type of feedback. Even when doing the hands on training, they refuse to tell you what you are doing wrong, just that you are doing something wrong. Additionally, FSEC changed the testing protocol in the middle of the last renewal sequence. Most people were tested in tents "the way we were trained" and a hand full were tested in the new weatherization rooms "a new addition". I don't think it is fair that some people were tested on one type of apparatus and others were tested on a different, and much more complex apparatus. When I complained to FSEC about the inconsistency, I did not get any response. Therefore, I am now no longer a class 1 rater because I did not pass the practical exam taken on a weatherization module (rather than a tent, like most other's who recertified). I think you should statistically look at the pass/fail ratio of people tested on the weatherization modules vs. those tested on the tents...I bet you will find that the "tent" group did much better than the "weatherization" group.

How can the rating registration system be improved?

The on-line accessibility is a different issue. I don’t usually have uploading issues, but the question database is difficult to get to if you don’t bookmark the site. I have difficulty accessing it directly from my browser as opposed to through the energy gauge program. And why do rater answers have to be in that database anyway? I can understand program determinations need to be in that database, but they do decisions about how to handle equipment entry need to be there? Can’t the guys who do the computer program coordinate with the rating guys to make regular updates to the Energy Gauge help menu? I bet that would solve a lot of field problems right there.

Timely and online but seems over-complicated compared to what might be possible with more support to improve.

This area is hit or miss sometimes it is done in a week, sometimes it is done in a month sometimes it takes 3 weeks and there is a version change in the software that has never worked and you have to resubmit.

Assuming that Tei is not on vacation or teaching usually ratings are returned promptly. This also assumes that the software is functioning properly, has not crashed your computer system, or erased all of your files. I understand the intelligent choice behind making sure that you are the only one that can do your job, great for job security but not necessarily the best for the State.

Sending in the registration is easy, it’s getting the results back that can take an inordinate amount of time. In the last couple of months the turnaround time has improved (about 10 days); however, over the last couple of years there has been several times when it has taken as much as 4 weeks to get results back, apparently depending on the training schedule of the person doing the quality control.

Very hard to get in.

Sometimes it’s a day, sometimes it’s weeks. It depends on their training schedule. However, if you email and ask they are usually accommodating.

It was not for a while, but now is quite good.

I have done 5; first 3 were slow, last 2 have been very fast.

Rating registration is timely and readily accessible on-line.

On-line submittal of ratings is quick with very good follow-up if there is a problem with a rating.

The On-line database is effective and easy to use.

I did like the online registration, confirmation and receipting – prompt and easy.

I’ve had excellent service.

Awesome.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT AVAILABILITY

How long is reasonable before responding to a request for technical assistance? Should after hours support be available? If so, how could it be funded?

Always have to leave a message.

When I try to communicate with the energy gauge office, I often have to send email or leave a voice mail. Response time is always long, if I ever get a response.

On several occasions I have not received a response to my calls.

Very good.

The techies are great.

Tech support works great and always gets back to you.

I had effective support in getting software running.

Very accessible and convenient.

I have received prompt support.

Very slow.

It sucks. I have NEVER been able to get an answer from the main Energy Gauge help line. 95% of the time, I have to leave a message. Two months ago was the first time in 5 years I had a return call the same day. Usually, I’m left on a job site wondering what I should do next when it comes to a quirky test protocol, praying that whatever I come up with will be accepted and that I don’t have to go back out when I do get an answer.

The only reason I get service occasionally is that I somehow managed at some point to get Tei Kucharski’s cell number. I protect and guard that like gold. If she’s available, then I stand a pretty good shot at getting the problem solved. She’s answered the phone on her vacation to get me an answer. I value that greatly. But I wonder how many raters are not afforded similar service? If they all are, I hope like heck FSEC is compensating Ms. Kucharski for the afterhours work that it would entail.

Oh, that’s right – work hours. Does that include support on a lunch hour? I guess it doesn’t include after 5 pm or weekends – I guess I’m SOL when I work at those times.

