Comments on: Georgia Power Fills the Void Left by ENERGY STAR

By: Ryan Shanahan

Ryan Shanahan — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:23:20 +0000

We might have the best
We might have the best utility incentive programs in the country. Energy Trust of Oregon (covers 80% of the state or more) offers builders $600 - $4000 for energy conservation currently. The cap is moving up to $5,000 next year. They also offer additional incentives to the builder for solar pv ready / solar thermal ready. Installed solar systems get incentivized as well but the money goes to the solar contractor. Many of our builder clients like the idea of "getting paid to do this stuff before it becomes code anyway"

By: David Butler

David Butler — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 04:03:29 +0000

Hey Sam, thanks for the info
Hey Sam, thanks for the info on advanced framing in California.

you wrote: "Can't remeber if you just need to bump up to 2x6 for a 2 story."

The implication of your question is that 2x4 advanced framing (24-oc) is allowed for single story. If so, I wasn't aware of this. Please confirm or clarify.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:36:30 +0000

@Skye D

@Skye D

Advanced framing (24 in o.c., stacked rafter/ceiing joist, single top with steel plate at tranisition) is prescriptively allowed in California, single story. Can't remeber if you just need to bump up to 2x6 for a 2 story. Apparently someone has done the seismic and wind work on it because the CBC is very risk adverse with seismic issues.

By: David Butler

David Butler — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:59:41 +0000
Wow, Skye. You really nailed
Wow, Skye. You really nailed it. What I find fascinating is that the ESv3 "onerous" HVAC checklists only asks contractors to follow their own industry's widely recognized (but rarely followed) design procedures.

BTW, the article Skye mentioned was a joint letter-to-the-editor that appeared in Nov 2006 Home Energy. Sam's response was essentially a shrug.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:51:00 +0000
Skye D.:
Skye D.: Wow! That program does look great. For those who want to find out more about it, here's the clickable version of the link:

Duke Energy Progress new homes incentives

As for your second comment, you did a great job of going into some of the main problems with ES V3. No need to apologize. The folks at ENERGY STAR seem oblivious to the needs of builders and raters, and I've been telling them similar things since at least 2010.

Darrel T.: I haven't written much about ES V3 lately, but earlier I did. They went too far with the program, especially with the HVAC component. Skye's comment lays it out really well. In our HERS providership, we went from about 80% of our ratings being for ENERGY STAR homes to about 20%. Even that number is inflated, however, because only about 10% were for Version 3, as we still had some Version 2 stragglers coming in earlier in the year.

Curt K.: Yep. See Skye's second comment above.

By: Skye Dunning

Skye Dunning — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:46:55 +0000
Part of it is that the code
Part of it is that the code changed so significantly that E-Star had to change significantly as well. But unfortunately it's much more than that.

The biggest mistake, IMO, and one of the biggest challenges, was the certification requirements for the HVAC contractors. Getting certified with ACCA was the only option at the beginning, and was prohibitively expensive for small contractors (the quality ones we have been working with for years). It got better with Advanced Energy's entry as the 2nd H-QUITO in the country, giving the HVAC contractors a lower cost option.

Along with that certification came a huge (relative to the past anyway) HVAC checklist for the rater and HVAC contractor. That list was a big jump for HVAC contractors, and for most raters, which resulted in quite a bit of resistance and rise in costs.

There are the technical issues with HVAC which have been there from the beginning. Raters are supposed to check the load calculations but training was never incorporated for doing so, and the required checks were a joke. At first it was checking the design temps and house tightness. Those two items don't factor large in HVAC loads. Only an idiot or a person completely ignorant of the issues they are writing the program standards for would do that. The lack of training and the false appearance of the rater actually checking the load calcs put raters in the legal cross hairs. I wrote a letter with David Butler at the time warning of this issue and others. Nothing was done. As I predicted, raters (according to Energy Star) were "linked to homeowner litigation" over the "Right Sizing" rule. E-Stars response was to send out a disclaimer which stated that "engineered sizing calculations have been performed to match the cooling system capacity with the load requirements of your home". Apparently they thought that raters claiming to be engineers, or claiming to be doing engineering work, was the logical answer to that problem. So the load calculation checks were increased twice since then. You would think that, with all of the HVAC requirements now in place, really checking the load calcs, and raters getting trained on load calcs, would be in place, right? Wrong. There are more checks, but the most notable deficiencies are that raters are supposed to check the window area and window values, but not the window overhangs, and duct location is not checked. Again, any jackass that has ever done a load calc, or even knows how they work, understands that you can't have an accurate load calc without doing the window overhangs. It's one of the biggest drivers of heat gain. It's even worse now because it has even more of an appearance that the load calcs are being verified when they are not. And it turns out that ducts and equipment located in a 140 deg. attic vs. having them inside makes quite a difference. Who knew?

