On Peti- & Certifica- tions

In case you had been sleeping the last few days, there’s been a petition floating around to be delivered to PHIUS regarding their position (or is it Kat’s? Unclear…) to modify the Passivhaus standard yet maintain the Passivhaus nomenclature. The petition, The Passive House Building Energy Standard, has a simple premise…

The Passive House building energy standard is widely recognized in North America and internationally. In the United States, the standard is used by hundreds of businesses and professionals, and its criteria are maintained by a number of certifying agencies offering services across the country. In its blog post, “15kWh is dead. Long live 15kWh.”, PHIUS publicized a plan to create its own certification criteria and promote them using the Passive House name. PHIUS’s desire to innovate is commendable, and the larger conversation around potential improvements to the Passive House standard is healthy; however, having multiple standards competing under the name Passive House would create confusion and controversy. We therefore ask PHIUS to distinguish its program by giving it a distinctive name.

We signed the petition early on, as it’s a topic near and dear. So I thought it rather fortuitous that today, as Aaron and I were actively discussing aspects of Passivhaus certifications and alignments and whether certification through an organization we struggle to see as legitimate was the right or wrong way to go – Katrin unloaded this delicious dud on Richard Defendorf’s latest Green Building Advisor post titled, A Petition Strives to Defend a Certain Definition of ‘Passive House’…

“I understand that people might feel uneasy about modifications. Probably more so to those who have had little or no practical experience, which is clutch. Hayden Robinson, Mike Eliason and Bronwyn Barry, who expressed their opinions here, are to my knowledge in that group of consultants who have not had the opportunity yet to complete a Passive House project… …Again, thanks to all who contribute to constructive discussions! “

Now, I know I’ve been libeled labeled as ‘factually challenged’ by Kat in the past, when I took umbrage with unilateral decisions. To say that was unwarranted, unexpected and unprofessional is probably an understatement, and we never received any sort of apology. It was the cause of losing our blog mojo a few months back. Legitimate Boards have dismissed fair greater leaders over lesser actions. However, the numerous letters/emails/calls and tweets of support eventually brought me back around to blogging. I’m far from the first, and I seriously doubt the last, that will be on the receiving end of that hot mess.

But it is very interesting to note two aspects of Kat’s statement. First, a petition is, actually, a form of ‘constructive discussion’. History hasn’t always been so kind to those that pretended otherwise.

Second, that only those who’ve completed a Passivhaus are the ones qualified to join said ‘discussion’. That means of the 300 or so CPHCs (whatever our designation is now) 75-80% of us don’t really have a say in it. Our energies, interests and work to date are moot/worthless. The underlying sentiment seems to be that we don’t have a clue. Hardy har har! If only we had some land, we could vote! Oy, really? This might have held some weight if it weren’t for the fact that so many of the signatories had – I dunno – actually completed Passivhaus projects! And if that’s really the case, I think there are a number of folks who’ve been severely misled and maybe due a refund from PHIUS, who has some serious splainin’ to do.

Which brings me right back to why today was fortuitous. We’re actually sitting on pre-flight certification for a project. We had been thinking PHIUS might be the right way to go. Have been all week, today, right now – just waiting for the final approval from the client. After this ridiculousness? Meh, I’m not so sure anymore. And after re-reading the Passive House Certification of Edgewaterhaus: PHI or PHIUS+? post – we’re probably at the point to rethink this. Maybe PHI certification via the Passive House Academy is the way to go.  If I have to make up the difference in cost out of my own pocket, I feel it’s worthwhile. Why support an organization that is OK with denigrating and marginalizing those voices in the community with legitimate and fair questions?

So that’s what I’m thinking. Feel free to unload in the comments or shoot me an email.

Oh, and please don’t forget to sign the petition if you haven’t already. Cheers!

  • Martin Holladay

    It certainly seems as if the author of the comment that denigrated three professionals as “in that group of consultants who have not had the opportunity yet to complete a Passive House project” — the same person who authorized the dispatch of a letter to New York Passive House declaring, “We demand that you immediately stop using this [e-mail] list. … If you do not comply with the demands set forth in this letter, we must conclude that you intend to use the confusion created by your trademark infringement to attempt to divert business” — has a particular knack for alienating potential allies and burning bridges.

  • http://www.haydenrobinson.com Hayden Robinson

    Certificates are like money: they’re worth something as long as everyone agrees they are, and that agreement depends on a consensus of confidence in the issuing agency and its criteria. Uncertainty, controversy, and confusion harm confidence. By announcing plans to create a breakaway Passive House definition, and by insulting and alienating potential clients, PHIUS is generating controversy and confusion and making the organization’s future uncertain. As you advise your clients, you might consider those things. Also consider that PHIUS’s plan to relax its criteria for Passive House risks devaluing existing PHIUS certificates and placing those holding them in the position of needing to defend their buildings as “certified under the agreed-upon Passive House standard”. In this environment, your clients choose to avoid the risk and opt for PHI certification. And it might not cost more; as well as the Passive House Academy and CanPHI, look into certifying directly through PHI. I was advised recently that thee PHI program was cost competitive.

    Eventually, PHIUS will either get its act back together, or go away. It wouldn’t take that much doing to have a healthy PHIUS participating constructively in the Passive House community. That would be by far the best outcome for all. And PHIUS’s leadership deserves to be successful; they have worked generously and beyond exhaustion to advance high-performance building in the U.S. I would not be as good an architect today if it weren’t for them.

  • http://Atmospheredesignbuild.com Mela Breen

    We here at our little ma and pa operation are struggling with the same decision..feeling like PHI is the way to go or maybe just build to the standard and forget about getting it certified. I adore your blog…thanks for your humor, wit, and great material!

  • Martin Holladay

    Lloyd Alter at Treehugger has just provided more perspective on this debate: http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/plague-both-their-passive-houses.html

  • Travis S

    I am trying to decide which route to go and was leaning to PHI even before I read this post… sounds like that is path to take for now. Keep up the great work on your blog!

  • http://arlingtonpassivehouse.wordpress.com/ Roger Lin

    I’ve been keeping quiet on this as regards to our own certification efforts for the Arlington Passive House. This seems like the right place to talk about it a little and my own thoughts.

    We submitted our pre-certification with PHIUS right before the break-up. However, since all the stuff that hit the fan so far, we have been rethinking the issue of certification.

    We think a certification coming from PHI probably carries more weight here and internationally. A certification from PHIUS will carry some weight too but the actions it’s undertaken in recent months sort of turned me off from the effort. Mike said before that “Passivhaus is the greater good”. I agree with that statement completely. PHIUS worked very hard to evangelize the concept for years and most of us in the U.S. have Kat and PHIUS to thank for that, but these days it seems to have forgotten its mission to further that greater good. Instead, it busies itself with turf wars and taking legal actions against organizations that should be its allies (i.e. NYPH). Fundamentally, I believe it is in crisis and there is this urgency to quickly recover from the break with PHI and build a moat around itself. I feel the actions of late have actually undermined not only PHIUS’ effectiveness but also its reputation and the credibility of its certification.

    At the D.C. conference last year, I was optimistic about its future. I was hopeful that PHIUS would shed the “European baggage” and turn into something homegrown. I am actually not completely against tinkering with the standard to fit climate zones or making it less cost prohibitive in certain severe weather zones. The petition is probably right though, if you are gonna tinker, come up with a different name for it.

    Going back to the certification issue, I’m actually questioning the importance of either one. I think if I am the proud owner of a passive house, I really would not need a plaque. Obviously, a plaque confers a standard of energy efficiency and building science and to some degree, quality of construction. However, you still don’t need a plaque to prove those.

    For energy efficiency, the proof is in the pudding. A simple monitoring system will tell you the heating and cooling consumption or if you don’t monitor, you still have to look at the monthly utility bill.

    For building science, assemblies can be examined for soundness and potential problems.

    Quality of construction, your blower door will give you the airtightness, which in itself is a partial proof of quality construction. The rest you can see and touch.

    So, at this point, we’ve decided to halt our efforts in obtaining certification from PHIUS. We will put in that energy monitor though.

  • meliason

    @Martin,
    As pointed out on GBA, that puts us in the majority of consultants (~90%) that haven’t certified a project yet due to a number of factors. I just don’t get it.

    @Hayden,
    Right on! And thanks for the tips on the other certifying bodies, looks like we’ll be sending out RFPs for them today.

    @Mela,
    Thanks! It’s definitely been a struggle for us as well. I think our feelings are to utilize the PHI (snazzy plaque or not) for the first few projects and we’ll leave it open if we certify or not after that. Wolfgang had mentioned that this approach was more than acceptable to him (and seems to be fairly common in EU, at least on the detached residential scale).

    @Travis,
    For now, I don’t see any other logical path than the PHI.

  • meliason

    @Roger,
    First, thanks for the eloquent comments. I think a lot of folks, based on the emails/calls I’ve received in the last week, are in a similar boat. I will say, I hope you guys go for the PHI certification if pulling back from the PHIUS one – as I think it would be great to have that ‘backing’ for all the work you’ve put into the project, and also as Wolfgang recently mentioned that if there ever were enough projects in a place easily accessible from the EU (so, NY or DC) then it might be feasible for the int’l conference to be located our side of the pond.

  • http://www.baosol.com andrew michler

    After I saw Lloyds piece had to keep up the conversation on Inhabitat. I honestly hoped this would not become mainstream but here we are. http://inhabitat.com/passive-house-debate-heats-up-on-the-future-of-a-us-standard/

  • meliason

    Andrew,

    Yes, unfortunately I completely understand where LLloyd’s coming from. Here’s to hoping the US gets some solid PH projects in the near future that can help bring the discussion back to uber efficient buildings and away from the bad mojo stemming from Urbana.

Powered by WordPress