Technical support is almost never readily available. One often has to leave a message and wait an extended period of time for a call back or email.

Yes, technical support is usually extremely helpful. They do their best with one of the worst software programs I have ever experienced.

Tech support is spotty...sometimes good, others not so good.

Technical Support is readily available for a program crash or resending data.

The only times I have had to contact technical support recently have been handled expeditiously. A couple of years ago, it was not that way.

Technical support has been available but in my opinion not very helpful beyond suggesting to upgrade or reload the EG software.

I had to call a second time to resolve my problem. It was something on their end. Also, many ‘glitches’ are unresolved in the software and we ‘just have to live with it’ until the next ‘patch’.

Technical Support is completely ignorant of the actual specifics of the program and what

it contains. For me, they refer all program questions to Jeff Sonne, who does return the call. Most results end with the inability of the software, and a look for another way to get a similar output.

Since we (all 4 of us at our Utility) do not actually perform ratings I am unaware of the support for this, however, staff are usually prompt and helpful in other matters. It is difficult to get hold of Tei sometimes.

This area has been improved.

Have had no problems contacting FSEC personnel, whether it be via phone or email for any technical support issues.

Technical support is very good.

On every occasion that I have needed technical assistance I have had a response the same day and have had successful resolution of my problem.

TIMELY RATING REGISTRATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

What is a reasonable time frame for verifying certified rating registrations?

I consider a timely registration to be 24 hours, maybe 48 hours. The only time I get that turn around when I follow up with an email to Tei that indicates there is mortgage hanging on that rating. Then it gets moved up in the queue. If I’m lucky, its 3 days. Usually it’s more like a week to 10 days and on the outside as long as 3 to 4 weeks. It’s hard to do business that way because my clients think I’m the one who is creating the delay.

Seven days seems reasonable.

The EG coordinator is overworked.

Depending on the time of year and what other things go on, the ratings can take days to weeks to be completed.

ISSUES RAISED BY RATERS

Cost Issue

In what ways can low volume raters’ performance be assessed without requiring the on-site presence of the Program Administrator?

FSEC announced that they are going to charge an additional $500.00 to raters doing a volume under 50 ratings per year. This does not help. Economics may force me to stop using HERS energy ratings. There currently is not enough demand to cost justify the expenses associated with Florida’s energy ratings system with the escalating fees.

There is only one person in charge of processing and handling Registered Ratings (Tei Kucharski). Since she is the only one to answer questions and process the Ratings there is a lack of accessibility that needs to be improved. Recently she imposed a $500 fee for Raters that do not register more than 50 ratings over a 2 year period as well as requesting that pictures be taken of each system tested to help her comply with the Quality Control function that is demanded by RESNET. That is a large penalty for those smaller sized Raters or those of us that do not have Energy Rating as our primary business. That gives a competitive advantage to the 2 or 3 large Rating companies that operate in the State.

I am very much against the biannual $500 ‘interview’ fee. That is not what I signed on for, and does little to encourage the growth of the energy rater service to the housing industry.

Work on a better fee structure for "low volume" raters. The market is such that many raters cannot commit a lot of time for ratings because the market demand is not present. Now raters are being penalized for being "low volume". I got the certification in hopes that some day it would be cost effective to be a full time rater...that day has not come and now they will be weeding out people like me because it will cost raters more to be certified than they can make in a year doing only the few ratings that are demanded!

I recently received a letter stating that due to my low rating status I will be charged a yearly fee of $500 to assist with my ratings. Since I live in Key West La 2x4 mile island) I have a very limited number of potential clients. Even though I am the only rater in the Florida Keys, meeting the minimum required to avoid the fee is very difficult due to my geographical location. I think the fee is unfair and may cause me to be unable to continue as a rater.

