Many Cereals, One Cereal Aisle

GW

Graham Wright

The PHIUS+ standard has evolved on a very different path than the PHI standard, and they are in no way equivalent. That’s by design, based on deliberate decisions and building science, with a focus on cost-optimization and climate specificity. Still, confusion remains in some corners of the marketplace, confusion that is worsened by articles like the one that appeared in BuildingGreen a few weeks ago. (You can also read Chris McTaggart’s rebuttal at Building Green.)

Here, to provide a full accounting of how and why the standards are different, is PHIUS Senior Scientist Graham Wright. 

At the Seattle PHIUS annual conference in 2017, one of the keynote speakers, Doug Farr, came to a line in his speech saying “many boxes, one cereal.” The point he was making (as I heard it) was that there are a whole lot of “green” and “sustainable” and “high-performance” building programs, badges, and ratings all competing for attention or mind-share, and that this was not good because it made for a diffuse effort toward solving our sustainability problem. What you have, he said, is like a whole bunch of different cereal boxes on the shelf, but inside it’s “all kind of the same stuff.” It would be better if all these different outfits would get together to advocate with one voice.

While I agree that joining forces sounds like a good idea in general, personally I think he got the rest of it almost exactly backwards. For one of the other keynote speakers, Eric Werling, one of his major points was that the details matter. In terms of cereals, it is not all the same stuff — muesli is different from oatmeal or cornflakes or Cap’n Crunch®. We do not have many boxes — one cereal, rather we have many cereals, one cereal aisle. The bacon and hash browns are in another aisle. For the building industry the name of that aisle is probably “Green Building,” I think that’s the broadest and most recognizable term for what we’re talking about, and could encompass high-performance, sustainable, resilient, natural, living, green, healthy, net-zero, and of course, passive. Things it does not encompass but at most only overlaps with would be for example: secure, co-housing, modernist, Usonian, affordable, vernacular, brutalist, social, connected, low-tech and so on — these are quite different “programmatic” considerations and have their own aisles in the pan-galactic building store.

One of these things...

One of these things…

In the case of cereals the reason there are different kinds is because tastes differ, but also because values differ — if I value yumminess above all I will get Cap’n Crunch, but if I value avoiding the family curse of heart attack above all, I will get the oatmeal. In Green Building even more so, we have different programs because of differences in truly heartfelt values. Both builders and their clients bring different values to their meetings — if I am concerned about not polluting the environment, respecting brother salmon, I will go into natural building; if my children are prone to allergies I will look for healthy-home builders; if I

...is not like the other.

…is not like the other.

hate paying utility bills I will go for net-zero, and so on. So it is useful to have badges and rating systems corresponding to these different values or priorities, for matchmaking between builders and buyers of buildings.

Back to the common ground for a moment. It has dawned on many people I think that these different aspects of green building are connected, by a general crisis of climate and sustainability with industrial civilization, that we do have common ground in making the point that we must stop using fossil fuels and putting CO2 and other pollutants into the environment and doing so much mining, if we expect to also keep getting things like fish and wood and well water out of it at the same time, and that we might be able to form a chorus of voices calling for this.

I know of three such separate “common voice” efforts (heh) arising in the last couple of years:

PHIUS has joined Shift Zero, which has come together around the Architecture 2030 definition of zero net carbon buildings. Washington State already has one of the strictest state building energy codes, more stringent than IECC 2015, according to ACEEE, but at the initial Shift Zero summit meeting, the item “Roadmap to a Net Zero Building Code” was chosen as a major focus. This is relevant to us for two reasons: 1) We believe passive building should be on that road! The PHIUS vision statement is to “make high-performance passive building commonplace,” which it would be if it was Screen Shot 2019-08-27 at 1.46.00 PMcode. Also, 2) although it’s not spelled out in the short mission statement on the web site, the long version in the business plan speaks of the climate crisis and how passive building can both mitigate and adapt to climate change. We concur that as a society overall we must get to Zero, not just net-zero but Absolute Zero in terms of emissions, or 100% renewable energy to put it the other way. (The PHIUS Technical Committee has already taken this definition of Zero Net Carbon into consideration for our PHIUS+ 2018 standard update.)

Moreover, we are pursuing an ANSI-approved passive building standard, via the ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 227P. Participation in Shift Zero should allow us to both contribute to and be informed by a Shift Zero effort on Washington State code.

Our aim here is not to “get PHIUS written into WA code”, nor to “get an ANSI stamp” on PHIUS+ 2015 or even 2018, but to develop something that is both rigorous and more flexible, and of more enduring value. Our current standard is mostly performance-based, that is, based on modeled energy use. This requires modeling protocol, modeling software, and training in using it, for both project planners and verification/enforcement caseworkers. The vision for the ANSI/ASHRAE passive standard is that it would use a combination of prescriptive, performance, and outcome-based compliance paths to support the whole range of project scales – from small projects in backwater jurisdictions with few planning or enforcement resources to large projects in capitols that could take on custom cost-optimization studies. The value of PHIUS+ lies not only or even mainly in the current criteria but rather in the principles and methods underlying them, such as the priority on passive measures and conservation, the constrained cost-optimization for the heating and cooling criteria or the fair-share and national-solidarity principles for total energy use.

The “A” in both ASHRAE and ANSI stands for American. The ANSI mission statement is U.S. focused and the web page has a U.S. flag image. But the ASHRAE mission states pointedly that while they started out in U.S. they now have worldwide membership and global services, advancing sustainable technology for the built environment.

An ASHRAE passive building standard then, ought to be serviceable globally (at least in those parts of the globe that have building professionals.)

In my opinion PHIUS brings a track record of experience and care to this effort, as well as integrity, and humility.

As most of you will know, we started out practicing an “International standard” from PHI in Germany, applying it in the U.S. Our first major adaptation was in 2012 with the addition of greatly expanded quality assurance requirements from U.S. DOE programs. We found that the U.S. building industry simply needed a lot more guardrails on quality. This was in essence a cultural adaptation, as was our early support for the inch-pound unit system. Our second major change was a climateadaptation, in 2015 with the elaboration of the climate-specific criteria for heating and cooling.

To make a long story short, we found that the PHI heating and cooling criteria became disconnected from the principle of economic feasibility that supposedly underlay them, when applied to most climates in the U.S. and Canada, and we set out to redeem that promise. That disconnect affected both the heating and the cooling criteria in different ways, and was apparent in the data of PHI’s own climate parametric study of 20111. As a result of that study, PHI indeed adjusted their cooling criteria, adding to the (not climate specific) fixed base cooling demand a substantial and variable allowance for dehumidification (fair enough, there are not many passive measures that do this.) But the heating criteria still only made sense in one climate, and this was never fixed. Most of the U.S. being heating-dominated we thought that important and so went to work on it in 2013-14.

To make the story just a bit longer, what I would call the first-generation passive builders were splinter group off of the “passive solar” or “solar home” movement in the 1970s. Their differentiation was less mass-and-glass, less gain, more insulation, build light and tight. They tended to speak of “superinsulation” to differentiate themselves from the passive solar people, but passive building really is a better word for it; it’s not just about insulation. The canonical work summing up the first-generation ideas is The Superinsulated Home Book. Their concept of what counted as such a home was a little vague – they speak of reducing the heat losses until the building really starts to “act different” – but the definitional ideas included both low annual heating bills and low peak heating loads, that is, very small heating system capacity required, even to the point where a dedicated furnace was no longer needed; “just steal a little heat from the water heater.” This aspect I think forms the appeal to the heart of the “passive-house flavor” of green building cereal — the “self-heating building,” the “furnace-free house.”

The Superinsulated Home Book

The Superinsulated Home Book was published in the early 1980s, just as the bottom fell out of the solar movement stateside. The torch passed to Europe, and when PHI wrote their definition of a passive house, they focused on that low peak heat load concept and drew a line in the sand on how low it should be — basically, the point where the ventilation and heat distribution systems could be combined. This was reasonable and it does give a target number for design heat load, about 10 W per m2 of floor area, that would apply everywhere, at least in any heating-dominated climate. But when it came to writing certification criteria, an alternate compliance path was added by which one could meet a corresponding annual heating demand. Corresponding that is, in the climate of central Europe. This is the notorious 15 kWh/m2 or 4.75 kBtu/ft2, per year. If a building was designed to meet a peak of 10 W/m2 in central Europe, this is the resulting heating demand.

The problem, I say the glaring problem, is that that alternate criterion doesn’t correspond to the peak load definition in other climates. Again, this is according to PHI’s own study from 20111-2012. They took a study building, moved it around to a lot of different climates, adjusted the upgrades to meet the 10 W/m2 peak heat load definition, and plotted the resulting annual heat demand. It varied a lot, generally increasing as the annual average temperature got lower, but there was a lot of scatter, because annual temperature and peak load design temperature aren’t necessarily that closely related, it depends a lot on how close you are to the ocean.

Nevertheless, the PHI heating criteria remained the same two numbers for everywhere, either 10 W/m2 peak, corresponding to their definition, or 15 kW/m2.yr, which mostly doesn’t. Why? I have always darkly suspected that it is because in continental interior climates, the design temperatures for peak heating load are quite low, making the 10 W/m2 much the more difficult of the two numbers to meet. I think they could tell that it would be impractical for single-family dwellings, even attached like a townhouse end unit, to meet the ostensible definition, and so left the 15 kWh/m2 alternate in there as a close-enough cheat. I say it drives bad design, over-glazing, because solar gains do more to lower the annual heat demand than the peak load. (We showed evidence of this in our PHIUS+ 2015 development report published by NREL.)

Therefore, as I mentioned above, after a few years of applying PHI’s standard in the U.S., and noticing this lack of integrity with the heating criteria, we embarked on a reconsideration of the whole thing, in 2013-14. To my recollection, it just so happened that PHIUS and PHI both officially made standards announcements on the same day, March 15, 2015. PHIUS did make changes to all 3 “pillars” or marquee-level criteria — space conditioning, primary energy, and air-tightness. But, as evidenced by what got elaborated, it was clear that PHI had spent most of 2014 working on primary energy, the big change was the new and more nuanced Primary Energy Renewable (PER) metric, while PHIUS had spent most of that time working on new and more nuanced heating and cooling criteria. To go ahead and put a fine point on it, PHIUS took more care in 2014 with the core concept — the passive measures and how far to push them to drive down the heating and cooling loads.

(I must say it was irksome to get comments like, “sounds like PHIUS+ 2015 is just about bolting on some PV.’ when all we had done was put PV on the same footing as solar hot water, while PHI had spent the whole year working on renewable energy.)

Therefore, I think it is fair to say as a general matter, PHIUS has learned the importance of both “cultural” factors and climate factors to the development of passive building standards, and will bring this to an ANSI/ASHRAE standard development project. The approach to climate I think we have a fairly good handle on, and the multiple compliance options mentioned above should be able to accommodate various “building delivery processes”.

Lately it seems, we hear a lot of glossing over the differences between PHI and PHIUS. “It’s all good” kind of talk, “the differences are for nerds” and the like. At some level, this is fair enough. Yes we heart the furnace-free house, yes we like the EN/ISO 13790 monthly method for annual heating and cooling calculation and the EN 12831 for peak heating load, no we are not trying to be “lite” in general; honestly we get as much “we’re going with PHI because it’s easier” as the other way around.

But at some level the details do matter. In particular when it comes to talking about building energy code, mandatory, enforcement, permits approved or denied, people are going to want to know quite specifically what are the rules, yes?

Let’s think about the most simple and straightforward proposal I’ve heard for a building energy code: enacted in a skit by Henry Gifford and Chris Benedict of New York City, they propose the code consists of just a criterion on the design heating system capacity, that is, a peak heat load. Even with just that, you can see it would take some pages to spell out: by what method or methods of calculation? Do the methods vary for residential versus nonresidential buildings? Are solar gains or thermal mass to be credited with reducing peak loads? By what method are the design temperatures to be determined? Shall these be historical or forward-looking at climate change? Who is qualified to perform the load calculations and to review them? Does the criterion apply zone-by-zone or to the building as a whole? What if I have multiple buildings served by a central system?

So yes, at some level it is fair to say, PHI and PHIUS that is blueberry muesli, all good. But when it comes to the Food and Drug Administration, and to many customers, it is going to matter what is in those blueberries exactly. Are those real blueberries or fake f@#$% blueberries? Are the real blueberries GMO Roundup-ready blueberries or organic blueberries?

At PHIUS I think we have demonstrated some care and forethought in adapting our program and standards in the direction of suitability for incentives and codification in North America, while remaining faithful to the heart of the passive building concept. We will bring this experience and intention to the development of a more widely/globally applicable ANSI/ASHRAE Passive Building Design Standard With Path to Zero Emission or 100% Renewable Energy Society or the like.

ASHRAE requires a fairly public and transparent process and we seek the participation of the best building energy experts anywhere who find this vision agreeable — including PHI, with just one proviso: that 15 kWh/m2 everywhere is not going to make it, that is fake blueberry and we cannot have it in this muesli. If you can let that one thing go at last, the possibilities for fruitful collaboration open up. As those conveners I mentioned in Bonn, Seattle, and Portland have been suggesting, let us get the oars in the water and try to row in a more coordinated way at the goal of a Zero emission / 100% renewable built environment.

1 Schneiders, J.; Feist, F.; Schulz, T.; Krick, B.; Rongen, L.; Wirtz, R. (2012). Passive Houses for Different Climate Zones. Passive House Institute and University of Innsbruck.

 

 

The North American Passive House Conference in San Francisco – a hard act to follow for NAPHC2015 (in Chicago)

Every year we say “This was the best passive house conference ever, we better stop now, we can’t possibly top this experience, the quality of the presenters, the “meat on the building science bones” presentations, technical details and specific construction solutions, cutting edge projects of all building types showcased throughout all climate zones, policy and government role discussions and incentives… and this year in addition to the Builders’ Hootenanny the Architects’ Hootenanny which, you might have guessed, was a hoot.

Let me take this opportunity to thank our community of longstanding CPHCs, PHIUS Certified Builders and PHIUS+ Raters who have shared this passive building path with us now for almost 10 years. It has been a pleasure knowing so many great folks with their hearts in the right place and a common characteristic: a determined pioneering spirit to make the energy transition in the way we build and live happen. Thanks to all passive building practitioners and to newcomers to the conference especially the international speakers from the UK and Japan.

Together you submitted nearly 100 abstracts and we had a hell of a time to choosing the best ones. We ended up with an unprecedented total of 72 sessions in 4 tracks this year, more than ever before (we cut the plenary short upon your request to get to the meaty sessions quicker and to have more of them).

Special thanks go to Sam Rashkin from the DOE, for his invaluable contributions to the tracks on government perspective and for the great partnership he and the DOE have provided to the PHIUS+ certification program over the past couple of years. Sam took time to be with us on the Sunday tour of passive buildings in the bay area, which was a lot of fun.

I would especially like to thank all of our outstanding pre-conference workshop presenters who covered topics in great depth, most popular were the Multifamily Palooza (kicked off by Chris Benedict who currently leads the field with the most passive projects in this sector realized), Passive Building Science with Joe Lstiburek (our unofficial lounge sponsor), packed the house closely followed by Mechanical Systems and commercial applications. Many thanks to the outstanding instructors who tackled more specific technical issues and new frontiers, such as efficient water systems design by Gary Klein, and Matthias Patzold from the Fraunhofer IBP and PHIUS staff presenting on dynamic energy modeling in WUFI Passive, THERM/windows modeling and PHIUS+ certification QAQC during the rater training. To all our presenters, pre-conference and main session: Thank you all so much! It would have not been possible without you!!!!

We owe many thanks to Michael Hindle, our charismatic Master of Ceremonies, and President of the Board of Managers of Passive House Alliance US (PHAUS). His opening speech was inspiring, artful and philosophical, The Passive House Alliance is now 16 chapters strong with 7 more in formation all over the country. It is starting to develop an impressive momentum regarding advocacy for passive buildings across the nation. Michael pledged to the membership that he would keep increasing member benefits and participation opportunities and closed with a call for action to join the many committees that have been formed to get the work done.

Michael also made a very well received announcement: the PHAUS  board has moved to remove any reference to a specific passive house standard from chapter founding documents. This decision rightly recognizes that since the inception of the passive house concept in the 70s in North America, it has undergone more than just one transformation and that evolution and learning will continue. It must continue to evolve for us to be successful. PHAUS leadership supports the new climate specific Passive Building standards brought forward by PHIUS as part of such evolution.

Bill Rose followed with the most thoughtful, most provocative keynote given at the North American Passive House Conference yet. Many of you came to me afterwards expressing that sentiment. He showed a short video recording from the early 70s of the researchers credited with formalizing the superinsulation/passive concepts. They worked at the Small Homes Council, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Illinois. The video reinforced the notion that the passive house community has a longstanding history here in the United States. He then showed a document written by the Nixon administration predicting peak oil and climate change to happen in 2010. It was a stunning piece of evidence that the issues had been known then, as well as the possible remedies outlined in the document. The document, then issued a clear call for action, recognizing the emerging passive community as having the best approach for reducing the demand side of buildings.

Rose made clear that facing the climate crisis means we also need to step up to transform the supply side of the system, coming up with strategies of how to keep the fossil fuel reserves in the ground and how to challenge the current economies that are all built around such assets. He ended provocatively saying, that we need to get to a point where we will be saying: “Energy (fossil fuels), what’s that?”

After the keynote and during all breaks, the exhibit hall was buzzing. A big thank you to all exhibitors of high performance materials and technologies! Every year the cast has been expanding significantly and new useful materials and systems manufacturers join the core group of providers. Thank you, without your products and services it would be impossible to realize passive buildings as well as we now do. Of course, also thank Exhibit Hall sponsor Bayer MaterialScience and our lanyard sponsor Hayward Lumber. Bill Hayward joined us on the tour and provides some great local background. Be sure to check the Hayward Health Home, a very cool initiative.

Achilles Karagiozis delivered the closing keynote. He spoke on the view forward, the implementation of passive buildings worldwide in all different climate zones and the challenges and responsibilities that come with it. He stressed the importance of dynamic modeling for accurate energy prediction results as passive building is applied in different climate zones. He cited an astounding example: WUFI Passive is now able to predict insulation material dependence on temperature on an hourly basis. And of course, this is important to assess hygrothermal performance of enclosures as well as to get the energy balances calculated with more accurate granularity. A great new age has arrived for us designers to manage our risks in designing passive buildings, thanks to the emergence of more powerful computing capabilities that make dynamic models feasible.

At closing, maybe best of all, the incredible sense of community of people who trust each other and know each other well:  We have been coming together now for almost a decade, reuniting at this amazing annual event working together to devise solutions for the North American market, its climate zones and building sector.

And this year, for the first time, the event was held in one of the largest and most exciting metropolitan areas: the San Francisco Bay area. This meant a significant step up from the previous conferences and importance in visibility of our community to city and government leaders, in California and beyond.  Passive building has turned the corner. And so has PHIUS as we were more than once told during the event by you.

PHIUS’ Senior Scientist Graham Wright’s presentation on new North American Passive Building Standards that are currently being completed under a DOE Building America grant was very well received: “This sounds like a really good program” was consistent feedback. The interest was so large that the session had to be moved from the break out room to the ball room. Most everybody was in support, not one negative comment! Kudos to excellent work by Graham Wright and a clearly laid out and scientifically founded argument by the tech committee.

And last but not least thanks to the PHAUS San Francisco chapter and John Sarter and Lizzie Adams from PHCA for helping to organize a fantastic tour of project on a beautiful Sunday in paradise: From multiuse building to state of the art office building to residential retrofit projects, it was great!

Thank you all for coming, for your contributions, participation and feedback on what to do better next year. Keep it coming so that the next act will be better yet again… see you in Chicago, details to come!

 

 

 

 

Passive house and the public domain

Because we’ve been getting questions that indicate there is a perception that PHIUS and PHI are in some sort of legal proceedings, it’s worth setting the record straight.

When PHI cancelled operating agreements with PHIUS in 2011 it was unfortunate, but there were no legal actions associated with the split. PHI and PHIUS each had the right to cancel the agreements regarding project certification, PHPP distribution, etc.

In 2012, Dr. Wolfgang Feist filed an application to register a trademark and claim exclusive rights in the term “Certified Passive House.” In his application, Dr. Feist also claimed that he had the exclusive right to use the terminology “Passive House” in the United States. Meaning that anyone using passive house in their business name, credentials, etc., would have reason to be concerned.

PHIUS has trained nearly 2,000 professionals and, since the start of 2012, has certified 120 projects with that many more projects in the pipeline. That’s a sizeable constituency that would not be well-served by any entity owning the term “Certified Passive House” or “Passive House.”

We’ve written here before about the origins of the passive house term—it was not first used in Darmstadt. And about the scientific disagreement about whether there should be a single standard (PHIUS’ work with Building Science Corporation will yield a climate-specific set of standards). And that passive house refers to a set of design principles and a performance goal, but not a rigid single metric for all climates.

Therefore, we felt compelled to challenge the application for trademark. We made our argument in this notice of opposition.

Dr. Feist didn’t dispute our claims and the Trademark Office entered judgment for PHIUS and denied the application. As a result, the terms “certified passive house” and “passive house” remain in the public domain.

The bottom line is that we’re happy to report that while philosophical and scientific differences remain, PHI and PHIUS are not in any legal proceedings.

 

 

 

 

PHNW5 conference: Congratulations on a very impressive event!

The Pacific Northwest Passive House community is the oldest and largest in the country and consequently leads the nation in built, certified projects.  The progress is amazing: When I keynoted the very first PHNW meeting in Olympia, there were about a 100 people, a handful of exhibitors. The number and quantity of presentations and exhibits last week at this year’s even was breathtaking.

PHIUS first brought its CPHC training programs to Portland and Seattle in 2009. Today, of more than 1500 professionals who have taken PHIUS CPHC or Builder training, approximately 300 reside in the Northwest.

