Residential Bers Survey Results Talking Points
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 The FSEC training programs contain outdated information, are presented in a manner you would expect in a 1990 poorly prepared lecture, have incorrect and confusing information and are in need of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individuals that are doing their best to make a bad program work within a worse system which is a result of an outdated monopoly.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.