1) As I understand if I do not file with FSEC I have to pay $500.00 to keep my ratings. I paid to have my certificate and I pay my dues and keep up with them. This is the only program like this. I'm cat adj., MFSH inspector, building inspector, foundation inspector. I have spent many hours for my training to have someone tell me I can't keep my certificate valid because I have to pay them to play in their court.

2) I have spent thousands of dollars on my education. When I took the raters course there was nothing mention about this enormous penalty to keep my certification. THIS IS WRONG !!!!!

I have been an Energy Rater 1 for several years. Since becoming a Rater 1, I’ve been called about a rating with testing probably twice in 10 years and when I gave people a preliminary price, they thanked me and that’s the last I ever heard from them. Because of this, I never bought the test equipment required which costs more than $5,000. A typical rating with testing will cost a person a minimum of $500-600. This becomes cost prohibitive for most people unless they are trying to get an Energy Star or other type of rating on the home they’re building.

Are there ways to keep the costs of the program down?

Cost of classes has gotten too high.

Horrible service on the rater side of FSEC…look how much the training for energy raters has skyrocketed, along with the fees to register homes…forced me out of the business.

The Class 3 through 1 class is outstanding, the very best in the nation, hands down. However, advanced training could be better but I know funding is low. FSEC charges the Rater only $27.00 to register a rating. Unless they get funding from other sources there is not enough in the registration fees to provide training. However, we do need it.

I have recently been in touch with Ms. Ann Stanton (Florida Department of Community Affairs (BERS Program) phone: 850/488-0964) about the fact that being unemployed since early last year, I had unsuccessfully trying to get FSEC (UCF) to register as a Training Provider with the Palm Beach County Workforce Alliance, so that I and other displaced workers could be qualified for training grants (the classification of Energy Gauge Rater 1-3 must also be added to the State of Florida's "Demand Occupation List") to cover FSEC's tuition (at $999 for Rater 1; after the fees for Rater 3 at $269 and Rater 2 at $599. it can be prohibitive without such assistance). Residents of Brevard County presently can receive grant support for the Rater Program training; but not other residents of Florida (check the issues with the Election 2000). I would strong request that the Florida Department of Community Affairs - BERS Program require UCF and the Florida Solar Energy Center to fully participate in such displaced worker programs; and to do everything required to have the job classification of Florida Energy Gauge Home Energy Rater added to the State's Demand Occupation List.

I believe the program needs more funding for more instructors that can help with the double checking of the random certified ratings on homes. It seems that the staff is under staffed for this.

Funding more staff for the section doing the HERS work; apparently one person is doing all the work.

“… the Department’s no-cost contract with the Florida Solar Energy Center to train and test potential raters, register ratings and provide technical support on this program.”

With a contract like that, it’s in their best interest to pack ‘em to the rafters for the course fees and be less than up-front about all costs and the realistic marketability of the certification . Your sentence also explains why software functionality is always skirted by FSEC. They’re not paid to do it. Improve? Correct? Reinstate Retrofit?......Who is?

Is there any way to allow use of the Rating certification without continued demonstration that they can still perform a rating?

Consider an optional classification or listing for those that need the training just for knowledge or employment requirements and do not need to do, nor plan on completing any ratings once through with the actual class and testing. This would alleviate the need for continued tracking of those people, as far as CEU’s and testing go, as well as the need to do, and have personally reviewed and tested, the additional 3 ratings after the class is over.

It is also very difficult in the current economy to do the additional 3 ratings when there are little to no homes being built or rated nearby.

[We need] clear policies for renewal.

There is a need for a qualification in energy code analysis. Can the BERS program provide it?

Something needs to be done about enforcement of the rules by building departments. Not enough emphasis is placed on following the rules.

There should be a qualification to perform energy code calculations.

The biggest issue I see is code calculations being carried out by people who are not qualified. The information included in code calculations is not being checked or verified for accuracy. I believe we are not meeting our energy code in many instances which undermines the good work of the DCA.

