Comment #1Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 99Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 99Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment:Proposed Change: As HERS Raters, we face more and more costs for doing our business in a construction sector that is economically distressed. Why have a QA requirement on ratings which costs hundreds of dollars a year and then also require simulation testing on these same competent raters? If they continue to muster the QA - what's the point here? There will no doubt be more monies to have to spend "recertifying" through this simulation testing requirement. This simulation testing should only be required if a provider has placed an existing rater in low competence category following QA. This testing is fine to include with rater candidates who have not done field inspections and ratings before. If this wants to be offered as PDH options for existing raters during their 3 year window, I’m not opposed to that option. This should not be a requirement for existing raters in good standing. We pay our annual fees to providers, gain PDH to recertify and then get hammered with petty requirements like this that are ambiguous to other quality checks on raters. Maybe RESNET needs to beef up the review of HERS Providers on how competent their QA is conducted - just how well they hold their rater's feet to the fire on completed jobs. What's the status on that aspect on the HERS program? I'm not opposed to testing current raters or holding them accountable. The recent CAZ testing was a great idea because it was something that was sorely missing in many raters’ skill set yet a very necessary concern in new energy efficient construction. I’m “all in on quality, just not excited on one more ambiguous requirement. My change would be that after July 1, 2016: require this of existing raters as part of a "recovery program" for raters who have a QA deficiency based on ratings they submitted to their providers. Allow it to be optional PDH training (part of the 18 hours) for raters to recertify next time around.......
As HERS Raters, we face more and more costs for doing our business in a construction sector that is economically distressed. Why have a QA requirement on ratings which costs hundreds of dollars a year and then also require simulation testing on these same competent raters? If they continue to muster the QA - what's the point here? There will no doubt be more monies to have to spend "recertifying" through this simulation testing requirement. This simulation testing should only be required if a provider has placed an existing rater in low competence category following QA. This testing is fine to include with rater candidates who have not done field inspections and ratings before. If this wants to be offered as PDH options for existing raters during their 3 year window, I’m not opposed to that option. This should not be a requirement for existing raters in good standing.
We pay our annual fees to providers, gain PDH to recertify and then get hammered with petty requirements like this that are ambiguous to other quality checks on raters. Maybe RESNET needs to beef up the review of HERS Providers on how competent their QA is conducted - just how well they hold their rater's feet to the fire on completed jobs. What's the status on that aspect on the HERS program?
I'm not opposed to testing current raters or holding them accountable. The recent CAZ testing was a great idea because it was something that was sorely missing in many raters’ skill set yet a very necessary concern in new energy efficient construction. I’m “all in on quality, just not excited on one more ambiguous requirement.
My change would be that after July 1, 2016: require this of existing raters as part of a "recovery program" for raters who have a QA deficiency based on ratings they submitted to their providers. Allow it to be optional PDH training (part of the 18 hours) for raters to recertify next time around.......
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: -Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: -Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: This should not be required for Experienced Raters in good standing. Just another added expense and a waste of our time. We already have QA requirements and the associated expense. Focus your attention on the core problem of QA providers and Raters who provide shoddy ratings. This problem was discussed during the 2010 conference.
This should not be required for Experienced Raters in good standing. Just another added expense and a waste of our time. We already have QA requirements and the associated expense.
Focus your attention on the core problem of QA providers and Raters who provide shoddy ratings. This problem was discussed during the 2010 conference.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Again! Please this was a complete burden on our business last year. Having to pay and take the time from our business to take certification exams that we have all ready been certified for it completely unexceptable. I can speak for most in that we went along with the CAZ simulation exam and followed along with your proposal. Once is fine, but again, this is not exceptable ...PERIOD! I HAVE PAID ENOUGH and continue to pay membership fees as required. I do not have the time to take from my business to take a exam I have already Passed!
Again! Please this was a complete burden on our business last year.
Having to pay and take the time from our business to take certification exams that we have all ready been certified for it completely unexceptable.
I can speak for most in that we went along with the CAZ simulation exam and followed along with your proposal.
Once is fine, but again, this is not exceptable ...PERIOD!
I HAVE PAID ENOUGH and continue to pay membership fees as required.
I do not have the time to take from my business to take a exam I have already Passed!
