Steven Phoenix of Melton Construction in Boulder offered some thoughts from the retrofit contractor’s perspective after Xcel Energy added potential penalties for re-work in the Home Performance with Energy Star progam.
- Contractors as well as clients should be fully aware of the performance requirements for HPwES improvements, and whether or not that program fits their particular budget for the project.
- The approved scope of work should specify the infiltration and insulation ‘targets’ and the value of the project should be commensurate with realistically reaching those goals.
- Air sealing targets are the most difficult to remediate - it seems to me that a contractor performing this work should be able to set up depressurization on the final scheduled day of installation and spot-tune the project.
- If a client opts to choose a HPwES program, the installers might have quoted a ‘basic’ improvements package, and may need to re-bid the job to reach those targets.
- Installers shouldn’t be responsible to meet targets established AFTER the installation has been completed based on a clients’ desire to apply for a program with higher rebates.
- There is an education component, and people that want to participate in the program should be asked to understand the program requirements and basic cost outlay prior to applying for the funds.
- Contractors that cannot demonstrate success should not be involved in the program.
- Our typical approach is to give the client a good/better/best set of options for insulation and air sealing. Obviously, air sealing is something you could spend a few hours on or a whole week, depending on your objectives.
- It seems that there is a wide array of thermal improvement recommendations - I often disagree with the best cost-benefit approach for my clients. As our industry grows, it is important to refine our professional advisement to reflect a homogenous, effective and tested set of recommendations. For example, enclosing the crawl space is a common boiler-plate solution in the XCEL audits, but this is a much more complex solution in many homes where (soil level/sub-soil) water/moisture issues are present, or when combustion appliances there.
- There should be more industry interface when XCEL refines its rebate program for 2010. As an example, offering a rebate of any value for a 57% DWH replacement seems counter-intuitive to stimulating a robust high-efficiency upgrade; appliances in general are a pretty expensive for of energy improvement, and our cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that in the long run, getting the demand-load of a structure reduced to its lowest levels first is ALWAYS the best ROI, in the long and short run.
Dan DePontbriand, owner of Castle Rock’s Mountain Air:
While I agree with some of Stevens points and disagree with others, the overriding factor is that the HPwES program was meant to be implemented with contractors doing there own testing, and fixing the problems they find. We can argue the point of what measures provide the best cost return ratio, but that is not the problem here. The problem is doing work based on tests and diagnosis by others, without the contractor having seen what happened during testing. Than, after performing work blindly, who is responsible for the results?
As an example, if they tighten the house with air sealing, who is responsible for the new dynamic that is being caused in the combustion zone, and if the homeowner hasn’t been informed about the possibility of adding make-up air, which if air sealing is done properly, is a common need.
As one of the original 3 HPwES contractors in Colorado, we were surprised to find a program that is allowing for work to completed by contractors not necessarily trained in all aspects of building science.
It is very important to remember, that in the end, someone is responsible, good or bad, for the changes made in the home based on these audits. The audits being completed are a good starting point for the contractors, but each contractor should be doing there own testing out to verify results.
If someone air seals a house to .25 NACH, and no test out is done, and no accounting is made for ventilation air, who is responsible when the house develops problems that are a result?
I think it is imperative that contractors in the HPwES program are trained and certified in HPwES, with all the associated tools and certifications. (Blower doors, combustion analyzers, manometers, infrared cameras, flow hoods, etc.)
One other example; We performed an audit in Evergreen about 2 years ago, where the NACH was .6. After sealing the 5 gas log fireplaces with an air barrier, the NACH dropped down to .41. This would qualify for the .15 drop in the Excel program. In this instance, the homeowner decided he didn’t want to spend the money for inserts. What happens when a customer in this situation is brought into the program. You can seal for the next month, but if you don’t address the fireplaces, you are not going to get the NACH down.
If the expectation on the contractor is a .15 drop, how will he ever meet that? And when the test out fails, why is it the fault of the contractor that the homeowner wasn’t told before joining the program that he may have to spend an extra $15-25 thousand dollars to get the required improvement.
Setting expectations beforehand, and contractor self testing, is the best way to ensure the programs success.