According to some of the proposed additions to the next code that I’ve seen, energy ratings may be required on replacement of residential air conditioning systems. In my opinion, this would cause an undue financial burden to a home owner already trying to figure out how to fit a replacement air conditioning system into their strained budget. Even though I am an energy rater and could benefit greatly from this going into effect, I think it is completely unnecessary and would not produce enough of a benefit to justify the extra cost.

We are not experiencing the best of times economically and I don’t feel we should impose more regulation on a system that can’t afford to police its current rules and regulations. Someone needs to consider the cost benefit ratios of new regulation more fully.

In addition to a residential energy rater 1, I also do preparation of commercial energy calculations by virtue of the fact that I am also a State Certified Air Conditioning Contractor. I am a member of ASHRAE, USGBC, the Florida Green Building Coalition, RSES, and other professional organizations that promote energy efficient design and construction, but, I feel that we need to slow down on mandatory implementation of items that are not cost effective in terms of providing reasonable payback periods.

Can we get rid of the requirement for peer supervision of Class 1 ratings?

I also do not like that in order to be a Class 1 certified rater I must have another certified rater supervise my first 5 homes. This would not be so bad but there is a competition factor that raters are not willing to help or there is a heavy price for this. There are only 2 guys that have been recommended by the school and that would be willing to help in the state of Florida and they do not live in my city.

The system for finalizing Class 1 by getting 5 provisional ratings is a bit awkward. You are pretty much left in the position of asking your future competitors to help you out. This is awkward at best and at times nearly impossible. Progress Energy in St. Petersburg does a fine job of making this easier but with their recent shake up in the energy efficiency department this may well be a thing of the past.

In what ways can the Program Administrator help the Raters?

Recommend that more information be passed around, maybe a newsletter.

Develop a mentoring program in addition to the certifications.

I think one of the major things is support to the raters. It takes far too much time to get answers back from the administration of the program, and then the answers that we do get back are not answering the questions that are asked.

We have been dealing with too much problems with raters within the program who we cannot report because of “ethics violations” so there is a constant breaking of the rules by uncertified or under certified raters that never gets addressed.

A substantive issue would be for the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Building Commission to clarify who Can and cannot do energy ratings and or energy audits in Florida. There seems to be a lot of hair splitting with the upcoming Home Star energy efficiency retrofits and/or PACE type financing both which require audits. A conference call I was on recently included the director for the California energy commission who clearly stated that in that state it would require a HERS rating to qualify for the rebates or financing. This type of clarification would be helpful for Florida energy raters.

Approving additional rating providers, approving additional training providers, empowering those providers to test raters and move them into the marketplace sooner. Creating financing opportunities to allow raters to buy their own equipment, integrating the value of ratings into other state run websites that promote green building, regulating energy auditors and audits, equating energy audits with class 2 ratings, recognizing the Resnet technician designation within Florida, creating/refining a code duct tester designation that tests competency for consistent operation of equipment without needing to pass the non-germane Resnet test (why does someone who only tests duct have to show competency on mortgages?) Improving communication methods with raters. Deploying local training opportunities so raters don’t always have to foot the travel bill.

How do we get improved public awareness?

The program needs better public awareness.

In Escambia County no one, to my knowledge, is doing enough energy ratings to make a living at it. There are many factors that contribute to this low volume of energy ratings.

The vast majority of people in this area are not aware of energy ratings. Even realtors do not know about energy ratings and do not bring energy ratings to their customer’s attention, which is required by law. I have made four Energy Rating presentations at a cost of nearly $1,000.00. Two presentations were to the community at large, one to the USGBC and one to the Pensacola Association of Realtors. I purchased a booth at Earth Day and held a drawing for a free energy rating. From my experience it is clear that I do not have the resources needed to be successful at educating the public. An effective educational campaign is needed to raise public awareness about the value of a Home Energy Rating. I cannot do it alone.