Comment #4Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DateComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I am very concerned by Resnet once again causing a hardship on experienced Raters. We already go through rigorous QC process. I for one don't think that a video game is an appropriate method of testing ones competence. But more to the point it is unfair to keep shifting the game board on existing raters. To require them to pay for and take more testing or lose their certification. I thought fairness was a thing that Resnet embraced. I am very disappointed and object to the implication of this new testing protocol.
I am very concerned by Resnet once again causing a hardship on experienced Raters. We already go through rigorous QC process. I for one don't think that a video game is an appropriate method of testing ones competence. But more to the point it is unfair to keep shifting the game board on existing raters. To require them to pay for and take more testing or lose their certification. I thought fairness was a thing that Resnet embraced. I am very disappointed and object to the implication of this new testing protocol.
Comment #5Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: allComment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I personally agree with keeping current criteria of raters up to date with current technologies. I am concerned with Simulation programmers creating evaluation tools that have never physically witnessed the procedures that they have been handsomely paid to recreate. 35 yrs of construction industry background affords me the opinion that real world judgement based on physical world experiance are assets that cannot be duplicated from a sitting position. My hope is the chosen programers actually see a few inspections performed.
I personally agree with keeping current criteria of raters up to date with current technologies. I am concerned with Simulation programmers creating evaluation tools that have never physically witnessed the procedures that they have been handsomely paid to recreate. 35 yrs of construction industry background affords me the opinion that real world judgement based on physical world experiance are assets that cannot be duplicated from a sitting position. My hope is the chosen programers actually see a few inspections performed.
Comment #6Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 00Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I have been performing HERS ratings since 2008 and when I need to renew my certificate, I take the HERS rater test again, which I always pass with flying colors. I also took and passed your HERS simulator. I think it is overkill to force an established rater to srudy, take, and PAY FOR, another test. Could it be just another income stream?
I have been performing HERS ratings since 2008 and when I need to renew my certificate, I take the HERS rater test again, which I always pass with flying colors. I also took and passed your HERS simulator. I think it is overkill to force an established rater to srudy, take, and PAY FOR, another test.
Could it be just another income stream?
Comment #7Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 204.1.3.1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: If the provider is doing their job then this is just a way to collect more money from raters. Nickel and diming raters is not a way to maintain quality work and maintain raters respect. Besides, the secret to the CAZ simulation was learning the tricks of the simulation. From my BPI training and the CAZ regs what had to be done was clear to me.
If the provider is doing their job then this is just a way to collect more money from raters. Nickel and diming raters is not a way to maintain quality work and maintain raters respect.
Besides, the secret to the CAZ simulation was learning the tricks of the simulation. From my BPI training and the CAZ regs what had to be done was clear to me.
Comment #8Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DateComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I believe it is ridiculous to expect raters who have years of experience to take another test to prove that the ratings that they are doing and have been doing under two layers of scrutiny and QC are correct. This is an unnecessary burden that appears to benefit the game makers and no one else. The CAZ game was so ridiculous and such a waste of time that I almost quit being a HERS rater. I am thorougly conbvinced this will also be a complete waste of time. Lets hope BPI can develop an accepted alternative to RESNET. Competion is needed. Proposed Change: Remove the testing requirement for current raters who are in good standing.
I believe it is ridiculous to expect raters who have years of experience to take another test to prove that the ratings that they are doing and have been doing under two layers of scrutiny and QC are correct. This is an unnecessary burden that appears to benefit the game makers and no one else. The CAZ game was so ridiculous and such a waste of time that I almost quit being a HERS rater. I am thorougly conbvinced this will also be a complete waste of time. Lets hope BPI can develop an accepted alternative to RESNET. Competion is needed.
Remove the testing requirement for current raters who are in good standing.
Comment #9Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: please explain the benifit for an established/experienced rater taking a simulated test. granted there is a case for new raters to be able to pass this but needs to be backed up with real world field training. The CAZ simulator was fun to play with but provided no real world confidence, Raters in good standing should be exempt,from this proposed requirement as it serves no real purpose for experienced raters. however taking and passing the simulator should count towards CEU's
please explain the benifit for an established/experienced rater taking a simulated test. granted there is a case for new raters to be able to pass this but needs to be backed up with real world field training. The CAZ simulator was fun to play with but provided no real world confidence,
Raters in good standing should be exempt,from this proposed requirement as it serves no real purpose for experienced raters. however taking and passing the simulator should count towards CEU's
Comment #10Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 204.1.3.1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: This seems like a reasonable requirement for new HERS rater candidates, and an unreasonable requirement for existing certified HERS raters. We agreed with and appreciated the CAZ training and testing. This Rater Simulation Practical test seems extraneous; a misguided use of time, energy and money. Please reconsider and remove this Rater Simulation Practical test requirement for experienced existing certified HERS raters. Thank you for your consideration. Proposed Change: Please remove this Rater Simulation Practical test requirement for experienced existing certified HERS raters.
This seems like a reasonable requirement for new HERS rater candidates, and an unreasonable requirement for existing certified HERS raters.
We agreed with and appreciated the CAZ training and testing.
This Rater Simulation Practical test seems extraneous; a misguided use of time, energy and money.
Please reconsider and remove this Rater Simulation Practical test requirement for experienced existing certified HERS raters.
Thank you for your consideration.
Please remove this Rater Simulation Practical test requirement for experienced existing certified HERS raters.
Comment #11Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I object to the idea that raters already deemed competent by way of experience and having already passed the RESNET exams should be subject to yet another test to confirm their competency. In the medical profession and many others, continuing education is required, as it should be. But these highly skilled professionals are not required to sit for their boards or exams all over again, just because the certifying body has decided that another testing methodology is now preferred. I took my RESNET exam long before field testing was a required component. RESNET did not come back to practicing raters and require that we all undergo a field test or risk revocation of of our credential. With such a mindset, there could be many future opportunities for RESNET to tap our limited resources - both time and money, all bearing the threat of ending our livlihood if we don't pay up. If RESNET feels they must implement this new policy, I strongly feel that it should be limited to newly certifying raters and raters who are on probation for issues related to technical competency. Otherwise, please leave us to do our jobs and let our QAD assess and monitor our competency. Proposed Change: 204.1.3.1 The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January July 1, 2016 and who are currently in a probationary status duee to matters relating to technical competency shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017. Raters who were certified prior to July 1, 2016 and are in good standing shall be exempt from this testing requirement.
I object to the idea that raters already deemed competent by way of experience and having already passed the RESNET exams should be subject to yet another test to confirm their competency.
In the medical profession and many others, continuing education is required, as it should be. But these highly skilled professionals are not required to sit for their boards or exams all over again, just because the certifying body has decided that another testing methodology is now preferred.
I took my RESNET exam long before field testing was a required component. RESNET did not come back to practicing raters and require that we all undergo a field test or risk revocation of of our credential. With such a mindset, there could be many future opportunities for RESNET to tap our limited resources - both time and money, all bearing the threat of ending our livlihood if we don't pay up.
If RESNET feels they must implement this new policy, I strongly feel that it should be limited to newly certifying raters and raters who are on probation for issues related to technical competency.
Otherwise, please leave us to do our jobs and let our QAD assess and monitor our competency.
204.1.3.1 The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January July 1, 2016 and who are currently in a probationary status duee to matters relating to technical competency shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017. Raters who were certified prior to July 1, 2016 and are in good standing shall be exempt from this testing requirement.
Comment #12Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: allComment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: As a new rater who has taken and passed the Simulation test, I'd just like to say that the test is as much about being a computer gamer as anything else. If I had not had gaming tutorials from a younger colleague, I don't know that I would have passed the test. While I understand and commend the attempt to raise the bar in certification, this becomes a classic example of teaching/learning to the test. Therefore... Proposed Change: I suggest the date be "indefinitely postponed"
As a new rater who has taken and passed the Simulation test, I'd just like to say that the test is as much about being a computer gamer as anything else. If I had not had gaming tutorials from a younger colleague, I don't know that I would have passed the test. While I understand and commend the attempt to raise the bar in certification, this becomes a classic example of teaching/learning to the test. Therefore...
I suggest the date be "indefinitely postponed"
Comment #13Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: Currently the standard requires that after January 1, 2016 new HERS Rater candidates must pass the test and that existing certified HERS Raters must pass the test by January 1, 2017. Due to the need to properly educate the rating industry on this requirement and make some technical modifications to the practical simulation test, the effective date for new raters will move to July 1, 2016 and for existing raters the effective date will move to July 1, 2017. The above was from the notice for the reason of the change and stated that the effective date for New Raters will move to July 1, 2016. The Proposed change does not reflect this and only the dates for existing Raters was changed. The effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test should be changed from January 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016 to reflect the highlited/underlined section above. Proposed Change: 204.1.3.1 The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January July 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January July 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017.
