RESNET Changes Training Policy with Interpretation

The RESNET board of directors last week issued Formal Interpretation 2014-04 (pdf). If you’re on RESNET’s mailing list, you may not have noticed this one come through on 24 September because they send out so many emails, but it’s an important one to look at. It’s titled “Clarification of Training Ratings” on the RESNET website. But it’s more than a simple clarification. It’s a change in policy that doesn’t have to go through public comment since the board issued it as an interpretation.

Here’s what it says:

Interpretation:

The reference to “a confirmed rating” in the sentence, “However, at least one of the two training ratings shall be a confirmed rating conducted in-person with a certified trainer on a real house…” is incorrect. It is interpreted that instead of a confirmed rating the standard is meant to be a field based, at a RESNET approved training facility or with a RESNET approved computer simulations that is entered into a RESNET accredited rating software program.

The use of “confirmed ratings” in Addendum 1, Section 204.1.6.3 on probationary ratings is the correct use of the term.

Rationale

The use of “confirmed rating” in rater training testing is not the intent of this section of the standard. This is clear when the section defines the training test as either a field test, a test given in a training facility or an approved computer simulation – two of these are not confirmed ratings. This interpretation is meant to clarify this issue.

I find it interesting that the interpretation says the use of the term “confirmed rating” is incorrect. RESNET Formal Interpretation 2009-001 (pdf), which was an update of Interpretation 2008-002, said this:

Interpretation:

Of the two ratings required by Section 207.1.2, at least one shall be a confirmed rating. Training Providers shall maintain documentation showing that the two ratings conducted in the presence of the trainer have fully considered all minimum rated features of the homes that are rated. This documentation shall provide both the student results and the master results against which the completeness and accuracy of the student’s results are judged to be complete and accurate. Such documentation may consist of the electronic building input software files resulting from each student’s supervised home energy rating for each of the two ratings along with the master building input software files against which the accuracy of the student’s building input files are judged to be complete and accurate. The documentation shall include results from the student’s building envelope leakage and duct leakage field tests required for the confirmed rating along with the master building envelope leakage and duct leakage results against which the student’s results are judged to be complete and accurate.

I’ve been in the field long enough to remember how the earlier interpretation came about. It was the result of a minor brouhaha that erupted when RESNET thought some training providers were doing HERS rater training classes without getting their students out into the field to learn how to rate real houses.

It was clear that their intention was to make one of the two training ratings a confirmed rating with actual field data collected by the students. To come back now and say that the term “confirmed rating” is incorrect in this context is just plain wrong. RESNET is changing the policy on this and by doing so through a board interpretation, they avoid having to take it to public comment.

Why does this matter? Apparently RESNET is working on a simulation of the rating process similar to the RESCAZ simulation for combustion safety. Once it hits the street, trainers will be able to avoid taking their students into the field.

Would you hire a HERS rater who’s never collected data from a real house?

Related Articles

Why Is RESNET Limiting Its Options for Improvement?

RESNET Bungles the Adoption of Combustion Safety Testing

The Tail-Wagging Labradors of RESNET

NOTE: Comments are moderated. Your comment will not appear below until approved.