Then there is duct sealing. The numbers keep getting tighter. That's great, but they still allow tape to seal the ducts! Again, anyone with the most basic building science knowledge understands that tape fails, and that ducts should be sealed with water-based mastic. So are we testing ducts to find out how much they leak today, or how much they are going to leak in the foreseeable future? I actually finally got an answer from Sam Rashkin on this issue at the RESNET conference a couple of years ago, as V3 was rolling out. He said there was no data showing that tape fails! Besides the fact that tape failure is an obvious problem to anyone who actually does this work for a living instead of righting rules that they apparently aren't qualified to administer, I guess they never heard of the testing that Lawrence Berkley National Labs did years ago. Different part of the government & all that. Iain Walker, one of the scientists in the study, said, “...in our lab tests we have found that the UL 181 products fail. Just because it is UL 181 listed does not mean that it performs any better than non-UL 181 listed products”

They did release documentation with version 3 that was quite good...mostly. The thing is, there are pictures missing from the guide books. There are a bunch of them. One of them is for a wall with incorrect framing! Seriously, how could they not have that picture? Answer, none of them actually do this for a living. There is a box where it should be that says, "Need picture of incorrect framing". I wouldn't put something that inadequate out of my own office. It's just embarrassing. Or apparently it's not embarrassing enough, but it should be.

Sorry Allison, really standing on my soap box hear but I can't help it when it comes to the topic of what's wrong with Energy Star. And I'm usually not so mean but it really is incredible that the largest building performance program in the country continually shows such a fundamental lack of awareness of basic building science principals. And where is RESNET on these issues? They are supposed to be advocating for raters. There are legal issues here for raters that remain unresolved. And there is a new one with advanced framing issues.

So the point of all this, as it pertains to this article, is that many raters are not so enamored with this program either, which doesn't help things.

The other big hurdle for builders was the requirement for reduced thermal bridging and raised heel trusses.

This, by the way, is the latest in putting raters on the spot without the proper training or support. We are now in the position of making judgments on how much framing is too much, and it's not always clear. I was recently challenged by an engineer as to how we could do any advanced framing in a high wind zone. So I went looking for supporting documentation, examples, case studies, something that I was naive enough to think Energy Star would have. Surprise! I found nothing for those of us working in seismic and high wind areas. Raters all over are having builders remove framing with only the barest understanding of the implications. How long before there are problems and the finger is pointed at the raters? Whether the actual issue is related to advanced framing or not, they will be getting blamed and, once again, I don't see any kind of support.

By: Darrel Tenter

Darrel Tenter — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:19:07 +0000
Good to hear about a program
Good to hear about a program like this. Market awareness has always been a big issue for RESNET and the HERS Index.

Regarding the "void left by ENERGY STAR", what do you think caused that in Georgia? Maybe you've written another post about that but I missed it. I ask because my discussions with folks here in Montana indicate ENERGY STAR has been dropped by most builders since V3. I've been told they consider the requirements of V3 to be too burdensome.

By: Skye Dunning

Skye Dunning — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:01:52 +0000

Duke Energy Progress here in
Duke Energy Progress here in NC went with something similar. $1,000 – $4,000 to the builder for building beyond energy code. It’s the best program I’ve ever seen. It’s called the HERO program:

https://www.progress-energy.com/carolinas/business/save-energy-money/residential-new-construction-program-for-builders.page