Gulf Power has created misunderstanding by advertising their free “Energy Audit”. The free energy audit does not include a blower door test, a duct blaster test or the use of a computer program for analysis or comparison. The greatest disservice to the public is not getting their ducts tested when they make inquires about high energy bills. Identification and repair of leaky duct work has the largest potential return on investment and energy conservation and therefore has the largest ecological benefit. The public misunderstanding generated by Gulf Power is the largest obstacle to a wholesale volume of energy ratings in this area.

Gulf Power aggravates the situation further by having a competing program with The EPA’s Energy Star. They use their in house energy raters to qualify the building for their Earth Cents program. This not only takes work from free lance raters but adds more confusion about building performance by adding one more layer of information the public needs to digest in order to make an informed decision.

The State of Florida needs to assist energy raters to sell this service. It’s a difficult market when progress energy will provide a free home audit. They also pay approx $60.00 to a subcontractor vendor to perform duct leak checks. However they require the vendor to have $2 million dollars in E&O Insurance in order to work as an approved subcontractor. I could perform this service at a profit if the state would stop the energy companies from giving this service away for free.

The need for the State to promote Home Energy Efficiency in a more vigorous way. Home Energy Efficiency will be helpful in reducing our carbon footprint.

Promote the rating program to the public—realtors, builders, city officials. Most people in the building industry have never heard of HERS. Also, enforce the laws that are on the books for building energy efficiency.

Software Issue

Can the software used for the program be improved or alternatives provided?

The EnergyGauge software program is expensive and difficult to understand. The program needs to have a program book for it. The program has glitches and does not like out of the normal situations. I believe overall, that FSEC does a good job and is honest and fair. I would not like an investor or for-profit to run it. I believe the State of Florida should put more resources into advancing our existing program that has been setting an exceptional standard long before “green gold diggers” moved in.

I preferred stand alone software rather than holding a licensed seat that need verification, although the updates work well.

EnergyGauge software needs to be updated to show possible efficiency improvements for EEMS.

I’ve had timely support when needed. Take accountability for the flaws and incorrect energy outputs that EnergyGauge produces. Assign someone with the ability to correct and improve the software.

Stay current . Fund and innovate toward energy efficient housing for the people of this state. Address the needs for retrofitting and its cost analysis for the sea of existing Florida homes. Develop a program that is tailored for it (or reenter it into the EnergyGauge software). Utilize Raters to do the analysis.

Should alternate training providers be allowed? How would you control course content/quality?

You may want to consider having an additional provider(s) in the form of University or community college-level course(s). Offering the rating series at UF, FSU and UM, as a course or community education class, would allow participants to have local classes, testing and assistance. This would encourage closer ties and better communication between the raters and the provider, spread out the workload off of FSEC, establish a state-formatted (consistent) curriculum and foster a little competition for rater class attendance as other states have.

Help start a training and or certifying center in North Florida. One of the reasons that historically the panhandle has lagged behind the rest of Florida in energy ratings is the difficulty imposed by having the only training and testing facility located at FSEC. There are several Community Colleges in the panhandle that are starting Green building and or building science programs that would be ideal candidates for such a facility.

FSEC should not be the only company overseeing HERS ratings, training, and create and sell the only software that we can use. We are at their mercy, and I am not comfortable voicing concerns to them because if they don’t like me they could make things more difficult for me. I feel that we are supporting an institution that is not looking out for anyone’s (raters or customers) best interests as they are completely separated from the market.

I see no reason that Florida has created a monopoly for Energy Ratings with having FSEC as the sole provider. Every other state except CA allows the adoption of the private provider program which increases competition and market acceptance of HERS ratings. I believe this is hindering market penetration and innovation and addressed how this applies to the training concern as an example in a previous answer. Keep FSEC as a provider but then allow others to enter the FL market and see how the Raters align themselves. FSEC needs to be more business oriented in order to run such a program. I am in total support of FSEC and all their research, we would not be in the position we are today without them however we all need to realize that this model is not working.

