Note: the State Health Dept recently ruled that a pump chamber force main that was to cross a horizontal geo trench from the house to the boreholes cannot do that because it would violate Table 2D. The Septic and Pump tanks were thus relocated away from the boreholes and the borehole trench.

Per a telephone call and emails made to the Dept. of Public Health, Table 1 P does seem to have a minor error.

50' separation of borehole to septic system is correct, but separation of Trench is not also 50'.

Note that as of 3/10, the State Health Dept will not issue a Circular Memo correcting this mistake.

Efforts are being made to resolve this.

The next line below is correct, saying separate trench and septic, etc. by 10'.

Email correspondence posted 5/31/11 of May 21, 2011 emails about 50' separation.

Comment: so until the Legislature enacts, anything goes for geo as long as old Well Drilling regs are met.

Past comments here:

Chapter V P John Sima, PE presents the proposed CT Geothermal Regulations to the EPA. 03/29/11

www.neiwpcc.org/waterresourceprotection/geothermalworkshop.asp

Here are the presentations from that EPA workshop.

www.neiwpcc.org/waterresourceprotection/geothermalworkshop.asp

(Private Comment from Peter Tavino, who was in attendance:

Mr. Hamilton's presentation recommended no propylene glycol,

but to just use water and more borehole instead.

IGSHPA manual says if no PG, minimum Entering Water Temp. = 45 degrees.

A quick calculation shows 3 ton with EWT 30 = 374' borehole needed.

3 ton with EWT 45 = 1474' borehole needed.

Mr. Hamilton also said that North Salem, NY school geo had ethyl alcohol antifreeze

leak into water supply and middle schoolers at water fountains were getting sort of inebriated.

At meeting conclusion, EPA and state regulators said this is a reason to regulate.

My nephew works there and we never heard such a thing.

Is this an urban legend, embellished each time it is retold?

I heard the tale occurred in NJ.

Can IGSHPA CT members provide more info?
Thanks,

 Pete)

Summaries of Standards and Regulations from around the country are being prepared.

The 1990's study is here:

Connecticut Light and Power and Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund regulations: (similar for United Illuminating)

5/4/11 All Contractors working on energy star homes will be required to be QIV next year.   (Quality Installation Verification)

The documents for the QIV program are posted to www.cl-p.com/register  Technical Seminar was held 5/3/11.

3/18/11 Hello Geothermal Interests just a note that the CL&P website has been updated, the new forms are on line for new and existing home projects.


Mark Patrick Foley
Connecticut Light and Power
Conservation and Load Management
Residential Program Administrator
OF 860-665-5031
FX 860-665-3874
foleymp@nu.com
 

http://www.cl-p.com/home/saveenergy/rebates/heatpumprebate.aspx

Deadline extension email:

In a message dated 3/7/2011 8:22:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, foleymp@nu.com writes:
Hello, as of this date the Utilities will be extending the 2010 Geothermal Retrofit incentive completion date to December 15, 2011.  All documentation must be received by December 31, 2011, postmarked by December 15, 2011.  There are a significant number of incomplete 2010 jobs on the application list. Also please be aware of the Clean Energy Fund time requirements!  The Clean Energy Fund may grant extensions of time if the customer has contacted them with detail 3 months prior to expiration of the application.

The deadline extension for the Energy Efficiency Fund Existing Home Residential Geothermal Retrofit Incentives will apply only to work that is on the current application list. All 2011 contracted work will fall under 2011 guidelines. If you have customers in between program periods who have not been approved for rebate, please contact both funds as soon as possible for direction. The Residential New Construction program deadlines have not changed.

Also a reminder that the CL&P mailing address and fax number was changed in October 2010 to:

CL&P CUSTOMERS SEND TO:

RE:
Application Offer: This program covers products purchased and installed on or
after January 1, 2010. Details of this program, including incentive levels, are
subject to change or cancellation without prior notice. This Application with
required documentation must be received by March 31, 2011 and postmarked by
March 15, 2011. For further details, please contact:
CL&P customers call: Mark Foley (860) 665- 5031
UI customers call: Michael Chesney (203) 499- 5935


Mark Patrick Foley
Connecticut Light and Power
Conservation and Load Management
Residential Program Administrator
OF 860-665-5031
FX 860-665-3874
foleymp@nu.com

Mid April email from Mark Foley of CL&P:
http://afcfirstfinancial.createsend5.com/t/ViewEmail/r/1DF8F79EF4D4569E/32B97924066DF68AC5EC08CADFFC107B

Quality Assured Contractor Program July 2011 email from Mark Foley of CL&P

Retrofit projects for existing homes need an Energy Audit, good insulation, and the blower door test must be<1 cfm/sq.ft.

