Comments on: Why Is RESNET Limiting Its Options for Improvement?

By: George Kopf

George Kopf — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:40:43 +0000

Insightful comments. I agree:
Insightful comments. I agree: there are major issues with HERS and EP5. That said, it's also worth noting that we are Building Scientists. As such, we should be familiar with the scientific process: observe, hypothesize, test, exam results, repeat. We are still at the beginning. Let's give our industry a well-deserved pat on the back and get back to work. We have much to do and the clock is ticking. We'll get there - but only by following the unforgiving and tedious scientific process.

By: Arlene Z. Stewart

Arlene Z. Stewart — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:13:07 +0000

I feel bamboozled. For years
I feel bamboozled. For years, I've been teaching people about Resnet's '3rd party system'. Raters check the houses, Providers check the raters, Resnet checks the providers.

And now you're telling me that Resnet hasn't been checking the providers. I'm dumbfounded. Every organization that I know who has a certification program has yearly audits of their 'providers'. I simply don't understand how Resnet thinks it can play in the big boy certification sandbox and yet miss this integral step. Yay Laurel for dragging them in.

And now, instead of going the tried and true route that every other certification program does, it's going to undercut the business model for their boots on the ground people? There is plenty of cheese to go around, folks! Contract with an audit company and get the data for how these rating are off wildly! enforce your own system before changing it!

I sent in a comment, but I fear that I wasn't nearly articulate enough and will therefore be ignored.

By: paul scrivens

paul scrivens — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:50:51 +0000

Word document <
Word document

After going through the process it became obvious to me that a RESNET energy rater could not make a reasonable living following the RESNET requirements. In 2010 I decided to retire and have a home built to a LEED gold standard. I went on the RESNET training class so that I would know what the requirements were for both energy star and LEED and so I could be the LEED project leader.

My intention was to become a rater after my home was completed. Unfortunately the bureaucratic pyramid scheme required for RESNET certification made it impossible to support a financial reward. Some of the hurdles included completing a training class and passing a test, finding a provider and fulfilling numerous RESNET ongoing training requirements. It was also necessary to purchase a number of expensive instruments to complete an audit and an expensive licensed software package.

The first obstacle was that providers also did audits and saw other raters as competition and therefore didn’t want to be a provider to them. Second they controlled the software license and charged what they liked (could get away with), third they charged the rater for each compulsory audit review and fourth they performed expensive on-site quality audits each year on a percentage of rater audits. All this added up to a lot of cost to the rater. Fee’s for an audit varied a lot, but a consensus was that the rating should be under $1000.00 and as low as $600.00. This was still seen as high for some builders and homeowners ignored it until the utility companies introduced their own $99.00 program, which in fact was a $400.00 program that the utility customers were unknowingly paying for.

I concluded that I would have to perform over thirty five audits a year just to break even. It was obvious the rout to go was to subcontract the audit to someone else; unfortunately, many others had come to the same conclusion and changed career direction; even the provider I had trained with went out of business.

And now RESNET is trying to add another layer of bureaucracy and cost to the process. If a rater is trained correctly and passes the test; and if the software tools are easy to use and the input data is strait forward why should you need all this checking and double checking. The problem lies in the complexity of the software; as with all software after a time it becomes too complex. Engineers love to add stuff, more and more details that cloud the simplicity and create error mechanisms; I know I was an electronic engineer.

Building science is not rocket science and RESNET is treating it as rocket science. There are two many layers and costs to overcome for the reward, and LEED is even worse. The new 2012 IECC standard is coming close to Energy Star and is being adopted by local building authorities over the next two to three years. These standards are being verified by home inspectors with contractors providing the data. It will take very little effort to record these numbers and put them in a MLS file. It costs nothing beyond that of the building fees and it provides most of the same information insulation and leakage levels, HVAC and appliance specifications etc as energy star. The only missing specification is the HERS rating and I am sure if that is important to the industry it will be resolved with the DOE NREL BEopt package or one of the many others. If RESNET doesn’t streamline the process and get ride of the multilayer pyramid they will go the way of other organizational monstrosities.

Just my observation!

By: John Nicholas

John Nicholas — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:52:02 +0000

My point exactly Rich! The
My point exactly Rich! The current system of Providers and QADs is not broken. It is just not uniform. If providers require different documentation then it is easy to game the system.

RESENT could fix a lot of it real fast.
1) Include Raters in the communications loop with QADs regarding QA requirements.

Allowing raters to learn in any other way creates less uniform results.

2) Require each rater to take pictures of some data points. Ex: Elevation Views; AGW insulation; FDN wall insulation; framing; duct blaster probe location with tube in the grill; duct blaster set up; duct blaster manometer reading; blower door set up from outside; blower door manometer reading; attic insulation showing level and with a ruler showing thickness.

That alone will guarantee at least one, if not two visits to the building by every rater.

Require elevation shots and one other of the requirement image to be sent in for archive purposes. Make the one other shot a request from the QAD after receipt of the file. They can randomly choose which shot.

How about random email questions from RESENT to raters about the QA process. Ex: Send a copy of the certificate on your manometer showing the calibration date. Show us which manometer you used for the Blower Door and which one for the duct blaster, if you have more than one manometer. Show the documentation that you are in compliance with the field calibration checks on your manometers, blower door and duct blaster fan. The QAD is supposed to have this stuff, why depend on them. Collect the information direct and then check with the QAD to see they also have it.

Require QADs to do desk audits on files, Collect all images taken at the job site.

Implement desk audits of QADs, require them to randomly submit desk audits of raters. See they are complying with the data collection documentation that we all know is required.

All of these things can be done with 30 days notice or less. It just takes will power and bucking some people.

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:20:27 +0000

I think this conversation is
I think this conversation is long overdue on multiple levels.
The provider/rater business model is one that should either not exist or have a different set of QA regulations. Not only in the case of the provider performing QA on their own people and files but also in competing with the independent rater. The large McRating companies are racing to the bottom in their earnings-through-volume business models that inevitably drives the true value of the rating into the ground forcing raters who can't compete with the Provider-Mart in a bid war to sell out and eventually subcontract with them. As a result the rater is paid so little they either look the other way, sub out to another person (likely not a certified), or not even show up to test at all. I've actually gotten into arguments with Ronald McProvider himself because "none of the other subcontracted raters have a problem with what we're doing." There also needs to be improved QA on providers and QADs. I will leave it at that and refrain from sharing my personal experiences.
Another thing about RESNET that baffles me is this...HERs ratings (Energy Star certifications) are all points of data. If we are all collecting the same data so why is there no universal data base or standardized system to collect it? Providers issue their own data collection and field testing forms which, if it’s in Word format, is so out dated I feel as if I need to get out my chisel and hammer. If the provider needs to see the pressure readings from my single point test, on any house I’ve ever rated, they should be able to access it. The Energy Star data collection process is even more cumbersome and I know companies like ICF have paid to create a data collection app to streamline the process. Have any raters seen it?
Next: My understanding is that RESNET performs QA's on providers through a webinar? I hope this is only in the interim because it’s just not a sustainable model. Again, the information they need to see should be accessible on any given day at any time. Seems to me that having a app or software that allows for immediate upload of data collected in the field as well as a place to store .bld files would decrease the burden of the provider, improve the RESNET QA process on both the provider and the rater, and make the rating process that much smoother.
This is just my two cents…I definitely don’t claim to have the answers but like I said, I’m glad we’re having the conversation.

By: Ryan Moore

Ryan Moore — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:24:11 +0000

If there was a regional or
If there was a regional or national provider, then I think they could, and should, hire people for each region from that region, people with knowledge of building styles in the area.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:16:48 +0000

Ernest M.:
Ernest M.: There's definitely some truth in that.

John N.: Good point. I hope you'll submit that in the public comments.

Richard B.: Good points, but I do believe we can make this work.

Steve W.: OK, I need to revise the article a bit because RESNET does have at least one technical person (Abe Kruger) helping with QA. They contract with him to provide assistance to Laurel, but it's not nearly enough.

John P.: Yes, RESNET absolutely needs to have technical people checking up on all providers with field QA. As far as I know, that's something they've done next to nothing of.

Amanda H.: Good point.

By: Amanda Hatherly

Amanda Hatherly — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:03:07 +0000

In Santa Fe we have greatly
In Santa Fe we have greatly benefited by having knowledgeable local providers who know our unique style of building. I wonder if a large regional provider would be able to explain the intricacies of modeling a trombe wall, for example.

By: John Proctor

John Proctor — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:51:45 +0000

Allison, I think your
Allison, I think your proposal is good and that a small percentage of the ratings be, on site, checked by a technical person from RESNET -- not someone else.
As we have talked (and watch this space for more) ratings within 3% of each other would be very rare indeed!!!

By: Steve Waclo

Steve Waclo — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:49:39 +0000

Allison,

Allison,

At the risk of broadcasting my ignorance, I'm puzzled by this observation:

"Laurel is doing a wonderful job and RESNET is lucky to have her, but she's not a technical person. She's never been a HERS rater and isn't a QAD. I don't think the QA Manager needs to have those qualifications, but RESNET has to have technical people involved in the oversight process."

Best wishes

I agree that with a bit of orientation and familiarity, an individual with solid management skills can manage anything, but the second part is a mystery. Could you please elaborate?