Two builders/CPHCs are among those who helped lead the way by building spec projects: Blake Bilyeu’s and his dad’s project in Salem, Ore. (The Rue-Evans House), and  Dan Whitmore’s first passive house project in Seattle. Rob Hawthorne, too, has played a leading role with his Corehaus (which was on the projects tour at the 5th Annual North American Passive House conference, along with Blake’s), Trekhaus and 02Haus. Many, many have joined them. What a success story for the PHNW and the entire PH community!  That’s why I’m giving them a shout out—and I hope my good readers will pass along word of all the good work.

It was gratifying to see that most presented projects at PHNW had been designed, consulted on, built by or rated through PHIUS CPHCs, PHIUS Certified Builders and/or PHIUS+ raters. Nearly all projects put a premium on rigorous third party quality assurance and went with the PHIUS+ Certification program. Thank you for your vote of confidence and continued support of PHIUS. It is much appreciated.

Now, to some conference highlights: Kudos to the Stellar Apartments in Eugene, Ore., the very first PHIUS+ Certified affordable multifamily project! Stellar received PHIUS+ certification in 2013. What a milestone! Congratulations go to Jan Fillinger and Win Swafford as the lead CPHCs/architects on the project and Peter Reppe, also a CPHC, who designed the mechanical system.  University of Oregon Professor Alison Kwok—a former PHIUS board member and a CPHC, and her students pushed the research envelope and presented a detailed study of  measured results of the fully occupied apartments since last September. The developer had decided to build side-by-side examples of the same project: One is built to passive standards, one to Earth Advantage/Energy Star. The student team compared the results of the two test buildings, an excellent comparative study. Stay tuned for final results! I am sure we are going to see a great paper come out of these efforts.

Another highlight: The 19 unit Kiln Apartments in Portland is almost completed and awaiting final PHIUS+ certification. David Posada, who was in the very first CPHC class in Portland, approached me at the 3rdPHNW conference and told me about this multifamily project he wanted to pitch. Thanks to his persistence, it became real. PHIUS stayed involved with David through the PHIUS+ certification process and onsite verification by our PHIUS+ Raters and CPHCs in Portland, Skylar Swinford and Ryan Shanahan.

Skylar and Ryan presented on their quality assurance experience with this project. I was fortunate enough to get a spot on the tour, the only one for which this project is ever going to open its doors for, on Saturday. Truly a pleasure! Thank you, David, for moving this pioneering project forward. I can already see the ripple effect elsewhere in the country. Thank you, Skylar and Ryan, the extremely talented rater team pioneering the onsite verification, and of course also thank you to the architects on this project. It is an exceptionally handsome and exciting building!

The educational content of the conference was on par with the quality of PHIUS annual North American Passive House Conferences: the Northwest was not afraid of the most recent discussions in the field.

PHIUS is proud to note that PHIUS trainers, tech committee and board members Prudence Ferreira, Adam Cohen, Thorsten Chlupp and Chris Benedict presented 4 workshops during the pre-conference program. Prudence covered WUFI dynamic modeling, Chris reviewed multi-family Brooklyn and Manhattan (Chris’s project is also awaiting final PHIUS+ certification and was quality assured through Terry Brennan). Thorsten Chlupp’s presented his invaluable experience from the very cold climate in Alaska. Adam shared his extensive design build experience highlighting the business side of things and commercial projects, also PHIUS+ quality assured.

During the core conference Prudence spoke on the advantages of the WUFI Passive modeling tool. Graham Wright, board member of the PHNW and PHIUS senior scientist, presented on the current standard adaptation status by PHIUS and Building Science Corporation.

Special compliments go to Dan Whitmore, PHIUS certified builder/CPHC trainer and board member of PHNW: He was very much involved in putting together the schedule and presentations. Great work!

Again, it was a pleasure to be there, seeing so many friends and familiar faces. The progress is stunning and will hopefully inspire many all over the United States to follow in your footsteps!

Kat

 

Looking back and ahead at passive building

Today PHIUS delivers its CPHC training virtually and and across the country, and in partnership with organizations like Yestermorrow and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It all started with the first class in Urbana, Ill., in 2008, pictured above. Bottom row, from l-r:  John Essig, Dave Brach, Mary Graham, Katrin Klingenberg, Laura Briggs, Jonah Stanford. Second row: Christina Snyder, Luis Martinez, Jim Olson, Lance Wright, Paul Eldrenkamp, Hayden Robinson, Henry Gifford, David White, Graham Irwin. Back row: Katia Sussman, Tim Moran, Ian Schnack, Al Hothan, John Highland, Gino Mazzaferro, Mark Hoberecht, Ed Shank, Bogdan Zagorowski, Jesper Kruse, Steve Robinson, Matt Howard, Tim Eian, Harold Finigan, Vahid Mojarrab, Tad Everhart, Marc Rosenbaum

I wrote in my last post about how my diagnosis with MS motivated me to rebalance my lifestyle and nutrition. One other positive by-product has been an opportunity to reflect. Once again, reflection and mindfulness – like good nutrition – have always been a goal. But the MS forced the issue by slowing me down (at least for awhile).

And I was reminded of what a rich and wonderful journey it’s been, and how far we’ve come together.

When I set out a dozen years ago, it was not simply to advance passive house principles. It was to help shrink our carbon footprint—and the effects of climate change. Passive building seemed then as it does now to be a critical part of the solution.

I started by building my own residence in Urbana, Ill. Then Mike Kernagis joined me as construction manager on two affordable passive houses built in partnership with the City of Urbana. One other affordable home was built in 2011, and we designed three private homes. And, the Solar Decathlon Home 2009 came home from D.C. after placing second, bringing the number of passive homes in the Champaign-Urbana area to eight.

The reaction — from points far and wide across the country was — so strong and positive that we assembled the first English language CPHC (Certified Passive House Consultant) training program in 2008.

It’s been a whirlwind since then. In 2009 we founded the Passive House Alliance US (PHAUS) and communities of our trainees coalesced in their respective regions, forming groups such as PHCA, PHNW, NYPH and PHNE. PHAUS, a PHIUS program, has added more than a dozen chapters under the PHAUS umbrella nationwide.

Most important, we deliver the training nationally and virtually now, and the community of PHIUS-trained CPHCs (now 550+ strong) started building real, successful projects across North America’s climate zones. Some of the bleeding edge heroes of the effort include Dan Whitmore, Jan Fillinger, Win Swafford, Tad Everhart, Blake Bilyeu, Randy Foster and Tessa Smith, Alex Boetzel and Stephan Aiguier, Rob Hawthorne, Margo Rettig, Jesse Thomas, Joe Giampietro, Graham Wright and Sam Hagerman in the Northwest. In the Bay Area, the torch was carried by Allen Gilliland (the first NZE home in Calif.), Graham Irwin, Rick Milburn, Nabih Tahan, Lowell Moulton, Katy Hollbacher and Prudence Ferreira.

The Northeast honor roll: Laura Briggs, Paul Eldrenkamp, Marc Rosenbaum, Peter Schneider and J.B. Clancy, Mike Duclos and Paul Panish, Alan Gibson and Matt O’Malia, Svea Tullberg, Jesper Kruse, Stephanie Bassler, Jesse Thompson, Laura Blau, Tim McDonald, Chris Benedict and Henry Gifford, Dennis Wedlick, David White, Ken Levenson, Jordan Goldman and Stephanie Horowitz, Andreas Benzing, Julie Torres-Moskovitz.

David Peabody, Adam Cohen, John Semmelhack, Michael Hindle, Barbara Gehrung, Alan Abrams and Dan Levy have led the way in the Mid-Atlantic region; Chris Senior, Clarke Snell and Jeff Buscher in the Carolinas; Ed Shank and Mark Hoberecht, Eric Lang, Pat Murphy, Mary Rogero and Faith Morgan in Ohio.

In Kentucky, Ginger Watkins and Michael Hughes have been leaders; way up North Stephan Tanner, Tim Eian, Carly Colson, Rachel Wagner and Mike LeBeau carried the banner. Lance Wright and Brian Fuentes sparked the community in Colorado; Joaquin Karcher and Jonah Stanford in New Mexico; Dave Brach in Salt Lake; Vic Weber in Idaho; Ross Elliott and Natalie Leonard in Canada; Thorsten Chlupp in Alaska: Linda Metropulos, Laura Nettleton and Michael Whartnaby in Pennsylvania; Tom Bassett-Dilley, Mark Miller and Patrick Danaher in Chicago. Finally, Dave Stecher, Dylan Lamar (who also did the first IP version of PHPP while at PHIUS, a critical step), Ian Schnack, Ryan Abendroth and Darcy Bean helped blaze trails back at home in Urbana, and later on their own in Phoenix, St.Louis, Portland Ore. and Pittsburgh. Pa.