On another note the Department should work towards a goal of requiring HERS Ratings at the time of closing for all residential properties. This is the only way to create a true baseline of what our building stock is now and allow energy to factor into purchasing and appraisals to realize energy efficiencies true market value. Not to mention this would create a steady flow of work for HERS Raters such that it would be a viable business opportunity.

The State of Florida may want to look at some of the other national accreditation companies. I know people in other states who have successful energy auditing firms. It seems like they did not have to jump through the same rigorous hoops that FSEC requires. The bottom line should be to have qualified energy raters who can perform a service to the consumer and assist others with reducing their energy consumption. The current system does not encourage my company to offer this service at the present time.

As a national program QAD and manager for one of the largest HERS program in the country, I work with many different software packages. The biggest flaw in the FL program is the fact that this is the only market where we only have 1 software choice. Even CA has multiple software choices for title 24. The bigger problem is the fact that the software we must use is EG USA. I had this software crash on me in a meeting as recently as 2 weeks ago, and then took a week to get working. There are many features and fixes that would probably be in the software with competition creating more than one option. This is huge flaw. I would note that there is a reason why 90% plus of all HERS ratings outside of FL are run through REMRATE.

But if FSEC is the ONLY provider in Florida, shouldn’t they have multiple QA designees who can assist the volume of raters, process files and answer field questions? How can we grow the program or our businesses when FSEC only allocates a single person as a definitive resource?

New Directions…

When someone says “would like to see the program go in new directions” garbage pail comes to mind….

It is my recommendation that a committee of my industry peers, department workers and stakeholders be formed. The goal of the committee would be to develop an alternative to the present “one” state BERS Program Manager system that is currently in place. It is my belief that the state and all of its residents would benefit from this open synergy forum. I do not believe that the current structure is the best to move forward with. I simply believe that this state and its residents would be best served with a more open format based on choice.

Perhaps the lead State Agency for this program should be the Florida Energy and Climate Commission. They may be less inclined to hand it off cheaply with minimal funding and oversight to an Administrator. Or not.

Re-evalute the entire program for benefits to community.

Liaison with the power companies to give them what they need to help homeowners save energy - not energy raters but energy efficiency programs for the average home owner.

COMMERCIAL BERS SURVEY RESULTS

TALKING POINTS

Is there a need for a commercial BERS program?

How should such a program tie in with national programs such as LEED and BIM etc.?

How should it be marketed?

Isn’t the commercial BERS required for public buildings?

Is

TRAINING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY

I have no idea what the current commercial training is today. I took mine back in the ‘90s. There isn’t any advanced training.

Not enough for commercial.

The handouts material is weak and the classes get off the topic for a significant amount of time.

The PNC training was a joke. A few hours on how to use the FlaCom software, but most of it was on the Psychometric table, which I have never had to use at all when modeling a commercial building. Rule indicates that PNC’s must also have a designation for a national program in order to be a commercial rater in Florida, but I’ve never seen FSEC offer such a course.

TESTING AVAILABILITY AND DELIVERY

Regarding Florida Commercial Energy Ratings, the program needs work and marketing.

Commercial ratings not promoted.

I had to bug DCA for 18 months to offer the commercial course, pitiful though it was. The commercial certification program is light years behind the residential one.

TIMELY RATING REGISTRATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

Have never registered a commercial rating.

Have done no commercial ratings.

Has anyone ever filed a commercial rating in Florida?

TECHNICAL SUPPORT AVAILABILITY

This area has been improved.

I am both pleased and grateful for the timely technical support which I have received. Tei Kucharski and Jeff Sonne are both knowledgeable and responsive.

Technical support on EnergyGauge Summit has been outstanding.

Very good.

Most of my experience with tech support has to do with FlaCom. While I do usually have to leave a message, I usually call Dr. Swami or Mangesh or Raju directly. Now those guys know what customer service means!! They will actually follow up on a problem, even if it takes them a few days to find an answer.