Currently the standard requires that after January 1, 2016 new HERS Rater candidates must pass the test and that existing certified HERS Raters must pass the test by January 1, 2017.
Due to the need to properly educate the rating industry on this requirement and make some technical modifications to the practical simulation test, the effective date for new raters will move to July 1, 2016 and for existing raters the effective date will move to July 1, 2017.
The above was from the notice for the reason of the change and stated that the effective date for New Raters will move to July 1, 2016. The Proposed change does not reflect this and only the dates for existing Raters was changed.
The effective date for the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test should be changed from January 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016 to reflect the highlited/underlined section above.
204.1.3.1 The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test is January July 1, 2016. Raters who were certified prior to January July 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017.
Comment #14Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: Section 204.1.3.1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: While I do see the need for testing skills that have been learned by take practical examinations and filed testing, I do not agree with the simulation testing and other things that Resnet is doing. The CAZ simulator in the beginning was a complete disaster and if the new testing for raters is done in the same manner it will change people’s minds from joining your organization and you will also lose a large percentage of the current rater population as I suspect you already have with redundant testing and simulations. I am BPI certified so the caz testing while similar had subtle differences so for me not that big of a deal other than the amount of extra time and effort that went into the simulation which had flaws for sure. A new rater will not only have to pass the testing, and now two simulators. Who in their right mind will undergo this type of torture just to be a rater, the answer is very few. Let alone all of the costs that are going to be incurred along the way. Recovering such costs even in the right business climate would be thought at best. Okay someone wants to go through that torture and has become a rater. Now the fun begins as you folks just keep on piling on change after change after change. It is at best impossible to keep up with every week a comment period on a standard change. Even I am guessing the providers have a tough time keeping it straight. Okay so now I am a rater that can't fly to California or the west coast more than likely because of all the extra costs incurred along the way, just to get a 3 year exemption for PDU's. Why not make your road show come to different locations and you incurred the costs and get a dose of that same medicine. I live on the east coast not a stretch for you folks to come this way once in awhile. I took the rater exams about seven years ago with the hopes that I could build a business around new homes and making a better life for people that just don't understand the science behind a home and what it takes to gain comfort in their new environment. That has been a struggle for several reasons. One is that New York State code wise was very behind and the builders still don't know that there is a better way, code is the minimum to them and you can't seem to change there mind. The 2015 code should be in force soon so that could help. Second is that with all of the changes made to the Energy Star program and RESNET making daily changes, it is all but impossible to run a business that changes almost on a monthly basis. The information we give in one month could and probably will change before the home is completed. Hard to keep a customer base when change after change happens. I could go on forever here. I do like the challenge of being a rater you and your processes if followed are for the betterment of the housing industry as a whole. I do feel given the same path that you are on at this point will diminish your return on investment and will ultimately raise my costs that I would pay to you. There will be less raters to do the testing and checklists etc. so ultimately YOU will suffer.
While I do see the need for testing skills that have been learned by take practical examinations and filed testing, I do not agree with the simulation testing and other things that Resnet is doing. The CAZ simulator in the beginning was a complete disaster and if the new testing for raters is done in the same manner it will change people’s minds from joining your organization and you will also lose a large percentage of the current rater population as I suspect you already have with redundant testing and simulations. I am BPI certified so the caz testing while similar had subtle differences so for me not that big of a deal other than the amount of extra time and effort that went into the simulation which had flaws for sure. A new rater will not only have to pass the testing, and now two simulators. Who in their right mind will undergo this type of torture just to be a rater, the answer is very few. Let alone all of the costs that are going to be incurred along the way. Recovering such costs even in the right business climate would be thought at best. Okay someone wants to go through that torture and has become a rater. Now the fun begins as you folks just keep on piling on change after change after change. It is at best impossible to keep up with every week a comment period on a standard change. Even I am guessing the providers have a tough time keeping it straight. Okay so now I am a rater that can't fly to California or the west coast more than likely because of all the extra costs incurred along the way, just to get a 3 year exemption for PDU's. Why not make your road show come to different locations and you incurred the costs and get a dose of that same medicine. I live on the east coast not a stretch for you folks to come this way once in awhile. I took the rater exams about seven years ago with the hopes that I could build a business around new homes and making a better life for people that just don't understand the science behind a home and what it takes to gain comfort in their new environment. That has been a struggle for several reasons. One is that New York State code wise was very behind and the builders still don't know that there is a better way, code is the minimum to them and you can't seem to change there mind. The 2015 code should be in force soon so that could help. Second is that with all of the changes made to the Energy Star program and RESNET making daily changes, it is all but impossible to run a business that changes almost on a monthly basis. The information we give in one month could and probably will change before the home is completed. Hard to keep a customer base when change after change happens. I could go on forever here. I do like the challenge of being a rater you and your processes if followed are for the betterment of the housing industry as a whole. I do feel given the same path that you are on at this point will diminish your return on investment and will ultimately raise my costs that I would pay to you. There will be less raters to do the testing and checklists etc. so ultimately YOU will suffer.
Comment #15Amendment: Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective DatePage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Book learning is very different from field experience, though both are important to being a competent field inspector. Computer simulations, like the RESCAZ, have a number of inherent flaws that make their implementation a burden rather than a benefit to the industry: (1) When the same house is repeated, the test-taker must only learn the motions of the game and doesn’t need to learn how to think critically about approaching and analyzing a real house; (2) Any software errors or bugs must be compensated for by the test-taker and have the potential to impede performance in the Simulator or create bad real-world habits; and (3) Although HERS Raters must use technology to get the job done (i.e., energy modeling), this industry does not require computer-savvy experts, so there’s a high learning curve for this type of software. In addition, even well-executed computer games do not exude “professional competency training.” The concept automatically alienates those of us who aren’t 18-25 year old males. My Proposed Change below is a compromise since this amendment was already passed. After taking the RESCAZ simulator and also taking multiple field exams, I believe that field exams are a far superior methodology for determining an individual’s competence in the field. They also keep jobs in our industry rather than outsourcing them to computer programmers. There are other, less burdensome ways that RESNET can make more money and encourage Raters to increase their expertise. Proposed Change: 204.1.3.1 Individuals pursuing new Rater certification must pass the The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test if their test date is on or after July is January 1, 2016. Raters who were on Disciplinary Probation or have been Suspended for Disciplinary Reasons certified prior to January July 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017. After July 1, 2016, any Rater who is placed on Probation or is Suspended for Disciplinary reasons must pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test within one year of Disciplinary action in order to avoid Termination. Active Raters are not required to take the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test but may choose to do so in order to gain PDHs or to recertify.
Book learning is very different from field experience, though both are important to being a competent field inspector. Computer simulations, like the RESCAZ, have a number of inherent flaws that make their implementation a burden rather than a benefit to the industry: (1) When the same house is repeated, the test-taker must only learn the motions of the game and doesn’t need to learn how to think critically about approaching and analyzing a real house; (2) Any software errors or bugs must be compensated for by the test-taker and have the potential to impede performance in the Simulator or create bad real-world habits; and (3) Although HERS Raters must use technology to get the job done (i.e., energy modeling), this industry does not require computer-savvy experts, so there’s a high learning curve for this type of software. In addition, even well-executed computer games do not exude “professional competency training.” The concept automatically alienates those of us who aren’t 18-25 year old males.
My Proposed Change below is a compromise since this amendment was already passed. After taking the RESCAZ simulator and also taking multiple field exams, I believe that field exams are a far superior methodology for determining an individual’s competence in the field. They also keep jobs in our industry rather than outsourcing them to computer programmers. There are other, less burdensome ways that RESNET can make more money and encourage Raters to increase their expertise.
204.1.3.1 Individuals pursuing new Rater certification must pass the The effective date for RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test if their test date is on or after July is January 1, 2016. Raters who were on Disciplinary Probation or have been Suspended for Disciplinary Reasons certified prior to January July 1, 2016 shall pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test by on January July 1, 2017. After July 1, 2016, any Rater who is placed on Probation or is Suspended for Disciplinary reasons must pass the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test within one year of Disciplinary action in order to avoid Termination. Active Raters are not required to take the RESNET Rater Simulation Practical Test but may choose to do so in order to gain PDHs or to recertify.
Return to Proposed Amendment to Extend Rater Simulation Practical Test Effective Date