There are more—like Corey Saft who had the gumption to build a passive house in Louisiana. We learned so much from that project. Surely I am omitting people – I apologize for any memory lapse. The point is, there’s no substitute for all of your commitment. I feel privileged to be part of your community.

We are headed toward our 9th Annual Conference, and today, in addition to CPHC training, we offer PHIUS Certified Builders Training, and a PHIUS+ Rater training that enables HERS raters to accurately rate passive houses. These programs are relatively new, but the Certified Builder program is always sold out and already the community of PHIUS Certified Builders is approaching 100; and the Rater community is right behind it.

We’ve forged strategic partnerships with the likes of the U.S. DOE, Building Science Corporation, RESNET, Rocky Mountain Institute. We’ve also established  relationships with the prestigious Fraunhofer IBP, Owens Corning and Oak Ridge National Lab—a partnership that produced WUFI Passive. WUFI Passive is a fantastic software modeling tool that is making passive energy modeling easier, more accurate, and integrated with WUFI hygrothermal analysis. It’s a commercial grade software tool with a streamlined GUI and the most powerful passive and hygrothermal modeling capabilities on the market. It is, simply, a leap forward.

Looking back, I see there was another critical group—and I mean critical. Let’s call them the passive house skeptics. They’ve ranged from Marc Rosenbaum to Joe Lstiburek to Martin Holladay.

When I set out to prove passive house principles in the United States, I was energetic, armed with information from the German PHI, and … a little naïve. Passivhaus was new to me and the majority of people I talked to about it. And I thought—like a lot of like-minded people—that I’d discovered something brand new.

After I built my own passive house in 2002, and we started getting some attention in the mainstream and trade press, I began hearing from energy conservation pioneers. On one hand, they were excited to see conservation back on the front burner, after interest in it trailed off back in the 80s.

But some were also a bit miffed. I didn’t understand it at the time – and misunderstood it as resistance to change. It was quite the opposite. It was the notion that this passivhaus or passive house was new that was irksome to them.

Indeed, I learned that the foundation principles that distinguished what I called passive house in English or passivhaus in German were not at all new. Superinsulation, high-performance doors and windows, removing thermal bridges, energy recovery ventilation/minimizing mechanicals, managing solar gain. A group of pioneers — including some in my own backyard in Urbana at the University of Illinois—had formulated these concepts decades earlier.

What we have learned – and I say we because we’ve learned it side-by-side with CPHCs and builders who’ve faced real-world challenges across climates—is that this group of early pioneers had valid misgivings about passive house as formulated in Europe. The concerns included the small-house penalty, North American issues with latent humidity, and the cost-effectiveness of investing in the envelope as opposed to renewables. The biggest concern: deep disagreement that a single numerical standard for all climate zones could make sense.

Reasonable people can and will disagree. But on the single standard, we at PHIUS have come to agree that a one-size-fits-all-climates standard is flawed, and is a major factor holding back adoption. I, like a lot of people, found the notion that a single number could work for all climates magnetically attractive. But in our experience designing, building, certifying and monitoring, we’ve concluded it doesn’t work. That’s an important departure, but not a disagreement about passive house principles being the best place to start for high performance building.

That’s why we’re engaged with Building Science Corporation in testing climate-specific standards that use the peak load calculation (which underlies also the European standard) as a baseline. (BTW, again—climate-specific doesn’t necessarily mean “easier.” In some climate zones, we expect the standard to tighten.)

Now, make no mistake: When interest in conservation waned in the United States and Canada in the 80s, the efforts of Drs. Bo Adamson and Wolfgang Feist to formulate passive principles for Europe were heroic, and Dr. Feist’s continuing efforts with PHI have been invaluable. In particular the PHPP was an important step toward putting modeling within reach of passive house professionals. We owe them gratitude. But the work of our entire community, the advancement of building science and innovation must quite naturally go on. There is no holy grail here.

Some lament the differences that exist within the passive building community. To be sure, some of the harsh rhetoric and hurt feelings have been regrettable (and, I think, entirely avoidable moving forward). But we see different and competing ideas as healthy and necessary. It’s only natural that as a community grows, it grows more vital and diverse, and that competing views—and to be sure, competing interests—arise.

The entire passive house community, regardless of scientific position or organizational loyalties, is pulling toward conserving energy and reducing carbon emissions, while constructing extremely comfortable, healthy and resilient buildings. And we agree that passive is a great way to do that. But honest competition has always driven growth and innovation. Trying to put a lid on ideas suppresses growth, and leaves us fighting over a very small pie.

Here’s to a vibrant and diverse passive house community, and to a much, much larger pie!

Katrin