Feedback on the standard adaption: A summary

GWLast year the PHIUS Technical Committee published its draft report on a climate specific passive building standard. It also called for formal public comment. Here, with an update on that process, is PHIUS Senior Scientist Graham Wright.

We got some good feedback on our standard-adaptation work – fourteen folks submitted some fifty pages of formal commentary altogether. Thanks to all who took the time to write out their thoughts. The PHIUS Technical Committee (TC) reviewed all the feedback.

I’ll summarize the process, but first you might remember that our report is also a report to U.S. Department of Energy Building America (BA) program, a proposal for the next-generation Zero Energy Ready program (ZERH). The reviewers for BA sent 134 line-item comments on the draft report. (We’ve been busy responding to those, and we think the final report is much better now!)

Click on the cover graphic to download the final U.S. DOE Building America report at the Building Science Corporation site.

The DOE/BA and the passive house community have the same goals and are, at a broad conceptual level, working on the same thing (otherwise this work would not have been funded.)  At the workaday level though, there are a lot of differences, and also a lot of investment by the two communities in their own approaches – it’s part-and-parcel with the commitment and passion for better building that both communities share.  But when you ask the questions “is there anything passive house can bring to BA/ZERH” and “is there anything BA can bring to passive building,” it turns out the answer is yes.

The TC believes we’ve achieved a fruitful synthesis, a best-of-both-worlds combination. For example, when it comes to designing for high performance, we agree it’s better to set performance targets and do an energy design than to use prescriptive tables (and by the way that design can be somewhat site-specific). But when it comes to field quality assurance, then  a checklist table – like the BA approach — is the right tool for the job.

To put a finer point on it, we at PHIUS hope the final report persuades BA that the ZERH program should be a performance standard, with criteria on both heating/cooling loads and on total source energy, and that those performance targets are predicated on ducts inside, strict air-tightness, and using really good windows for comfort reasons.

Likewise we hope it makes the case to the passive building community that the heating/cooling criteria can be adjusted for economic feasibility / competitiveness in a climate-sensitive way, that the risks to comfort and building durability are low, and that the heating/cooling energy savings are still impressively deep.  Over all the climate locations studied, the proposed criteria represent median reductions in peak heat load of ~77%, annual heating of ~86%, peak cooling of ~69%, and annual cooling of ~46%.  (The baseline is 2009 IECC code.)

So, about those formal comments: Most commenters checked either 12-20 or 20+ years experience. In terms of survey questions we asked, no one liked star-ratings, so pass-fail it is. In going through the feedback the TC found no surprises–most all of the concerns had indeed been fully vetted en route a consensus over the past two+ years.  Here are some of the specific questions we received, along with answers:

Q: Could WP software be modified to make heating/cooling load calculations consistent with ACCA Manual J and ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 183?
A: That is possible!  Added to the feature request list.

Q: Could PHIUS consider consolidating QA/QC checklist to be free standing from DOE ZERH and EPA Energy Star (for both residential and commercial projects)?
A: Some progress has been made on this. Stay tuned.

Q: Will the standard help me design smaller passive houses?
A: The short answer is probably yes.  There is no explicit “small house break” but there are three changes that indirectly tend to benefit small detached buildings at least in some climates:  air-tightness criterion by shell area instead of volume, source energy allowance per person instead of per square foot, and higher plug load defaults and detailed internal-gain accounting.

Q: Has there been any progress with PHIUS and NFRC in aligning data to meet PHIUS needs and possibly using NFRC data?
A: Not a lot. But we want to get it done this year. Third quarter.

Q: Please explain why you chose the specific denominators in the formulas. For example, why $ 0.155 electricity? 482 kWh? 1341 HDD65?
A: Those are the best-fit numbers determined by the regression analysis, that is, it’s like when you fit a line to a trend in x,y data, the trendline formula has the form y = m*x + b.  The numbers in the denominator are like the m, the slope or sensitivity to each of the factors.

In terms of final refinements to the new standard, PHIUS has been operating an alternate certification path along the lines of the BA draft report for some months as a pilot program. In the February and March meetings, the TC did pass some changes in advance of broader implementation. The changes came from both the feedback and the pilot program experience.

One kind of comment that spoke to us was, “this isn’t disruptive but you might want to change this to align with, or not conflict with, the building code.” The most to-the-point answer to feedback about rules is what gets changed or upheld, so here is the list of changes the TC agreed on:

  • Source energy: The U.S. source energy factor for electricity is adjusted to 3.16 (aligns with IECC 2015). The residential source energy limit is adjusted to 6200 kWh/person.yr.
  • Air-tightness criterion: 0.05 cfm50/sf of envelope area or 0.08 cfm75/sf (testing at 75 Pa aligns with commercial code and U.S. Army Corps). If testing at 75 Pa, report the flow coefficient and exponent from the blower door tests (that way the software can extrapolate to 50 Pa for compatibility of figuring the natural air change rate for infiltration losses).
  • Non-threatening air leakage: If the air-tightness criterion is missed, and the extra leakage can be proven to be due to a non-assembly-threatening leakage element such as a vent damper, certification staff may allow that element to be taped off for the purpose of passing the air-tightness criterion. The un-taped test result must be used for the energy model.
  • Phase-in period:  Dual certification path continues until September 15, after that the old protocol is phased out for PHIUS+ 2015.
  • Break-in period: If a project is seriously constrained on one of the criteria, a case-by-case overage may be allowed on any one of the four space conditioning criteria, or source energy, for the next year.
  • Retrofit:  The retrofit criteria are the same as new construction, except for a case-by-case energy allowance for foundation perimeter thermal bridges or other such hard-to-fix structural thermal bridges. Provided the design is “damage-free” that is, low risk from a moisture point of view.
  • Add-on badge: for supply air heating and cooling sufficient, per static calculation, with the average ventilation rate no more than 0.3-0.4 air changes per hour. (That is, low peak heating load and low peak cooling load. Special recognition for those who favor and design to this particular “functional definition” of a passive building.)

And finally, Katrin’s long-awaited favorite:

  • Add-on badge: for source net zero.  Onsite renewable electricity generation above any that was already credited as coincident-production-and-use, counts towards net zero with the same source energy factor multiplier for electricity, i.e., 3.16.

To me the most substantial comment was along the lines that cost has been added on to the building delivery process, when you consider the labor of the CPHC, the pre-certification review, and the rater visits for quality assurance. The TC believes much of this concern is simply a matter of getting used to the requirements until it becomes the new normal, but we know that there is room for improvement on making the planning tools easier to use, and we will keep working hard on that.  Most commenters felt it was also very important to get the standard written out in human-readable form, not just encoded in WUFI Passive, and we will work on this as well.

Overall, we believe that PHIUS+ 2015 will make passive building more cost-effective across climate zones. The community’s collective experience informed all the work–so thank you all for all your input and hard work and again, thanks to everyone who took the time to submit formal comment. We’re excited to implement the new standard and believe it will dramatically increase adoption of passive building.

 

2 thoughts on “Feedback on the standard adaption: A summary

  1. Pingback: New Passive House Rules Take Effect | SeattleWindowsAndDoors.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *