Comment #1Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: TechnicalComment: Whatever measures RESNET adopts to make Raters more accurate and accountable for testing results is a move in the right direction but it is inconsistent in nature when RESNET is permitting Builders to use sampling to forgo every single family home standing on its own merits by being tested. As a Rater who has tested thousands of tract built home. This policy is a joke and in my opinion full disclosure to the public by the builder is under cloak and dager. If the desire is to ensure the homeowner is recieving accurate information from the Rater then how can RESNET support Builder sampling. Oh, I know , it's for profits. Let's punish the little guy! and keep the agenda moving I chose this format to respond because nobody has responded in the past.
Whatever measures RESNET adopts to make Raters more accurate and accountable for testing results is a move in the right direction but it is inconsistent in nature when RESNET is permitting Builders to use sampling to forgo every single family home standing on its own merits by being tested. As a Rater who has tested thousands of tract built home. This policy is a joke and in my opinion full disclosure to the public by the builder is under cloak and dager.
If the desire is to ensure the homeowner is recieving accurate information from the Rater then how can RESNET support Builder sampling. Oh, I know , it's for profits. Let's punish the little guy! and keep the agenda moving I chose this format to respond because nobody has responded in the past.
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Having it mandatory for a Rater to attend a RESNET conference would be cost prohibitive for many Raters. Proposed Change: Allow as a second option the ability to obtain an x amount of credit hours through online training.
Having it mandatory for a Rater to attend a RESNET conference would be cost prohibitive for many Raters.
Allow as a second option the ability to obtain an x amount of credit hours through online training.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I see where RESNET is coming from and don’t initially disagree with having to re take the test or attending a RESNET conference , but it should be an option. There are many other pathways for a Rater/ RFI/HESP to develop industry knowledge , such as ; • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified • Accumulate 36 hours of industry related CE hours • Attend RESNET or Greenbuild or EEBA or ACCA conferences once in 3 years OR, Retake test Proposed Change: Document 18 hours of attendance at RESNET conferences, or 36 hours of RESNET approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or atttend Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, or other events and venues as approved by RESNET. Alternativly, PD completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the PD requirements of their new certification such as • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified OR Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI/Rater/ HESP Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1 RESNET To renew certifiedcation Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: at least one of the following requirements every three years: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test test appropriate to their certification once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
I see where RESNET is coming from and don’t initially disagree with having to re take the test or attending a RESNET conference , but it should be an option. There are many other pathways for a Rater/ RFI/HESP to develop industry knowledge , such as ; • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified • Accumulate 36 hours of industry related CE hours • Attend RESNET or Greenbuild or EEBA or ACCA conferences once in 3 years OR, Retake test
Document 18 hours of attendance at RESNET conferences, or 36 hours of RESNET approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or atttend Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, or other events and venues as approved by RESNET. Alternativly, PD completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the PD requirements of their new certification such as • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified OR Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI/Rater/ HESP Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid.
205.1 RESNET To renew certifiedcation Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: at least one of the following requirements every three years: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test test appropriate to their certification once in a three year peroid.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Comment #4Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: multipleComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: See comments and editorials below. Proposed Change: 203.1.2.1 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90 203.1.2.2 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90 203.1.2.3 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90 203.2 Professional Development (PD) Annually RESNET Certified Instructors Trainers shall complete a two-hour annual RESNET roundtable on current information and also attend a RESNET conference once every two years. complete at least one of the following items: While I agree that the RESNET conference is great, I don't see attendance of the RESNET conference being the be-all-end-all for continuing education, especially when someone could currently just pay for the conference, register and scan themselves in and then never attend another session. If RESNET insists on making attendance of these conferences compulsory, then they could at least invest in an efficient electronic means of verifying attendance of individual sessions instead of initials or stamps. Otherwise, this could be just a vacation where no one besides QADs and trainers even have to prove attendance of a session. 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017y Again, not sure why all existing raters must pass this. If I am a QAD and have performed more field reviews than many raters have actually done ratings, why must we again prove competency? Money? 204.2.2.2 At least three mentored rating field inspections observed by a certified HERS Rater or a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Mentoring Tool to document results. <<<<Where is this tool? I have heard about it but never seen it. Please provide access to it immediately. Again, putting the cart before the horse possibly. 204.2.3.1 Pass the following national RESNET HERS Rater tests: 204.2.3.1.1 National HERS Rater Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET of 80 204.2.3.1.2 RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET of 80 204.2.3.1.3 RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a minimum score determined by RESNET of 85. Again, please stop opening the door for moving the goalposts over and over and over again. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET. Again, what tool? Link please or copy of software. certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid Again, if you can't verify attendance of sessions, then professional development is unverifiable anyway. What is a peroid? (misspelling). Please stop, enough already. Many of us are already having to leave our employers to continue to do QA, we've all had to go through the process of CAZ testing, now we all have to go through the HERS simulation, and then maybe we all have to retake and pass the National Rater Test and/or QAD/trainer test because you decide that the original tests weren't good enough or the score for raters is now arbitrarily changed to 90 and the QAD Trainer test changed to 100. In general, I support RESNET but the rapid changes being piled on are enough to make one reconsider.
See comments and editorials below.
203.1.2.1 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90
203.1.2.2 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90
203.1.2.3 Score to be determined by RESNET. Score of 90
203.2 Professional Development (PD) Annually RESNET Certified Instructors Trainers shall complete a two-hour annual RESNET roundtable on current information and also attend a RESNET conference once every two years. complete at least one of the following items: While I agree that the RESNET conference is great, I don't see attendance of the RESNET conference being the be-all-end-all for continuing education, especially when someone could currently just pay for the conference, register and scan themselves in and then never attend another session. If RESNET insists on making attendance of these conferences compulsory, then they could at least invest in an efficient electronic means of verifying attendance of individual sessions instead of initials or stamps. Otherwise, this could be just a vacation where no one besides QADs and trainers even have to prove attendance of a session.
204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017y Again, not sure why all existing raters must pass this. If I am a QAD and have performed more field reviews than many raters have actually done ratings, why must we again prove competency? Money?
204.2.2.2 At least three mentored rating field inspections observed by a certified HERS Rater or a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Mentoring Tool to document results. <<<<Where is this tool? I have heard about it but never seen it. Please provide access to it immediately. Again, putting the cart before the horse possibly.
204.2.3.1 Pass the following national RESNET HERS Rater tests: 204.2.3.1.1 National HERS Rater Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET of 80 204.2.3.1.2 RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET of 80 204.2.3.1.3 RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a minimum score determined by RESNET of 85. Again, please stop opening the door for moving the goalposts over and over and over again.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET. Again, what tool? Link please or copy of software. certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid Again, if you can't verify attendance of sessions, then professional development is unverifiable anyway. What is a peroid? (misspelling).
Please stop, enough already. Many of us are already having to leave our employers to continue to do QA, we've all had to go through the process of CAZ testing, now we all have to go through the HERS simulation, and then maybe we all have to retake and pass the National Rater Test and/or QAD/trainer test because you decide that the original tests weren't good enough or the score for raters is now arbitrarily changed to 90 and the QAD Trainer test changed to 100.
In general, I support RESNET but the rapid changes being piled on are enough to make one reconsider.
Comment #5Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: TechnicalComment: Additional alternatives need to exist beyond a compulsory trip to RESNET every three years for raters. This is a burdensome and costly requirement. Proposed Change: 205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET certified Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid period ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference. or document 18 hours of approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, ACCA conferences or other events and venues as approved by RESNET once in a three year peroid period. Professional Development completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the Professional Development requirements of their new certification.
Additional alternatives need to exist beyond a compulsory trip to RESNET every three years for raters. This is a burdensome and costly requirement.
205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET certified Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid period ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference. or document 18 hours of approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, ACCA conferences or other events and venues as approved by RESNET once in a three year peroid period. Professional Development completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the Professional Development requirements of their new certification.
Comment #6Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.1 - RecertificationComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Many HERS Raters spend the bulk if not all of their time on the energy modeling side of the industry and are not regularly participating in field diagnostics. Accordingly, it would be unfair to expect such Raters to maintain enough expertise in diagnostic and other field testing for recertification. A better path would be to allow such Raters continued access to HERS Rating software for the purpose of energy modeling exercises and require retesting of field practices only after a specific period of inactivity in field diagnostics and any subsequent attempts to reengage in such field activities. Let the QA Provider determine which Rater is qualified to peform which functions in part or in whole. The critical component here is the contined need for experienced energy modeling individuals who understand the HERS Rating system and can guide builders and other clients regarding the most effiicient home designs. Continuing to tie the field testing and application portion to the energy modeling aspect is short-sighted in regards to RESNET's HERS adoption goals.
Many HERS Raters spend the bulk if not all of their time on the energy modeling side of the industry and are not regularly participating in field diagnostics. Accordingly, it would be unfair to expect such Raters to maintain enough expertise in diagnostic and other field testing for recertification.
A better path would be to allow such Raters continued access to HERS Rating software for the purpose of energy modeling exercises and require retesting of field practices only after a specific period of inactivity in field diagnostics and any subsequent attempts to reengage in such field activities. Let the QA Provider determine which Rater is qualified to peform which functions in part or in whole.
The critical component here is the contined need for experienced energy modeling individuals who understand the HERS Rating system and can guide builders and other clients regarding the most effiicient home designs. Continuing to tie the field testing and application portion to the energy modeling aspect is short-sighted in regards to RESNET's HERS adoption goals.
Comment #7Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The proposed Recertification Requirements are overly burdensom and costly. I am an Architect, LEED AP BD+C, LEED for Homes Feild Agent, Commercial Rater and Licensed Mold Assesor / Remidiator. The RATER resertification and added requirments have cost me more time and money than all my other Licenses combined. In fact I have not had to spend a dime on my Architectural license and it has a direct impact on life & safty. Engineers, Architects, Contractors and other professionals do not have anywhere near the cost assosiated with recertifications, Proposed Change: I agree with other suggestions calling for such as: • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified • Accumulate 36 hours of industry related CE hours • Attend RESNET or Greenbuild or EEBA or ACCA conferences once in 3 years OR, Retake test
The proposed Recertification Requirements are overly burdensom and costly.
I am an Architect, LEED AP BD+C, LEED for Homes Feild Agent, Commercial Rater and Licensed Mold Assesor / Remidiator.
The RATER resertification and added requirments have cost me more time and money than all my other Licenses combined.
In fact I have not had to spend a dime on my Architectural license and it has a direct impact on life & safty.
Engineers, Architects, Contractors and other professionals do not have anywhere near the cost assosiated with recertifications,
I agree with other suggestions calling for such as:
• Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified • Accumulate 36 hours of industry related CE hours • Attend RESNET or Greenbuild or EEBA or ACCA conferences once in 3 years OR, Retake test
Comment #8Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Having attended a RESNET conference as a prerequisite for rater recertification would simply not be possible for a company of our size. We work on a very tight budget, and the number of certified raters we house is growing. Attending these conferences is a sizeable financial burden both in cost, and lost labor. I also do not believe the conference to represent a critical step in ongoing education in the field. Oporunities for building science education is vast, and one conference should not represent the only avenue for it. I am in support of stringent certification standards, however maintaining certification should have flexibility built in to accomodate the huge diversity of companies that it affects. This would be a huge blow to our effort of keeping the price of indexing affordable for our clients, likely driving many of them away from HERS Indexing. Proposed Change: Flexibility for companies to maintain certifcations in a cost effective way. Mandating costly and cumbersome requirments does not help an industry that is largely driven by bottom line home builders.
Having attended a RESNET conference as a prerequisite for rater recertification would simply not be possible for a company of our size. We work on a very tight budget, and the number of certified raters we house is growing. Attending these conferences is a sizeable financial burden both in cost, and lost labor. I also do not believe the conference to represent a critical step in ongoing education in the field. Oporunities for building science education is vast, and one conference should not represent the only avenue for it. I am in support of stringent certification standards, however maintaining certification should have flexibility built in to accomodate the huge diversity of companies that it affects.
This would be a huge blow to our effort of keeping the price of indexing affordable for our clients, likely driving many of them away from HERS Indexing.
Flexibility for companies to maintain certifcations in a cost effective way. Mandating costly and cumbersome requirments does not help an industry that is largely driven by bottom line home builders.
Comment #9Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: enough testing, how much more money do you want.
enough testing, how much more money do you want.
Comment #10Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I object to an additional exam that deals with rating a home, blower door, duct testing. Raters that have been in the industry for many years have taken and passed numerous tests by local providers before Resnet standards existed as well as the Resnet requirements as the original standards were adopted. Additionally I recently paid for Resnet CAZ testing when I already have the BPI CAZ certifications and I teach CAZ as well as other Building Science and Performance classes for the Weatherization industry. I'm not sure of the costs or classroom requirements if the amendment passes but I know that one dollar would be too much since I do not use ratings as a primary revenue source. Cost for training not only includes the classroom training and test fees but also travel, lodging and meals since our Provider is over 500 miles away from my office. I enjoy the Resnet conference but do not and can not attend once every 3 years because of the location. This shouldn't be a requirement and is a cost burden that I can't afford. Not every region has a Ratings market or enforcement of the IECC that would support a full time rater.
I object to an additional exam that deals with rating a home, blower door, duct testing. Raters that have been in the industry for many years have taken and passed numerous tests by local providers before Resnet standards existed as well as the Resnet requirements as the original standards were adopted.
Additionally I recently paid for Resnet CAZ testing when I already have the BPI CAZ certifications and I teach CAZ as well as other Building Science and Performance classes for the Weatherization industry.
I'm not sure of the costs or classroom requirements if the amendment passes but I know that one dollar would be too much since I do not use ratings as a primary revenue source. Cost for training not only includes the classroom training and test fees but also travel, lodging and meals since our Provider is over 500 miles away from my office.
I enjoy the Resnet conference but do not and can not attend once every 3 years because of the location. This shouldn't be a requirement and is a cost burden that I can't afford. Not every region has a Ratings market or enforcement of the IECC that would support a full time rater.
Comment #11Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I do not have any issue with attending at least one conference every three years but do see how it could possibly be a financial burden for companies employing several Raters. I hold multiple contracting licenses, HVAC, Electrical, Gas, as well as being a LEED AP and a BPI Building Analyst and each of these trades or certifications accept, and promote, online or in person continuing education courses. These classes are put on by many outside companies as well as the organizations themselves. I feel that RESNET should use online classes as continuing education hours and require 18 hours per 3 year period. The continuing education hours should be accepted in conjunction with Conference Attendance once every three years or, in lieu of completing the continuing education hours or the Conference Attendance they can substitute the retesting but it should be an option. Any two of these three options used jointly will meet the requirements for recertification. This will ensure that every Rater will have the ability and means to recertify. Proposed Change: 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. or Accumulate 18 hours of continuing education approved by RESNET or 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid Two of these three options must be met in the three year period.
I do not have any issue with attending at least one conference every three years but do see how it could possibly be a financial burden for companies employing several Raters. I hold multiple contracting licenses, HVAC, Electrical, Gas, as well as being a LEED AP and a BPI Building Analyst and each of these trades or certifications accept, and promote, online or in person continuing education courses. These classes are put on by many outside companies as well as the organizations themselves. I feel that RESNET should use online classes as continuing education hours and require 18 hours per 3 year period. The continuing education hours should be accepted in conjunction with Conference Attendance once every three years or, in lieu of completing the continuing education hours or the Conference Attendance they can substitute the retesting but it should be an option. Any two of these three options used jointly will meet the requirements for recertification. This will ensure that every Rater will have the ability and means to recertify.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and.
or
Accumulate 18 hours of continuing education approved by RESNET
205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Two of these three options must be met in the three year period.
Comment #12Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Making attendance of the RESNET conference mandatory for Raters will drive raters from the business because it puts a large financial burden on them for travel expences and registration at the conference. Requiring a certain amount of CEU's per year is much more practical. Proposed Change: Allow the ability to obtain a certain amount of credit hours through online training or other CEU venues.
Making attendance of the RESNET conference mandatory for Raters will drive raters from the business because it puts a large financial burden on them for travel expences and registration at the conference. Requiring a certain amount of CEU's per year is much more practical.
Allow the ability to obtain a certain amount of credit hours through online training or other CEU venues.
Comment #13Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroidComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid This requirement seems to be very cost prohibitive. Some conferences cost will exceed $2,000 after airfare, hotel and registration fees are paid.For a small rating business this is a huge cost. I see no issue with having continuting education as a source of CEU's which can be obtained for far less cost and still allows the rater to stay up to date on current events and education activities . The conference does not offer anything that cannot be obtained by on-line CEU's. Attending national conferences should always be a option to the rater but never mandatory. Thank you, kevin schleith Proposed Change: Strike 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
This requirement seems to be very cost prohibitive. Some conferences cost will exceed $2,000 after airfare, hotel and registration fees are paid.For a small rating business this is a huge cost. I see no issue with having continuting education as a source of CEU's which can be obtained for far less cost and still allows the rater to stay up to date on current events and education activities . The conference does not offer anything that cannot be obtained by on-line CEU's. Attending national conferences should always be a option to the rater but never mandatory.
Thank you,
kevin schleith
Strike 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Comment #14Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroidComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid This requirement seems to be very cost prohibitive. Some conferences cost will exceed $2,000 after airfare, hotel and registration fees are paid.For a small rating business this is a huge cost. I see no issue with having continuting education as a source of CEU's which can be obtained for far less cost and still allows the rater to stay up to date on current events and education activities . The conference does not offer anything that cannot be obtained by on-line CEU's. Attending national conferences should always be a option to the rater but never mandatory. Thank you, kevin schleith Proposed Change: Strike 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Comment #15Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I think more trainings like HVAC, Nate, AEE should count as continuing education. The RESNET conference could be videotaped and people could watch sessions and take a quiz for credit. Why not make it less expensive. The costs for some of us in states with no demand for HERS ratings or Energy Star have driven people out. Energy Codes will change and we need to help raters to continue and have continuing education.
I think more trainings like HVAC, Nate, AEE should count as continuing education.
The RESNET conference could be videotaped and people could watch sessions and take a quiz for credit. Why not make it less expensive. The costs for some of us in states with no demand for HERS ratings or Energy Star have driven people out. Energy Codes will change and we need to help raters to continue and have continuing education.
Comment #16Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: On the face of it I don't disagree with ensuring continuing education, but attending a RESNET conference should not be mandatory, but an option. There are many other ways for a Rater/ RFI/HESP to grow industry knowledge , such as ; Becoming IECC residential certified Becoming IECC commercial certified Becoming LEED Green Rater certified Becoming NGBS certified Becoming NATE certified Accumulate 36 hours of industry related CE hours Attend RESNET or Greenbuild or EEBA or ACCA conferences once in 3 years Become Energy Star certified And these are just a few of the ways that immediately come to mind. Proposed Change: Document 18 hours of attendance at RESNET conferences, or 36 hours of RESNET approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or atttend Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, or other events and venues as approved by RESNET. Alternativly, PD completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the PD requirements of their new certification such as • Becoming IECC residential certified • Becoming IECC commercial certified • Becoming LEED Green Rater certified • Becoming NGBS certified • Becoming NATE certified OR Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI/Rater/ HESP Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1 RESNET To renew certifiedcation Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: at least one of the following requirements every three years: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test test appropriate to their certification once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period
On the face of it I don't disagree with ensuring continuing education, but attending a RESNET conference should not be mandatory, but an option. There are many other ways for a Rater/ RFI/HESP to grow industry knowledge , such as ;
And these are just a few of the ways that immediately come to mind.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period
Comment #17Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I object to an additional exam that deals with rating a home, blower door, duct testing. Raters that have been in the industry for many years have taken and passed numerous tests by local providers before Resnet standards existed as well as the Resnet requirements as the original standards were adopted. Additionally I recently paid for Resnet CAZ testing which is something that is not part of a HERS rating and that I will never ever need. I'm not sure of the costs or classroom requirements if the amendment passes but I know that even one dollar would be too much since I have already invested heavilily in education and training. That cost for training not only includes the classroom training and test fees but also travel, lodging and meals since my Provider is over 500 miles away from my office. I enjoy the Resnet conference but do not and can not attend once every 3 years because of the location and cost. This shouldn't be a requirement and is a cost burden that I can't afford. Not every region has a Ratings market or enforcement of the IECC that would support a full time rater. Proposed Change: 205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET certified Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid period ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference. or document 18 hours of approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, ACCA conferences or other events and venues as approved by RESNET once in a three year peroid period. Professional Development completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the Professional Development requirements of their new certification
Additionally I recently paid for Resnet CAZ testing which is something that is not part of a HERS rating and that I will never ever need.
I'm not sure of the costs or classroom requirements if the amendment passes but I know that even one dollar would be too much since I have already invested heavilily in education and training. That cost for training not only includes the classroom training and test fees but also travel, lodging and meals since my Provider is over 500 miles away from my office.
I enjoy the Resnet conference but do not and can not attend once every 3 years because of the location and cost. This shouldn't be a requirement and is a cost burden that I can't afford. Not every region has a Ratings market or enforcement of the IECC that would support a full time rater.
205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET certified Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid period ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference. or document 18 hours of approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, ACCA conferences or other events and venues as approved by RESNET once in a three year peroid period. Professional Development completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the Professional Development requirements of their new certification
Comment #18Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1,1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Why must all existing raters must pass this. I did more than 400 field inspections last year alone, and had QA performed on them, why must I again prove competency? Proposed Change: 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017
Why must all existing raters must pass this. I did more than 400 field inspections last year alone, and had QA performed on them, why must I again prove competency?
204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017
Comment #19Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.2.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: We have not seen this tool. Based on the pathetic and expensive CAZ simulation tool, I am not filled with confience. This tool should be field tested before it becomes part of the standard. Proposed Change: 204.2.2.2 At least three mentored rating field inspections observed by a certified HERS Rater or a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Mentoring Tool to document results.
We have not seen this tool. Based on the pathetic and expensive CAZ simulation tool, I am not filled with confience. This tool should be field tested before it becomes part of the standard.
204.2.2.2 At least three mentored rating field inspections observed by a certified HERS Rater or a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor using the RESNET JobWerks RFI Mentoring Tool to document results.
Comment #20Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: We have not seen this tool. Based on the pathetic and expensive CAZ simulation tool, I am not filled with confience. This tool should be field tested before it becomes part of the standard. The compulsory attendance of the RESNET conference has been previously referred to mutiple times. Many of us have to forego revenue to go through all these additional and compulsory RESNET requirements, many of which add no value to our work at all, but cost time and expense. We've all had to go through the process of CAZ testing, now we all have to go through the proposed HERS simulation (hopefully the software will be of better quality, it could hardly be worse), and then maybe we all have to retake and pass the National Rater Test and/or QAD/trainer test because you decide that the original tests weren't good enough or the score for raters is now arbitrarily changed to 90 and the QAD Trainer test changed to 100. And to top it all, we get to do the CAZ simulation test again! In general, I support RESNET but these ongoing requirements being piled on are enough to make one reconsider. Proposed Change: 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
We have not seen this tool. Based on the pathetic and expensive CAZ simulation tool, I am not filled with confience. This tool should be field tested before it becomes part of the standard. The compulsory attendance of the RESNET conference has been previously referred to mutiple times.
Many of us have to forego revenue to go through all these additional and compulsory RESNET requirements, many of which add no value to our work at all, but cost time and expense. We've all had to go through the process of CAZ testing, now we all have to go through the proposed HERS simulation (hopefully the software will be of better quality, it could hardly be worse), and then maybe we all have to retake and pass the National Rater Test and/or QAD/trainer test because you decide that the original tests weren't good enough or the score for raters is now arbitrarily changed to 90 and the QAD Trainer test changed to 100. And to top it all, we get to do the CAZ simulation test again!
In general, I support RESNET but these ongoing requirements being piled on are enough to make one reconsider.
Comment #21Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The cost for attending the RESNET conference once in a three year period can be prohibitive. I do not understand why attending the conference would be superior than to choose a desired topic that is offered by web venues or classes approved by RESNET. I have attended two conferences, and as much as I appreciated the conference, by the second day I am so overloaded with information that retention is questionable. It makes more sense to me to spread out my learning objectiveds at a reasonable time frame with the associated cost than to have a three day marathon with high cost.
The cost for attending the RESNET conference once in a three year period can be prohibitive. I do not understand why attending the conference would be superior than to choose a desired topic that is offered by web venues or classes approved by RESNET. I have attended two conferences, and as much as I appreciated the conference, by the second day I am so overloaded with information that retention is questionable. It makes more sense to me to spread out my learning objectiveds at a reasonable time frame with the associated cost than to have a three day marathon with high cost.
Comment #22Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: In regards to recertification, I am in agreement with many here in saying that manditory attendance at the RESNET conference is cost prohibitive for many companies. Attendance at a breakout session, with at most only your being there verified, in no way constitutes education. I would truly like to attend online or local training for PDU's...Just doesn't seem to be any. As a licensed Home Inspector, Test and Balance Technician as well as an ACCA Certified Verifier I have attended many hours of CEU training. Routinly we are asked if any one is applying for BPI credits. NEVER have I been asked if I was applying for RESNET credits, why might that be? Adding more layers of requirements at greater cost is not the answer (neither is video game training). A comprehensive body of training vetted by RESNET and available locally or online would go much farther in providing a well educated Rater population.
In regards to recertification, I am in agreement with many here in saying that manditory attendance at the RESNET conference is cost prohibitive for many companies. Attendance at a breakout session, with at most only your being there verified, in no way constitutes education. I would truly like to attend online or local training for PDU's...Just doesn't seem to be any. As a licensed Home Inspector, Test and Balance Technician as well as an ACCA Certified Verifier I have attended many hours of CEU training. Routinly we are asked if any one is applying for BPI credits. NEVER have I been asked if I was applying for RESNET credits, why might that be? Adding more layers of requirements at greater cost is not the answer (neither is video game training). A comprehensive body of training vetted by RESNET and available locally or online would go much farther in providing a well educated Rater population.
Comment #23Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 6Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Existing raters active in the field conducting confirmed ratings overseen by accredited providers and subject to RESNET required desk and field QA audits by their provider to regularly confirm the quality of their ratings should not be subject to the Rater Simulation Practical Exam. For new raters coming in this seems like a good idea in that it will help standardize some of our new professionals coming in and it would be something about which they are aware (including costs) ahead of time. Eyes wide open they can make the appropriate business plans for meeting the expectation. I understand and agree with continued improvement of our certification standards however its imperative we remain mindful of the small business owners that many raters are and the many head winds already present. My 1st recommendation existing raters be exempt from this proposed requirement. My 2nd recommendation a grandfather clause for existing raters that are actively rating with x number of confirmed and registered ratings since that would indicate they are actively submitting proof of competency already subject to rigorous QA by their provider. My 3rd recommendation is that if we do not have enough faith in Rater training and QA protocols to date and therefore feel the only way to assure the level of quality among existing raters is this proposed simulation test, the financial cost should not be on the rater who has already diligently met education, testing and continued education requirements along the way. Proposed Change: My 1st recommendation existing raters be exempt from this proposed requirement. My 2nd recommendation a grandfather clause for existing raters that are actively rating with x number of confirmed and registered ratings since that would indicate they are actively submitting proof of competency already subject to rigorous QA by their provider. My 3rd recommendation is that if we do not have enough faith in Rater training and QA protocols to date and therefore feel the only way to assure the level of quality among existing raters is this proposed simulation test, the financial cost should not be on the rater who has already diligently met education, testing and continued education requirements along the way.
Existing raters active in the field conducting confirmed ratings overseen by accredited providers and subject to RESNET required desk and field QA audits by their provider to regularly confirm the quality of their ratings should not be subject to the Rater Simulation Practical Exam. For new raters coming in this seems like a good idea in that it will help standardize some of our new professionals coming in and it would be something about which they are aware (including costs) ahead of time. Eyes wide open they can make the appropriate business plans for meeting the expectation. I understand and agree with continued improvement of our certification standards however its imperative we remain mindful of the small business owners that many raters are and the many head winds already present. My 1st recommendation existing raters be exempt from this proposed requirement. My 2nd recommendation a grandfather clause for existing raters that are actively rating with x number of confirmed and registered ratings since that would indicate they are actively submitting proof of competency already subject to rigorous QA by their provider. My 3rd recommendation is that if we do not have enough faith in Rater training and QA protocols to date and therefore feel the only way to assure the level of quality among existing raters is this proposed simulation test, the financial cost should not be on the rater who has already diligently met education, testing and continued education requirements along the way.
My 1st recommendation existing raters be exempt from this proposed requirement.
My 2nd recommendation a grandfather clause for existing raters that are actively rating with x number of confirmed and registered ratings since that would indicate they are actively submitting proof of competency already subject to rigorous QA by their provider.
My 3rd recommendation is that if we do not have enough faith in Rater training and QA protocols to date and therefore feel the only way to assure the level of quality among existing raters is this proposed simulation test, the financial cost should not be on the rater who has already diligently met education, testing and continued education requirements along the way.
Comment #24Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: With at the minimum, changing venues/travel expenses, lodging and actual conference costs associated with the RESNET conference it would be un-American and self serving for the certifying organization to require conference attendance as a recertification requirement. I'm a fan of the conference and believe there are some great benefits for raters however, it should be the choice of the rater how they meet ceu's etc and the onus on RESNET to make the attraction and incentives and costs , the basics of the free market, appropriately attractive to raters. Proposed Change: 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
With at the minimum, changing venues/travel expenses, lodging and actual conference costs associated with the RESNET conference it would be un-American and self serving for the certifying organization to require conference attendance as a recertification requirement. I'm a fan of the conference and believe there are some great benefits for raters however, it should be the choice of the rater how they meet ceu's etc and the onus on RESNET to make the attraction and incentives and costs , the basics of the free market, appropriately attractive to raters.
Comment #25Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205.1.3.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: With at the minimum, changing venues/travel expenses, lodging and actual conference costs associated with the RESNET conference it would be un-American and self serving for the certifying organization to require conference attendance as a recertification requirement. I'm a fan of the conference and believe there are some great benefits for raters however, it should be the choice of the rater how they meet ceu's etc and the onus on RESNET to make the attraction and incentives and costs , the basics of the free market, appropriately attractive to raters. Proposed Change: 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Comment #26Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 6Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Existing raters active in the field conducting confirmed ratings overseen by accredited providers and subject to RESNET required desk and field QA audits by their provider to regularly confirm the quality of their ratings should not be subject to the Rater Simulation Practical Exam. For new raters coming in this seems like a good idea in that it will help standardize some of our new professionals coming in and it would be something about which they are aware (including costs) ahead of time. Eyes wide open they can make the appropriate business plans for meeting the expectation. I understand and agree with continued improvement of our certification standards however its imperative we remain mindful of the small business owners that many raters are and the many head winds already present. Proposed Change: 204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations shall be administered by through the RESNET and will include: Rater Simulation Practical Examination. 204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 and have registered less than 10 confirmed ratings by 12/31/2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to January 1, 2017.
Existing raters active in the field conducting confirmed ratings overseen by accredited providers and subject to RESNET required desk and field QA audits by their provider to regularly confirm the quality of their ratings should not be subject to the Rater Simulation Practical Exam. For new raters coming in this seems like a good idea in that it will help standardize some of our new professionals coming in and it would be something about which they are aware (including costs) ahead of time. Eyes wide open they can make the appropriate business plans for meeting the expectation. I understand and agree with continued improvement of our certification standards however its imperative we remain mindful of the small business owners that many raters are and the many head winds already present.
204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations shall be administered by through the RESNET and will include: Rater Simulation Practical Examination. 204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 and have registered less than 10 confirmed ratings by 12/31/2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to January 1, 2017.
Comment #27Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: starting on 8Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: In concurrency with many of the other comments. The below section and many of the above section that do not directly affect me I take issue with. I work in the engineering, architecture and construction industry and have a graduate level education as well as several sustainability certifications. RESNET certification has cost me the most money by far and have provided me with the least amount of return on investment. This new requirements provide little in the goal developing the raters and more in developing single source RESNET money generating requirement. I believe if RESNET spent half as much energy in the development of worthwhile educational series we would want to buy and use as they do trying to figure out how to require us to pay an additional “tax” they would not receive such a venomous response. I agree focus needed to be in aligning education with the adjacent industries, maximize learning, and minimize cost. This amendment should be discarded in entirely and sent back to committee with instructions to focus on facilitating learning, requiring RESNET to provide quality educational series that we as rater would want to buy and use on our own accord, and minimize cost for the QADs and Raters. At this point having finished my degree and on my way to my license and the horrific return on investment the RESNET certification has been I am seriously looking at walking away from the organization even with whole building envelope testing on the horizon in my state. Please seriously reconsider this amendment existing raters have proven to RESNET enough time our commitment to and competence, it is RESNET turn to start requiring more of its self, not of its raters. You should provide a service that people want not that they are required to use. 204.2.3 Home Energy Rater (HERS Rater) 204.2.3.1 Pass the following national RESNET HERS Rater tests: 204.2.3.1.1 National HERS Rater Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET 204.2.3.1.2 RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET 204.2.3.1.3 RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a minimum score determined by RESNET , the RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a score of at least 85, the Work Scope Development Test with a score of at least 80 and the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a score of at least 80% on each exam. 204.2.3.2 Demonstrate competency at certain tasks mentored by a Certified Trainer by completing two training ratings. These ratings shall not contain any errors identified by RESNET approved rating software. Both ratings shall have a reasonably acceptable level of accuracy when compared to the trainer’s independent ratings of the same houses or building plans. The Trainer may choose these tasks to be performed in a hands-on environment, from house plans, or through RESNET approved computer simulations. However at least one of the two training ratings shall be a confirmed rating conducted in-person with a certified trainer on a real house. The candidate shall perform the following procedures during the confirmed training rating. . 204.2.3.2.1 Use pressure differential diagnostics to identify intermediate buffer zones including (but not limited to) attics, garages, or crawlspaces. 204.2.3.2.2 Identify insulation defects and account for them in energy analysis tool inputs. 204.2.3.2.3 Identify insulation types, thickness, and alignment with air barriers. 204.2.3.2.4 Measure pressure differences across the building envelope imposed by the operation of the home's equipment. 204.2.3.2.5 Perform building envelope leakage testing in accordance with the airtightness testing protocols contained in Chapter 8 – Performance Testing and Work Scope. 204.2.3.2.6 Perform duct leakage testing in accordance with the duct testing protocols contained in Chapter 8 – Performance Testing and Work Scope and interpret results. 204.2.3.2.7 Identify room and zone pressure imbalances caused by lack of ducted return air or pressure relief mechanisms such as transfer grilles or jumper ducts. 204.2.3.2.8 Identify gas leaks using combustible gas sensing equipment. If a leak is found, recommend that a certified technician repair the leak. 204.2.3.2.9 Perform CAZ, spillage, and CO testing in accordance with Carbon Monoxide (CO) Test and Depressurization Test for the Combustion Appliance Zone (CAZ) protocols contained in ANSI/ACCA 12 QH, Appendix A, Sections A4 and A5. 204.2.3.23 After passing the all of the RESNET tests exam and completing the two training ratings, but prior to being certified, the candidate shall complete five three probationary ratings with a Rating Quality Assurance Provider overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor. At least three wo of the five three probationary ratings shall be confirmed ratings. 205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET To renew certifiedcation Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: at least one of the following requirements every three years: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test test appropriate to their certification once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Document 18 hours of attendance at RESNET conferences, or RESNET approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, or other events and venues as approved by RESNET. PD completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the PD requirements of their new certification Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid Proposed Change: This amendment should be discarded in entirely and sent back to committee with instructions to focus on facilitating learning, requiring RESNET to provide quality educational series that we as rater would want to buy and use on our own accord, and minimize cost for the QADs and Raters.
In concurrency with many of the other comments. The below section and many of the above section that do not directly affect me I take issue with. I work in the engineering, architecture and construction industry and have a graduate level education as well as several sustainability certifications. RESNET certification has cost me the most money by far and have provided me with the least amount of return on investment. This new requirements provide little in the goal developing the raters and more in developing single source RESNET money generating requirement. I believe if RESNET spent half as much energy in the development of worthwhile educational series we would want to buy and use as they do trying to figure out how to require us to pay an additional “tax” they would not receive such a venomous response. I agree focus needed to be in aligning education with the adjacent industries, maximize learning, and minimize cost. This amendment should be discarded in entirely and sent back to committee with instructions to focus on facilitating learning, requiring RESNET to provide quality educational series that we as rater would want to buy and use on our own accord, and minimize cost for the QADs and Raters. At this point having finished my degree and on my way to my license and the horrific return on investment the RESNET certification has been I am seriously looking at walking away from the organization even with whole building envelope testing on the horizon in my state. Please seriously reconsider this amendment existing raters have proven to RESNET enough time our commitment to and competence, it is RESNET turn to start requiring more of its self, not of its raters. You should provide a service that people want not that they are required to use.
204.2.3 Home Energy Rater (HERS Rater) 204.2.3.1 Pass the following national RESNET HERS Rater tests: 204.2.3.1.1 National HERS Rater Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET 204.2.3.1.2 RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a minimum score as determined by RESNET 204.2.3.1.3 RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a minimum score determined by RESNET , the RESNET Combustion Appliance Simulation Test with a score of at least 85, the Work Scope Development Test with a score of at least 80 and the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test with a score of at least 80% on each exam.
204.2.3.2 Demonstrate competency at certain tasks mentored by a Certified Trainer by completing two training ratings. These ratings shall not contain any errors identified by RESNET approved rating software. Both ratings shall have a reasonably acceptable level of accuracy when compared to the trainer’s independent ratings of the same houses or building plans. The Trainer may choose these tasks to be performed in a hands-on environment, from house plans, or through RESNET approved computer simulations. However at least one of the two training ratings shall be a confirmed rating conducted in-person with a certified trainer on a real house. The candidate shall perform the following procedures during the confirmed training rating. . 204.2.3.2.1 Use pressure differential diagnostics to identify intermediate buffer zones including (but not limited to) attics, garages, or crawlspaces. 204.2.3.2.2 Identify insulation defects and account for them in energy analysis tool inputs. 204.2.3.2.3 Identify insulation types, thickness, and alignment with air barriers. 204.2.3.2.4 Measure pressure differences across the building envelope imposed by the operation of the home's equipment.
204.2.3.2.5 Perform building envelope leakage testing in accordance with the airtightness testing protocols contained in Chapter 8 – Performance Testing and Work Scope. 204.2.3.2.6 Perform duct leakage testing in accordance with the duct testing protocols contained in Chapter 8 – Performance Testing and Work Scope and interpret results. 204.2.3.2.7 Identify room and zone pressure imbalances caused by lack of ducted return air or pressure relief mechanisms such as transfer grilles or jumper ducts. 204.2.3.2.8 Identify gas leaks using combustible gas sensing equipment. If a leak is found, recommend that a certified technician repair the leak. 204.2.3.2.9 Perform CAZ, spillage, and CO testing in accordance with Carbon Monoxide (CO) Test and Depressurization Test for the Combustion Appliance Zone (CAZ) protocols contained in ANSI/ACCA 12 QH, Appendix A, Sections A4 and A5. 204.2.3.23 After passing the all of the RESNET tests exam and completing the two training ratings, but prior to being certified, the candidate shall complete five three probationary ratings with a Rating Quality Assurance Provider overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor. At least three wo of the five three probationary ratings shall be confirmed ratings. 205 RECERTIFICATION 205.1 RESNET To renew certifiedcation Home Energy Survey Professionals, Rating Field Inspectors, and HERS Raters, shall renew their certification every three years. Renewal requires the following: at least one of the following requirements every three years: 205.1.1 Home Energy Survey Professionals. Pass the national RESNET Home Energy Survey Test test appropriate to their certification once in a three year peroid. 205.1.2 Rating Field Inspectors. Document 18 hours of attendance at RESNET conferences, or RESNET approved Professional Development courses delivered by accredited RESNET Training Providers, or RESNET sessions at Affordable Comfort Institute conferences, EEBA conferences, or other events and venues as approved by RESNET. PD completed by RESNET certified individuals prior to achieving a higher certification will be applied toward the PD requirements of their new certification Pass the RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
This amendment should be discarded in entirely and sent back to committee with instructions to focus on facilitating learning, requiring RESNET to provide quality educational series that we as rater would want to buy and use on our own accord, and minimize cost for the QADs and Raters.
Comment #28Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 3Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 203.1.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: COMMENT: I STRONGLY disagree if the intent here is to make it easier to become an “Instructor” by eliminating the requirement that he/she pass a 100 question version of the National Rater Test to be taken within the same 2-hour period with a passing score of at least 90%. In order to score that well for twice as many questions in same 2-hour time period as the regular Rater Test, one has to REALLY STUDY and know exactly where to lay their hands on the necessary information to succeed. From personal experience, there is no way one can be as well prepared to teach the required information if he/she only has to score well on the 50 question test. If anything, we should be raising the bar for Instructors, not lowering it.
COMMENT: I STRONGLY disagree if the intent here is to make it easier to become an “Instructor” by eliminating the requirement that he/she pass a 100 question version of the National Rater Test to be taken within the same 2-hour period with a passing score of at least 90%. In order to score that well for twice as many questions in same 2-hour time period as the regular Rater Test, one has to REALLY STUDY and know exactly where to lay their hands on the necessary information to succeed. From personal experience, there is no way one can be as well prepared to teach the required information if he/she only has to score well on the 50 question test. If anything, we should be raising the bar for Instructors, not lowering it.
Comment #29Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 5Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.2 ExaminationsComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: COMMENT: Since BPI does not allow RESNET Accredited Training Providers to proctor BPI Exams, I do not think RESNET should allow BPI Proctors to proctor Rater Exams (unless they meet the same criteria RESNET requires of all other proctors). In addition, the paragraph does not make it clear that a RESNET Certified Rater Instructor is qualified to be a Proctor. I trust that was not by design.
COMMENT: Since BPI does not allow RESNET Accredited Training Providers to proctor BPI Exams, I do not think RESNET should allow BPI Proctors to proctor Rater Exams (unless they meet the same criteria RESNET requires of all other proctors). In addition, the paragraph does not make it clear that a RESNET Certified Rater Instructor is qualified to be a Proctor. I trust that was not by design.
Comment #30Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 8Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3 Simulated Practical ExaminationsComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: COMMENT: RESNET Accredited Training Providers pay a hefty annual fee to RESNET for the privilege. In order for that investment to be worthwhile, Training Providers need to make a profit. Accordingly, it should be required that any and all RESNET Simulated Practical Examinations be available ONLY through an Accredited Rater Training Provider and RESNET fees (to Providers) for those exams should not be advertised to enable fair markup for the proctoring time incurred by the Accredited Training Provider.
COMMENT: RESNET Accredited Training Providers pay a hefty annual fee to RESNET for the privilege. In order for that investment to be worthwhile, Training Providers need to make a profit. Accordingly, it should be required that any and all RESNET Simulated Practical Examinations be available ONLY through an Accredited Rater Training Provider and RESNET fees (to Providers) for those exams should not be advertised to enable fair markup for the proctoring time incurred by the Accredited Training Provider.
Comment #31Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 8Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3 Home Energy Rater (HERS Rater) 204.2.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: COMMENT: Sections 204.2.3.1.1 and 204.2.3.1.3 refer to a “Simulation Test” and a “Simulation Practical Test.” Are these not the same? If section 204.2.3.1.2 was meant to say “RESNET Combustion Appliance Written Test,” then my comment is to combine that test with the National Rater Test to reduce the number of separate tests required.
COMMENT: Sections 204.2.3.1.1 and 204.2.3.1.3 refer to a “Simulation Test” and a “Simulation Practical Test.” Are these not the same? If section 204.2.3.1.2 was meant to say “RESNET Combustion Appliance Written Test,” then my comment is to combine that test with the National Rater Test to reduce the number of separate tests required.
Comment #32Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3.23Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: COMMENT: Teaching the student how to utilize the rating software is a fundamental part of Rater training. (I say “the” Rating Software because for now and for some time in the near future at least, RemRate will remain the software of choice for 99% of Rating Providers); The way your proposal is currently written, it completely eliminates any responsibility that the Rater Training Provider provide software and data entry instruction; and this leaves a HUGE GAP in knowledge transfer. Granted, the Trainer can always advertise that they offer such instruction, but if ALL the required probationary ratings are now the responsibility of the Rating QA Provider, the Rater Trainer can choose to skip it entirely. With your proposal, the Provider is very likely to receive a Candidate who has never had to study the mechanics of the software entry requirements. And if the Instructor doesn’t have to oversee and evaluate the first two ratings, who is going to teach the distinction between Conditioned Volume and Conditioned Area, how to determine their values from a set of plans and why their accuracy is important to the modeling? Who is going to teach the software definition of floors above grade; that conditioned crawl spaces require an adiabatic floor modeled above them and be modeled with a slab floor - even if the floor is not concrete, just to ensure the crawl floor's heat transfer characteristics are captured in the model? Who is going to answer their initial questions regarding the distinctions between Full Perimeter, Total Exposed Perimeter and On-Grade Exposed Perimeter when modeling a slab; how to subdivide the slab when modeling a walk-out basement; and explain that such cases require the house to be modeled having two foundation types? All of these distinctions have been taught by the Instructor in class as they go through the software and teach them how to perform those 1st two Provisionals. Perhaps some experienced Raters and QADs have forgotten how initially intimidating RemRate can be with it volumes of help sections citing rule after rule of how data needs to be figured and assembled prior to input. So, we’re now going to put the onus of all this Instruction on the Provider QAD? Rating QA Providers are busy doing business with builders and performing ratings. Unless the Rater candidate is an employee, I rather doubt the Rating QA Provider is going to have the motivation to start software training from square one. Independent Raters will be an unwanted distraction since this fundamental training will take the QAD away from his/her important QA duties. An Instructor’s primary job is to teach. By contrast, a QAD/s primary job is to provide procedural oversight, make corrections as needed, and recommend more instruction if the Rater doesn’t understand the process. Where a Rating QA Provider would be willing to start that training from square one is if that QA Provider is also a Rater Training Provider. In that case, I assume they would have quite a competitive edge over a company who only serves as a Training Provider. But even then, I hope they would not overload their QAD with the task of initiating every new candidate to RemRate. A Rater Training Provider pays a hefty fee to RESNET for the privilege. By taking away the requirement that the Training Provider oversees and evaluates the first two provisional ratings, you have severely limited our value as Training Providers and turned a sizeable portion of the needed instruction over to the Rating QA Providers. Perhaps the thinking is we don’t have a great way to evaluate how well the Instructor evaluates the two ratings performed in class. If the concern is the Instructors do not (would not) have sufficient expertise to teach the software and data entry process unless they have performed 25 confirmed ratings, then leave that as a requirement for instructors and so be it; or come up with some other way to evaluate whether the Instructor is qualified to teach the software data entry requirements. I know many Raters who have completed 25+ ratings in Texas for example, who admittedly wouldn’t have a damned clue how to model a walk-out basement; or very experienced Raters in the Northeast who have never had an experience modeling an insulated roof line with a sealed attic. A good Instructor has taken the time to learn how to model and enter data for all sorts of houses that could show up in any part of the country. As long as RemRate is the dominant software choice, perhaps the answer you’re really looking for is a RemRate Train-the-Trainer Course for Instructors. Regardless, taking away the responsibility of software instruction from the Rater Training Provider by eliminating the two provisional ratings performed in class with the instructor is counterproductive. The students NEED that classroom time to get familiar enough with the mechanics of the process and demonstrate their ability to perform at least those provisional ratings with the Instructor BEFORE they are turned over to the Rating QA Provider.
COMMENT: Teaching the student how to utilize the rating software is a fundamental part of Rater training. (I say “the” Rating Software because for now and for some time in the near future at least, RemRate will remain the software of choice for 99% of Rating Providers); The way your proposal is currently written, it completely eliminates any responsibility that the Rater Training Provider provide software and data entry instruction; and this leaves a HUGE GAP in knowledge transfer. Granted, the Trainer can always advertise that they offer such instruction, but if ALL the required probationary ratings are now the responsibility of the Rating QA Provider, the Rater Trainer can choose to skip it entirely.
With your proposal, the Provider is very likely to receive a Candidate who has never had to study the mechanics of the software entry requirements. And if the Instructor doesn’t have to oversee and evaluate the first two ratings, who is going to teach the distinction between Conditioned Volume and Conditioned Area, how to determine their values from a set of plans and why their accuracy is important to the modeling? Who is going to teach the software definition of floors above grade; that conditioned crawl spaces require an adiabatic floor modeled above them and be modeled with a slab floor - even if the floor is not concrete, just to ensure the crawl floor's heat transfer characteristics are captured in the model?
Who is going to answer their initial questions regarding the distinctions between Full Perimeter, Total Exposed Perimeter and On-Grade Exposed Perimeter when modeling a slab; how to subdivide the slab when modeling a walk-out basement; and explain that such cases require the house to be modeled having two foundation types?
All of these distinctions have been taught by the Instructor in class as they go through the software and teach them how to perform those 1st two Provisionals. Perhaps some experienced Raters and QADs have forgotten how initially intimidating RemRate can be with it volumes of help sections citing rule after rule of how data needs to be figured and assembled prior to input.
So, we’re now going to put the onus of all this Instruction on the Provider QAD? Rating QA Providers are busy doing business with builders and performing ratings. Unless the Rater candidate is an employee, I rather doubt the Rating QA Provider is going to have the motivation to start software training from square one. Independent Raters will be an unwanted distraction since this fundamental training will take the QAD away from his/her important QA duties. An Instructor’s primary job is to teach. By contrast, a QAD/s primary job is to provide procedural oversight, make corrections as needed, and recommend more instruction if the Rater doesn’t understand the process.
Where a Rating QA Provider would be willing to start that training from square one is if that QA Provider is also a Rater Training Provider. In that case, I assume they would have quite a competitive edge over a company who only serves as a Training Provider. But even then, I hope they would not overload their QAD with the task of initiating every new candidate to RemRate.
A Rater Training Provider pays a hefty fee to RESNET for the privilege. By taking away the requirement that the Training Provider oversees and evaluates the first two provisional ratings, you have severely limited our value as Training Providers and turned a sizeable portion of the needed instruction over to the Rating QA Providers. Perhaps the thinking is we don’t have a great way to evaluate how well the Instructor evaluates the two ratings performed in class. If the concern is the Instructors do not (would not) have sufficient expertise to teach the software and data entry process unless they have performed 25 confirmed ratings, then leave that as a requirement for instructors and so be it; or come up with some other way to evaluate whether the Instructor is qualified to teach the software data entry requirements.
I know many Raters who have completed 25+ ratings in Texas for example, who admittedly wouldn’t have a damned clue how to model a walk-out basement; or very experienced Raters in the Northeast who have never had an experience modeling an insulated roof line with a sealed attic. A good Instructor has taken the time to learn how to model and enter data for all sorts of houses that could show up in any part of the country.
As long as RemRate is the dominant software choice, perhaps the answer you’re really looking for is a RemRate Train-the-Trainer Course for Instructors. Regardless, taking away the responsibility of software instruction from the Rater Training Provider by eliminating the two provisional ratings performed in class with the instructor is counterproductive. The students NEED that classroom time to get familiar enough with the mechanics of the process and demonstrate their ability to perform at least those provisional ratings with the Instructor BEFORE they are turned over to the Rating QA Provider.
Comment #33Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3.23Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: Additional Comments: It occurs to me that Remrate’s role as the primary rating software dominance is up in the air. On the one hand, with Noresco’s soon-to-be-released web-based tool (see www.remrate.com) and the phasing out of the desktop versions, I’d like to think Noresco has made a commitment to remain in the Rating Software business for some time to come. If that’s the case, I hope RESNET will play a pivotal role in making sure Noresco is fully committed to working with Rater Trainers to develop a Train-the Trainer course - so we can all be on the same page about many of their explanations that are currently open to interpretation. On the other hand, has RESNET received that assurance that Noresco’s intentions are to continually update and improve RemRate for years to come? Have there been discussions and/or negotiations on how we’ll collectively move forward? If giant Noresco should choose to drop low-profit RemRate entirely, we could have a mad scramble to EnergyGauge (who will do the training then?), or we could eventually have multiple small applications that wrap an APP on the cloud. With multiple software providers in use, RESNET has additional issues to resolve when it comes to training - evaluating the different products and determining who will be required to perform the training on the specific software a Rater will be using. I hope that core instruction requirement doesn’t get dumped on the QADs. If the number of software products becomes too many or too varied for the Instructors to keep up with, then I would hope each developer would have to also provide a very thorough training course to meet RESNET’s approval process. If I’m not mistaken, RESNET is currently deciding the role Interplay’s new simulation will play in all of this, not to mention the new requirement that Rater’s utilize the JobWorks tool for recertification. Add these to the uncertainty of RemRate’s continued existence, and perhaps we’d be best to put the discussion of new Rater Training procedural requirements on hold until some key questions have been answered.
Additional Comments: It occurs to me that Remrate’s role as the primary rating software dominance is up in the air. On the one hand, with Noresco’s soon-to-be-released web-based tool (see www.remrate.com) and the phasing out of the desktop versions, I’d like to think Noresco has made a commitment to remain in the Rating Software business for some time to come. If that’s the case, I hope RESNET will play a pivotal role in making sure Noresco is fully committed to working with Rater Trainers to develop a Train-the Trainer course - so we can all be on the same page about many of their explanations that are currently open to interpretation.
On the other hand, has RESNET received that assurance that Noresco’s intentions are to continually update and improve RemRate for years to come? Have there been discussions and/or negotiations on how we’ll collectively move forward?
If giant Noresco should choose to drop low-profit RemRate entirely, we could have a mad scramble to EnergyGauge (who will do the training then?), or we could eventually have multiple small applications that wrap an APP on the cloud. With multiple software providers in use, RESNET has additional issues to resolve when it comes to training - evaluating the different products and determining who will be required to perform the training on the specific software a Rater will be using. I hope that core instruction requirement doesn’t get dumped on the QADs. If the number of software products becomes too many or too varied for the Instructors to keep up with, then I would hope each developer would have to also provide a very thorough training course to meet RESNET’s approval process.
If I’m not mistaken, RESNET is currently deciding the role Interplay’s new simulation will play in all of this, not to mention the new requirement that Rater’s utilize the JobWorks tool for recertification. Add these to the uncertainty of RemRate’s continued existence, and perhaps we’d be best to put the discussion of new Rater Training procedural requirements on hold until some key questions have been answered.
Comment #34Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 8Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3 Home Energy Rater (HERS Rater)Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The way you have it written, it appears as if the HERS Rater does not have to be evaluated on all the tasks required of a Rating Field Inspector (RFI). Many Raters do not have RFIs at their disposal, so they perform those inspections themselves. Are you intending to require Raters to also be certified as RFIs or will those RFI field competency requirements also be required of Raters??
The way you have it written, it appears as if the HERS Rater does not have to be evaluated on all the tasks required of a Rating Field Inspector (RFI). Many Raters do not have RFIs at their disposal, so they perform those inspections themselves. Are you intending to require Raters to also be certified as RFIs or will those RFI field competency requirements also be required of Raters??
Comment #35Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 6, 8, 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1; 204.2.3.1,.2,.3; 205.1.3.1, .2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: 204.1.3.1--Perhaps necessary for raters who do not practice and are not active. Perhaps even as an inclusion for new raters. I perform about 120-150 ratings a year. This means over 100 times each year, my files are reviewed. This means twice a year I am randomly field audited. I am not familiar with the JobWerks program, but I see that it is in beta testing. The last RESNET simulation program I encountered was the CAZ program--and I was very, very disappointed. Please delete this addition, or limit it to new raters and those doing 10 or less a year. 204.2.3.1,.2,.3--As a former teacher whose favorite class was Tests and Measurements, the idea of "minimum score as determined by RESNET" as a requirement for passing a test is totally unacceptable. This needs to be deleted until RESNET decides what is an acceptable passing score. 205.1.3.1--Again, not a fan of RESNET's prowess in the computer assessment field. More to the point, would this be part of a normal field audit by the provider? Or in addition? And will this raise the cost of the QA process. I find myself wondering-is this perhaps just a disguise for a new revenue stream for RESNET? 205.1.3.2--The RESNET conference is great! I have attened 3 during the 5 years i have been a rater. But--mandatory attendance is totally out of line. I suggest RESNET focus on creating some good on line continuing education, available through our providers. I understood, in the beginning, the conference was the only way to get the CEUs as required. But--RESNET has had plenty of time to provide other venues, or vet CEUs avaialble from like organizations. Requiring attendance to remain certified certainly does reek of "where's the money"! Please delete this.
204.1.3.1--Perhaps necessary for raters who do not practice and are not active. Perhaps even as an inclusion for new raters. I perform about 120-150 ratings a year. This means over 100 times each year, my files are reviewed. This means twice a year I am randomly field audited. I am not familiar with the JobWerks program, but I see that it is in beta testing. The last RESNET simulation program I encountered was the CAZ program--and I was very, very disappointed. Please delete this addition, or limit it to new raters and those doing 10 or less a year.
204.2.3.1,.2,.3--As a former teacher whose favorite class was Tests and Measurements, the idea of "minimum score as determined by RESNET" as a requirement for passing a test is totally unacceptable. This needs to be deleted until RESNET decides what is an acceptable passing score.
205.1.3.1--Again, not a fan of RESNET's prowess in the computer assessment field. More to the point, would this be part of a normal field audit by the provider? Or in addition? And will this raise the cost of the QA process. I find myself wondering-is this perhaps just a disguise for a new revenue stream for RESNET?
205.1.3.2--The RESNET conference is great! I have attened 3 during the 5 years i have been a rater. But--mandatory attendance is totally out of line. I suggest RESNET focus on creating some good on line continuing education, available through our providers. I understood, in the beginning, the conference was the only way to get the CEUs as required. But--RESNET has had plenty of time to provide other venues, or vet CEUs avaialble from like organizations. Requiring attendance to remain certified certainly does reek of "where's the money"! Please delete this.
Comment #36Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3.2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: I agree with Comment #32. The two training ratings introduced, completed, and overseen by a Training Provider in class is vital to the rater candidate's success. Realistically, if software instruction/hands on takeoffs are eliminated from regular HERS Training, then the learning curve will be even steeper later on, lending even more responsibility to the QA Providers. All in all, rater candidates will have less hands-on instruction. In my experience with HERS Training, translating field takeoffs to the software is the one thing that raters struggle with the most. It is what we spend the most time on, and the most difficult task while "herding the sheep" through class. There are a lot of learning opportunities to be gained through struggling with the software with a trainer in real-life, rather than mentored ratings over the computer. Software practice automatically reinforces the meaning and significance of minimum rated features, HERS index, CFA, etc. Without practicing the software using real takeoffs, these inputs will hold less significance and become mere definitions, until the rater candidate then goes through the software mentorship with the QA Provider. With the proposed change above, by the time a rater candidate reaches a QA Provider, they should have completed the 2 mentored ratings with a standard level of confidence. It takes time to get used to working with a QA Provider, and I believe that the 3 mentored ratings should be less of a struggle, and more of an introduction between the rater candidate and Provider (as wel as practice, of course). I think the solution is to require RESNET Instructors to be certified HERS Raters. I will suggest this in a separate comment. Proposed Change: Proposed change: 204.2.3.2 After passing the all of the RESNET tests and completing the two training ratings, but prior to being certified, the candidate shall complete three probationary ratings with a Rating Quality Assurance Provider overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor. Overall, at least three of the five probationary ratings shall be confirmed ratings.
I agree with Comment #32. The two training ratings introduced, completed, and overseen by a Training Provider in class is vital to the rater candidate's success. Realistically, if software instruction/hands on takeoffs are eliminated from regular HERS Training, then the learning curve will be even steeper later on, lending even more responsibility to the QA Providers. All in all, rater candidates will have less hands-on instruction. In my experience with HERS Training, translating field takeoffs to the software is the one thing that raters struggle with the most. It is what we spend the most time on, and the most difficult task while "herding the sheep" through class. There are a lot of learning opportunities to be gained through struggling with the software with a trainer in real-life, rather than mentored ratings over the computer. Software practice automatically reinforces the meaning and significance of minimum rated features, HERS index, CFA, etc. Without practicing the software using real takeoffs, these inputs will hold less significance and become mere definitions, until the rater candidate then goes through the software mentorship with the QA Provider.
With the proposed change above, by the time a rater candidate reaches a QA Provider, they should have completed the 2 mentored ratings with a standard level of confidence. It takes time to get used to working with a QA Provider, and I believe that the 3 mentored ratings should be less of a struggle, and more of an introduction between the rater candidate and Provider (as wel as practice, of course).
I think the solution is to require RESNET Instructors to be certified HERS Raters. I will suggest this in a separate comment.
Proposed change:
204.2.3.2 After passing the all of the RESNET tests and completing the two training ratings, but prior to being certified, the candidate shall complete three probationary ratings with a Rating Quality Assurance Provider overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor. Overall, at least three of the five probationary ratings shall be confirmed ratings.
Comment #37Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 4Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 203.1Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: It is important for Training Instructors to be certified HERS Raters. This will ensure that instructors have all of the crendentials and practical experience necessary to teach building science concepts and software mechanicals to professionals. This will also validate keeping the first two provisional ratings under the wings of the Training Provider. Proposed Change: Add: 203.1.3 Acheive designation as a Certified HERS Rater
It is important for Training Instructors to be certified HERS Raters. This will ensure that instructors have all of the crendentials and practical experience necessary to teach building science concepts and software mechanicals to professionals. This will also validate keeping the first two provisional ratings under the wings of the Training Provider.
Add:
203.1.3
Acheive designation as a Certified HERS Rater
Comment #38Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 3-4Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 203.1.2.1-203.1.2.3Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: I am unclear of the purpose of the statement "determined by RESNET" relating to exam scores. Isn't the Standard an appropriate location to define what the passing thresholds shall be?
I am unclear of the purpose of the statement "determined by RESNET" relating to exam scores. Isn't the Standard an appropriate location to define what the passing thresholds shall be?
Comment #39Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 4Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 203.1.2.2Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: Has RESNET updated the "RESNET Combustion Appliance Test" to reflect the new, changed version of the combustion safety standards? Trainers are currently having to teach new students on the old, no longer relevant threshold standards as the new approved CAZ standards have not been coded into the software yet. This is very confusing for Trainers and students. Proposed Change: Remove this requirement until there is a clear plan of implementation of the new RESNET CAZ standards, ideally biulding it into the Rater Simulation exam so that people do not have so many separate exams to take.
Has RESNET updated the "RESNET Combustion Appliance Test" to reflect the new, changed version of the combustion safety standards? Trainers are currently having to teach new students on the old, no longer relevant threshold standards as the new approved CAZ standards have not been coded into the software yet. This is very confusing for Trainers and students.
Remove this requirement until there is a clear plan of implementation of the new RESNET CAZ standards, ideally biulding it into the Rater Simulation exam so that people do not have so many separate exams to take.
Comment #40Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 5Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: Who is responsible for certifying an indivudal as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor? Is it RESNET? The Training PRovider? QA Provider? Proposed Change: Please define how this designation will be assigned, by whom, and how it will be tracked.
Who is responsible for certifying an indivudal as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor? Is it RESNET? The Training PRovider? QA Provider?
Please define how this designation will be assigned, by whom, and how it will be tracked.
Comment #41Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 6Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1 ,1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: I do not recommend that RESNET follow through with Raters being required to complete the Rater Simulatoin exam. I fear that this will further anger RESNET's rater corps and will not guarantee that anyone is a better rater. Proposed Change: 204.1.3.1 ,1 For new Candidates tT he effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. R aters who were certified pr ior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017.
I do not recommend that RESNET follow through with Raters being required to complete the Rater Simulatoin exam. I fear that this will further anger RESNET's rater corps and will not guarantee that anyone is a better rater.
204.1.3.1 ,1 For new Candidates tT he effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. R aters who were certified pr ior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017.
Comment #42Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.2.3. 2Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: This seems to indicate that rater candidate students will no longer have to complete any training ratings during their training. Being exposed to the rating process in a training environment is absolutely critical as it gives the student valuable experience to start their career, and also perhaps more importantly, it helps weed out people who really are probably not cut out to continue in the rating industry... having to crawl around in a crawlspace, climb into an attic, and lug around a blower door and duct blaster in a training envirionemnt often times weeds out the people who really want and are best capable to serve in the job from people who are either being forced into the traiing or are just general efficiency enthusiets. Proposed Change: Maintain training rating requirements with trainers, probatioanry ratings with QA providers.
This seems to indicate that rater candidate students will no longer have to complete any training ratings during their training. Being exposed to the rating process in a training environment is absolutely critical as it gives the student valuable experience to start their career, and also perhaps more importantly, it helps weed out people who really are probably not cut out to continue in the rating industry... having to crawl around in a crawlspace, climb into an attic, and lug around a blower door and duct blaster in a training envirionemnt often times weeds out the people who really want and are best capable to serve in the job from people who are either being forced into the traiing or are just general efficiency enthusiets.
Maintain training rating requirements with trainers, probatioanry ratings with QA providers.
Comment #43Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: The removal of raters' ability to recerity using RESNET PDHs offered through RESNET Training Providers will hurt both Raters and Providers. Providers deserve and should have the authority to host professional development seminars that are eligible for RESNET PDHS to offer their raters. Without this optoin, the business case for remaining a RESNET Training Provider will be stressed for most trainings outfits. This will also hurt raters as they will be forced into going to the RESNET conference, which might not be feasible for all of them, or being "evaluated" on the JobWerks app every 3 years. How is JobWerks relevant to Raters who have been practicing as certified professionals for potentially years? Why should this be an optoin for them when their capacities are already being assessed through regularlized field QA? Proposed Change: Do not delete the section relating to RESNET PDHs being an option for recertificaiton. it is an important option for all training providers and raters.
The removal of raters' ability to recerity using RESNET PDHs offered through RESNET Training Providers will hurt both Raters and Providers. Providers deserve and should have the authority to host professional development seminars that are eligible for RESNET PDHS to offer their raters. Without this optoin, the business case for remaining a RESNET Training Provider will be stressed for most trainings outfits.
This will also hurt raters as they will be forced into going to the RESNET conference, which might not be feasible for all of them, or being "evaluated" on the JobWerks app every 3 years. How is JobWerks relevant to Raters who have been practicing as certified professionals for potentially years? Why should this be an optoin for them when their capacities are already being assessed through regularlized field QA?
Do not delete the section relating to RESNET PDHs being an option for recertificaiton. it is an important option for all training providers and raters.
Comment #44Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 9Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Please.......we have a great opportunity to simply the process to increase qualified energy raters at a time when the demand is in demand. Less cost,less testing and more field mentorship. KISS - our future labor force depends upon it.....
Please.......we have a great opportunity to simply the process to increase qualified energy raters at a time when the demand is in demand. Less cost,less testing and more field mentorship. KISS - our future labor force depends upon it.....
Comment #45Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 6,9Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3, 205.1.3Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: TechnicalComment: Requiring to attend the RE$NET conference every three years seems to be no more than a money grab. On what basis does RE$NET claim that attending sessions at a conference (some might even be considered “fluff”) to obtaining targeted PDU’s through a classroom, practical training (not to be confused with “Donkey Kong” simulations), or web based training? From what I heard, attending sessions is not even tracked at the conference, just show up, sign in, and most importantly –pay. As far as the CAZ simulation, my training provider required raters that did not take the training from them to perform a practical exam to ensure competence with combustion safety to remain there provider. By the term “practical’ that means operating equipment, moving hoses and recording data, not video games and mouse clicks. 100% failed the first attempt. My house was similar to the house in the video game. Very few raters even placed the gas appliances into a “safe” condition before placing the zones in my house under different levels of depressurization. Why? Because it wasn’t covered in Candy Crush, even if it is required in the RE$NET standards. Makes one wonder the competence of the other training providers to conduct the CAZ training. Fortunately, the trainers were there to intercede and prevent whole house combustion. So what is the answer to poor simulations? More simulations and - pay. Really, if a prospective rater can’t hook up a real hose, into a real manometer, place the hose into a real zone, and record a real number, then they should probably find a profession where they can stare at a computer screen for a living. Proposed Change: 204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations simulations shall may be administered by through the RESNET used by a Training Provider as an optional supplemental training tool.and will include: Rater Simulation Practical Examination. 204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. or 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Requiring to attend the RE$NET conference every three years seems to be no more than a money grab. On what basis does RE$NET claim that attending sessions at a conference (some might even be considered “fluff”) to obtaining targeted PDU’s through a classroom, practical training (not to be confused with “Donkey Kong” simulations), or web based training? From what I heard, attending sessions is not even tracked at the conference, just show up, sign in, and most importantly –pay.
As far as the CAZ simulation, my training provider required raters that did not take the training from them to perform a practical exam to ensure competence with combustion safety to remain there provider. By the term “practical’ that means operating equipment, moving hoses and recording data, not video games and mouse clicks. 100% failed the first attempt. My house was similar to the house in the video game. Very few raters even placed the gas appliances into a “safe” condition before placing the zones in my house under different levels of depressurization. Why? Because it wasn’t covered in Candy Crush, even if it is required in the RE$NET standards. Makes one wonder the competence of the other training providers to conduct the CAZ training. Fortunately, the trainers were there to intercede and prevent whole house combustion.
So what is the answer to poor simulations? More simulations and - pay. Really, if a prospective rater can’t hook up a real hose, into a real manometer, place the hose into a real zone, and record a real number, then they should probably find a profession where they can stare at a computer screen for a living.
204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations simulations shall may be administered by through the RESNET used by a Training Provider as an optional supplemental training tool.and will include: Rater Simulation Practical
Examination. 204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates tThe effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year peroid ; and. or 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year peroid
Comment #46Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: VariousParagraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204/205Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: My Comments in bold italics, my insertions in blue 204. CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD ASSESSORS – Page 5 204.1 Achieving Certification Individuals shall meet the following requirements to be certified as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor. 204.1.1 Certified HERS Rater in good standing, and 203.1.2 As a certified Home Energy Rater, complete confirmed ratings on a minimum of twenty-five (25) homes. These 25 Ratings shall have met the minimum quality assurance processes defined in Section 904.4. trained, tested and certified by RESNET to meet a high level of competency Comment A RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is only a certified rater in good standing and has had at least 25 ratings under their belt who is able and capable of mentoring a RESNET Field Inspector Candidate however when looking at a Rater Field Inspector’s requirement on 204.2.2.2 a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is mentioned as well as a rater. This criteria is not rigorous enough. However, 25 certified ratings should not be a criteria as numbers do not make one an expert at anything. I believe this candidate should be assessed through RESNET since they are certified by RESNET, with a rigorous test. This individual has a huge responsibility if you read through this document 204.1.1 Training Rater Instruction– Page 5 All Rater Candidates are required o complete Rater instruction delivered by a RESNET Accredited Rater Training Provider. is not required. Rater candidates who did not attend HERS rater training shall pass all required exams and complete probationary ratings COMMENT Strongly agree with not allowing challenging of exams. This eliminates non-certified training to exist as it does currently. 204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations – Page 6 Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations shall be administered by through the RESNET and will include: Rater Simulation Practical Examination. COMMENT The above statement falls short of what it will include so I would object on the grounds it is falling short of the stipulated requirements. As a Rating Provider we have required practical testing since the 1990’s. We have just recently included a practical exam dealing with combustion as part of the requirement of being in the our Providership. Unfortunately the lack of detail in the CAZ Simulation Exam caused all of the rater’s trained elsewhere who went through the practical test in a home similar to the CAZ Simulation to fail. Important details such as “safeing the combustion equipment” before putting the home in worst case CAZ risked the safety of the residents of the real home as well as endangered the home from flame roll-out and fire. As instructor’s we were able to halt testing before devastating consequences occurred. The other problem with the CAZ training is that instructors were not asked where they were trained or even if they were trained. The fact that RESNET wants to utilize the JobWerks tool to train and test Field Inspector’s as well as use for the proposed Recertification then why as Training Provider’s can’t we use the tool for practical testing of rater candidates. If it is good enough for a Field Inspector then it should be good enough for a rater practical exam. I believe that the Building Simulations can be an option for Training Providers to use as a tool for training. I have heard the argument that the simulations are used in various field of work, however, I also believe it is used as a training tool, not an exam. I would never want an airplane pilot to have his final exam to be a simulator and I would be in his first real flight. 204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test – Page 6 204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates t The effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017. COMMENTS Raters that currently have a RTIN should not have to take an additional exam which was not in place when they were certified. The material in the simulation exam was tested by the methods in place at the time of their certification. These raters have already paid $250.00 plus a class fee this past year to comply with the old combustion standard and now RESNET wants to require yet another exam (incorporated in the new simulation) for another combustion exam. They also have paid to take the RESNET Core exam as well in the past. If RESNET wants to impose an additional simulation exam in addition to the tests they have paid for in the past to certify, then RESNET should offer the exams at “no cost” to the current raters who have RTIN’s 204.2 Certification – Page 6 Prior to issuing a candidate's certification, a RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Provider shall confirm that the candidate has completed at a minimum, all of the following tasks appropriate to their desired certification within a 12-month period. Only RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Providers may certify candidates for the certifications. Rating Providers may require additional training instruction beyond these requirements as needed to address their specific program, climate, software, or administrative requirements. The year’s commencement time would start when___________________. COMMENT Editorial would be why Quality Assurance is added in the first line and then crossed out in the third line. I think this is an editorial mistake. I have added the last sentence because I think we all need to be clear as to when the rater candidate’s year time would begin to tick…would it be when the first RESNET Exam is passed or when the last day of training occurred. I have no opinion as to when but would like this to be made clearer in the Standard. 204.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI) – Page 6 204.2.2.31.1 The RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment graded field evaluation shall be performed under the observation of a certified trainer, Quality Assurance Designee Candidate Field Assessor, or QAD Delegate. COMMENT Why a person whose credentials are that of a rater is allowed to test a Field Inspector Candidate and why as a QA Provider would they want to take in someone they may not have had any contact with? The only criteria is that they be a rater in good standing and have performed 25 ratings. Please see the proposed 204.1 above. Please see my addition to that as well. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters - Page 9 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year period ; and. OR 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period; OR 205.1.3.3 Attend other RESNET approved conferences or online training with documentation; attendance onlne or by session must be verifiable COMMENT Number 1 - I believe it to be unfair to insist that a certified rater attend any conference. As a Third Party Provider we have many raters whose primary business is NOT ratings. For them ratings are a supplemental income to another business. When these small rater companies employ raters they are also taking on a monetary liability for their certification. This requirement may end the era of the small rater because they will not be able to pay for the expense of the conferences, not to mention the travel, hotel and meals that must be paid. If you put many of them out of business with this requirement you are defeating the purpose of the existence of RESNET. Currently even if the rater pays for the conference he/she can pay and go sightseeing. There is no way to know if there was any sessions attended only that they paid and received a badge. Number 2 - Currently the JobWerks tool is approximately $250.00 per person. (This is what one of my raters have paid) This again is an expense which must be absorbed by someone unless RESNET is willing to allow use with no cost or a minimal cost. If a rater is registering ratings and has had QA done then the JobWerks tool is not necessary. Done when QA is done. The rater is really not learning anything new or improving their abilities to service clients with new technologies or ideas to implement. Number 3 - In general RESNET is imposing requirements that disallows a rater access to a wider variety of educational opportunities that are available by many organizations. It really is disingenuous to keep raters stagnant within an organization without allowing other energy encompassing educational opportunities. Proposed Change: 204. CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD ASSESSORS – Page 5 204.1 Achieving Certification Individuals shall meet the following requirements to be certified as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor. 204.1.1 Certified HERS Rater in good standing, and 203.1.2 As a certified Home Energy Rater, complete confirmed ratings on a minimum of twenty-five (25) homes. These 25 Ratings shall have met the minimum quality assurance processes defined in Section 904.4. trained, tested and certified by RESNET to meet a high level of competency COMMENT A RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is only a certified rater in good standing and has had at least 25 ratings under their belt who is able and capable of mentoring a RESNET Field Inspector Candidate however when looking at a Rater Field Inspector’s requirement on 204.2.2.2 a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is mentioned as well as a rater. This criteria is not rigorous enough. However, 25 certified ratings should not be a criteria as numbers do not make one an expert at anything. I believe this candidate should be assessed through RESNET since they are certified by RESNET with a rigorous test. This individual has a huge responsibility if you read through this documents. 204.2 Certification – Page 6 Prior to issuing a candidate's certification, a RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Provider shall confirm that the candidate has completed at a minimum, all of the following tasks appropriate to their desired certification within a 12-month period. Only RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Providers may certify candidates for the certifications. Rating Providers may require additional training instruction beyond these requirements as needed to address their specific program, climate, software, or administrative requirements. The year’s commencement time would start when___________________. COMMENT Editorial would be why Quality Assurance is added in the first line and then crossed out in the third line. I think this is an editorial mistake. I have added the last sentence because I think we all need to be clear as to when the rater candidate’s year time would begin to tick…would it be when the first RESNET Exam is passed or when the last day of training occurred. I have no opinion as to when but would like this to be made clearer in the Standard. 205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters 205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year period ; and. OR 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period; OR 205.1.3.3 Attend other RESNET approved conferences or online training with documentation; attendance onlne or by session must be verifiable Number 1 - I believe it to be unfair to insist that a certified rater attend any conference. As a Third Party Provider we have many raters whose primary business is NOT ratings. For them ratings are a supplemental income to another business. When these small rater companies employ raters they are also taking on a monetary liability for their certification. This requirement may end the era of the small rater because they will not be able to pay for the expense of the conferences, not to mention the travel, hotel and meals that must be paid. If you put many of them out of business with this requirement you are defeating the purpose of the existence of RESNET. Currently even if the rater pays for the conference he/she can pay and go sightseeing. There is no way to know if there was any sessions attended only that they paid and received a badge. Number 2 - Currently the JobWerks tool is approximately $250.00 per person. (This is what one of my raters have paid) This again is an expense which must be absorbed by someone unless RESNET is willing to allow use with no cost or a minimal cost. If a rater is registering ratings and has had QA done then the JobWerks tool is not necessary. Done when QA is done. The rater is really not learning anything new or improving their abilities to service clients with new technologies or ideas to implement. Number 3 - In general RESNET is imposing requirements that disallows a rater access to a wider variety of educational opportunities that are available by many organizations. It really is disingenuous to keep raters stagnant within an organization without allowing other energy encompassing educational opportunities.
My Comments in bold italics, my insertions in blue
204. CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD ASSESSORS – Page 5
204.1 Achieving Certification Individuals shall meet the following requirements to be certified as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor.
204.1.1 Certified HERS Rater in good standing, and
203.1.2 As a certified Home Energy Rater, complete confirmed ratings on a minimum of twenty-five (25) homes. These 25 Ratings shall have met the minimum quality assurance processes defined in Section 904.4. trained, tested and certified by RESNET to meet a high level of competency
Comment A RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is only a certified rater in good standing and has had at least 25 ratings under their belt who is able and capable of mentoring a RESNET Field Inspector Candidate however when looking at a Rater Field Inspector’s requirement on 204.2.2.2 a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is mentioned as well as a rater. This criteria is not rigorous enough. However, 25 certified ratings should not be a criteria as numbers do not make one an expert at anything. I believe this candidate should be assessed through RESNET since they are certified by RESNET, with a rigorous test. This individual has a huge responsibility if you read through this document
204.1.1 Training Rater Instruction– Page 5 All Rater Candidates are required o complete Rater instruction delivered by a RESNET Accredited Rater Training Provider. is not required. Rater candidates who did not attend HERS rater training shall pass all required exams and complete probationary ratings
COMMENT Strongly agree with not allowing challenging of exams. This eliminates non-certified training to exist as it does currently.
204.1.3 Simulated Practical Examinations – Page 6 Simulated practical examinations allow a candidate to demonstrate their ability to perform certain tasks appropriate to their desired certification. Rater practical examinations shall be administered by through the RESNET and will include: Rater Simulation Practical Examination.
COMMENT The above statement falls short of what it will include so I would object on the grounds it is falling short of the stipulated requirements. As a Rating Provider we have required practical testing since the 1990’s. We have just recently included a practical exam dealing with combustion as part of the requirement of being in the our Providership. Unfortunately the lack of detail in the CAZ Simulation Exam caused all of the rater’s trained elsewhere who went through the practical test in a home similar to the CAZ Simulation to fail. Important details such as “safeing the combustion equipment” before putting the home in worst case CAZ risked the safety of the residents of the real home as well as endangered the home from flame roll-out and fire. As instructor’s we were able to halt testing before devastating consequences occurred. The other problem with the CAZ training is that instructors were not asked where they were trained or even if they were trained. The fact that RESNET wants to utilize the JobWerks tool to train and test Field Inspector’s as well as use for the proposed Recertification then why as Training Provider’s can’t we use the tool for practical testing of rater candidates. If it is good enough for a Field Inspector then it should be good enough for a rater practical exam. I believe that the Building Simulations can be an option for Training Providers to use as a tool for training. I have heard the argument that the simulations are used in various field of work, however, I also believe it is used as a training tool, not an exam. I would never want an airplane pilot to have his final exam to be a simulator and I would be in his first real flight.
204.1.3.1 Rater Simulation Practical Test – Page 6
204.1.3.1,1 For new Candidates t The effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test prior to on January 1, 2017.
COMMENTS Raters that currently have a RTIN should not have to take an additional exam which was not in place when they were certified. The material in the simulation exam was tested by the methods in place at the time of their certification. These raters have already paid $250.00 plus a class fee this past year to comply with the old combustion standard and now RESNET wants to require yet another exam (incorporated in the new simulation) for another combustion exam. They also have paid to take the RESNET Core exam as well in the past. If RESNET wants to impose an additional simulation exam in addition to the tests they have paid for in the past to certify, then RESNET should offer the exams at “no cost” to the current raters who have RTIN’s
204.2 Certification – Page 6
Prior to issuing a candidate's certification, a RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Provider shall confirm that the candidate has completed at a minimum, all of the following tasks appropriate to their desired certification within a 12-month period. Only RESNET aAccredited Rating Quality Assurance Providers may certify candidates for the certifications. Rating Providers may require additional training instruction beyond these requirements as needed to address their specific program, climate, software, or administrative requirements. The year’s commencement time would start when___________________.
COMMENT Editorial would be why Quality Assurance is added in the first line and then crossed out in the third line. I think this is an editorial mistake. I have added the last sentence because I think we all need to be clear as to when the rater candidate’s year time would begin to tick…would it be when the first RESNET Exam is passed or when the last day of training occurred. I have no opinion as to when but would like this to be made clearer in the Standard.
204.2.2 Rating Field Inspector (RFI) – Page 6 204.2.2.31.1 The RESNET JobWerks RFI Assessment graded field evaluation shall be performed under the observation of a certified trainer, Quality Assurance Designee Candidate Field Assessor, or QAD Delegate.
COMMENT Why a person whose credentials are that of a rater is allowed to test a Field Inspector Candidate and why as a QA Provider would they want to take in someone they may not have had any contact with? The only criteria is that they be a rater in good standing and have performed 25 ratings. Please see the proposed 204.1 above. Please see my addition to that as well.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters - Page 9
205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year period ; and. OR
205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period; OR
205.1.3.3 Attend other RESNET approved conferences or online training with documentation; attendance onlne or by session must be verifiable
COMMENT Number 1 - I believe it to be unfair to insist that a certified rater attend any conference. As a Third Party Provider we have many raters whose primary business is NOT ratings. For them ratings are a supplemental income to another business. When these small rater companies employ raters they are also taking on a monetary liability for their certification. This requirement may end the era of the small rater because they will not be able to pay for the expense of the conferences, not to mention the travel, hotel and meals that must be paid. If you put many of them out of business with this requirement you are defeating the purpose of the existence of RESNET. Currently even if the rater pays for the conference he/she can pay and go sightseeing. There is no way to know if there was any sessions attended only that they paid and received a badge. Number 2 - Currently the JobWerks tool is approximately $250.00 per person. (This is what one of my raters have paid) This again is an expense which must be absorbed by someone unless RESNET is willing to allow use with no cost or a minimal cost. If a rater is registering ratings and has had QA done then the JobWerks tool is not necessary. Done when QA is done. The rater is really not learning anything new or improving their abilities to service clients with new technologies or ideas to implement. Number 3 - In general RESNET is imposing requirements that disallows a rater access to a wider variety of educational opportunities that are available by many organizations. It really is disingenuous to keep raters stagnant within an organization without allowing other energy encompassing educational opportunities.
204. CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE FIELD ASSESSORS – Page 5 204.1 Achieving Certification Individuals shall meet the following requirements to be certified as a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor. 204.1.1 Certified HERS Rater in good standing, and 203.1.2 As a certified Home Energy Rater, complete confirmed ratings on a minimum of twenty-five (25) homes. These 25 Ratings shall have met the minimum quality assurance processes defined in Section 904.4. trained, tested and certified by RESNET to meet a high level of competency
COMMENT
A RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is only a certified rater in good standing and has had at least 25 ratings under their belt who is able and capable of mentoring a RESNET Field Inspector Candidate however when looking at a Rater Field Inspector’s requirement on 204.2.2.2 a RESNET Candidate Field Assessor is mentioned as well as a rater. This criteria is not rigorous enough. However, 25 certified ratings should not be a criteria as numbers do not make one an expert at anything. I believe this candidate should be assessed through RESNET since they are certified by RESNET with a rigorous test. This individual has a huge responsibility if you read through this documents.
205.1.3 Certified Home Energy Raters
205.1.3.1 Pass the RESNET JobWerks HERS Rater Assessment overseen by a RESNET certified Candidate Field Assessor once in a three year period ; and. OR 205.1.3.2 Attend a RESNET conference.once in a three year period; OR 205.1.3.3 Attend other RESNET approved conferences or online training with documentation; attendance onlne or by session must be verifiable
Number 1 - I believe it to be unfair to insist that a certified rater attend any conference. As a Third Party Provider we have many raters whose primary business is NOT ratings. For them ratings are a supplemental income to another business. When these small rater companies employ raters they are also taking on a monetary liability for their certification. This requirement may end the era of the small rater because they will not be able to pay for the expense of the conferences, not to mention the travel, hotel and meals that must be paid. If you put many of them out of business with this requirement you are defeating the purpose of the existence of RESNET. Currently even if the rater pays for the conference he/she can pay and go sightseeing. There is no way to know if there was any sessions attended only that they paid and received a badge. Number 2 - Currently the JobWerks tool is approximately $250.00 per person. (This is what one of my raters have paid) This again is an expense which must be absorbed by someone unless RESNET is willing to allow use with no cost or a minimal cost. If a rater is registering ratings and has had QA done then the JobWerks tool is not necessary. Done when QA is done. The rater is really not learning anything new or improving their abilities to service clients with new technologies or ideas to implement. Number 3 - In general RESNET is imposing requirements that disallows a rater access to a wider variety of educational opportunities that are available by many organizations. It really is disingenuous to keep raters stagnant within an organization without allowing other energy encompassing educational opportunities.
Comment #47Amendment: Proposed Chapter 2 RevisionsPage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I have been a Class 1 rater for 8 years and while I enjoy Building science and performance testing, the cost and difficulty of mantaining this certification is getting questionalable. I cannot attend the RESNET confreence every 3 years - the cost of travel , Hotel, food and then the conference is just to much. When ist local thats fine. Regarding extra PDU's my thought is to allow our Q/A Provider to evaluate our level of competency and recommend training to build up any weakness we might individually have. My employer DUKE Energy will most likley let our certifications go inactive if these new proposed changes are implimented and have us pick up something else less costly and more profitable. Hope these thoughts are taken into consideration, Thank You Joe Nahoun CEM, State certified class B A/C Contractor and Class 1 Rater.
I have been a Class 1 rater for 8 years and while I enjoy Building science and performance testing, the cost and difficulty of mantaining this certification is getting questionalable.
I cannot attend the RESNET confreence every 3 years - the cost of travel , Hotel, food and then the conference is just to much. When ist local thats fine.
Regarding extra PDU's my thought is to allow our Q/A Provider to evaluate our level of competency and recommend training to build up any weakness we might individually have.
My employer DUKE Energy will most likley let our certifications go inactive if these new proposed changes are implimented and have us pick up something else less costly and more profitable.
Hope these thoughts are taken into consideration,
Thank You Joe Nahoun
CEM, State certified class B A/C Contractor and Class 1 Rater.
Return to Proposed Chapter 2 Revisions