Contractors are here:
http://nuwnotes1.nu.com/apps/clp/clpwebcontent.nsf/AR/HesContractors/$File/HES_Contractors.pdf

New homes need Home Energy Rater System professionals = HERS  (not HES = Home Energy Solutions acronym)

 http://www.cl-p.com/home/saveenergy/rebates/hers.aspx

Application form for new homes is here:

Geothermal Heat Pumps must be Energy Star rated and on the AHRI website.

Energy Star Regulations: 2011 Tier 2 requirement: COP > 3.0  EER  > 15.1.  Note COP can be average, not necessarily stage 2 COP per AHRI.

90 page Energy Star list as of March 1, 2011:

www.ctcleanenergy.com  has the program description and downloadable forms.

(The final application form requiring submission of a W-9 so that the owner must pay tax is not on the website.) (3/20)

Payment Request Form from 2010 referring to buildings from 1961 might be superseded.

Ask CCEF for their form pending verification that this is the latest:

Recipient of rebate check must supply CCEF and thus the IRS with a completed W-9 taxable income form etc.

(Rebate is deducted from net cost, so 30% tax credit is removed from it for homeowners. $3600 retro rebate on 3 tons  costs $1080 in lost federal tax credit, so bottom line = a $2520 rebate.)

Correspondence regarding the State Historic Preservation Office requiring 30 days to review a site for archaeological and other resources

is on this page.

A new process allowing 40% of the rebate for heat pump only not subject to SHPO delay and outside prevailing wage is under discussion.

Whether 40% is proper and not 60-70% is in discussion. (3/20)

3/16/11: Prevailing Wage info for all Commercial (and non profit) projects

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/wgwkstnd/prevailing-rates/PrevailingWageGuide/payrollcert1.pdf

Sample rates for Litchfield County pdf (But no rates for well drillers, pending CCEF Accounting)

3/31/11:Message from George Bellas who agreed we could post this message unofficially for the benefit of IGSHPA members:
 

Hi Peter: Please see the attached prevailing wage rate schedule for the Town of Washington effective 7/1/2010. The State changes the rates once a year effective July 1.  As discussed please use Group 5 under operators for the well drilling work for the geothermal projects.

 Also, the following CT Department of Labor website is useful in determining the appropriate prevailing wage rates to use.

 Regards,

-George

 https://www2.ctdol.state.ct.us/WageRatesWeb

6/29/11 CCEF recently ruled that an S-2 heating contractor was unacceptable for rebate.

Instead the system will be installed by an S-1 contractor, to whom the local building dept. issued a heating permit.

Licenses can be checked here:

An unofficial one page form requesting to be used to replace the existing 19 page residential and/or 34 page commercial form is attached for IGSHPA chapter member comments to Peter Tavino.  Should the fact that rebate is subject to tax per a future W-9 submittal be made known on the original form?  PDF Here. (3/20)

Comments to the March 2011 CCEF Board meeting about the state of rebates where only 22% has been spent in the first half, etc. made by Peter Tavino not representing the chapter or anyone else are here.

Critics of geo often say "It would not be feasible if there weren't rebates." But they ignore the rebates for fossil fuel burning. From the Wall St Journal survey: Should renewables be funded ? comes these comments:

According to the Environmental Law Institute, U.S. government "Energy Subsidies Favor Fossil Fuels Over Renewables" by a factor of more than 7:1. According to Bloomberg Energy, worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are 12:1 over renewables. 

According to the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels in the U.S. get about $72 billion in subsidies, and about 16 billion in subsidies go to renewables, half of which is corn-based ethanol. However, there are other economic costs not accounted for in fossil fuels too, like environmental pollution causing health care costs, military intervention, and depletion of resources, such as U.S. dollars for foreign oil. But why do we subsidize commodities like fossil fuels?

 http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

(See actual figures for 6 years total, slightly different than the comment, but showing huge subsidy and tax break for foreign oil, etc. in competition with geothermal

Fossil fuels = $70.2 billion 2002 to 2008.  All renewables = $12.2 billion leaving a very small percentage for geothermal after wind and solar, etc.)

7/18/11 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Case Study

The booklet is purchased at Installer Training time, but its free update is here: