BPI certification

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

You are correct... but please familiarize yourself with the BPI evaluation process. Look at all the components, the training, the equipment, the calcs.

Be careful what you wish for...

As BPI has set itself up as the defacto standard for performing these audits, and you must get trained/certified through their program, it will be a short matter of time until they are challenged.

Joe you make some very interesting points.
I suspect they may get challenged but is it worth it for an engineer to go after $300-$500 energy audits??? These would be way below their pay scale.
Also, I think this whole issue would be re-challanged because these standards are and have been used by state weatherization groups for a long time.
I compare this to the thermal imaging patent that was brought up last year.

[Joe Farsetta]

Peter,

Your last two sentences drive home my entire point. Weatherization companies have been doing audits for years PRIOR TO EXCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT NOW CLAIMS TO OCCUPY THE FIELD.

Mark my words... the BPI process will be challenged by ASHRAE (who are made up of thousands of PEs). If ASHRAE somehow loses the argument, they will enforce long-standing rules at the state level prohibiting the practice by anyone but an licensed engineer.

Engineers already have a dislike for many inspectors, and all we do are non-invasive, non-engineering inspections. Just imagine when they really catch wind of this...

Once someone inserts any device intended to alter existing conditions (such as a blower door and manometer), that person has enter the realm of engineering. This practice differs from turning on an attic fan, as it is specific for the purpose, is equipped with a measurement device and means to control the fan, and is intended to create a cntrolled environment specific to testing purposes by either pressurizing or de-pressurizing the structure.

What makes matters worse is that BPI has positioned its methods as the SOLE means to perform an audit. And this is where we will be faced with a problem.

[James H. Bushart]

I think the root of your misunderstanding can be found in the last sentence of your last post, Joe.

BPI is NOT the sole means to perform an audit.

What BPI has done is taken one part of the audit, as it pertains to air sealing and combustion air requirements, and developed a certification process whereby those they certify have demonstrated (both, by written test and a field examination) that they can conduct the tests in a safe manner that will not harm people or property. Just last week, RESNet adopted the same standard....which is a protocol almost identical to the one that ICC published in its Fuel Code.

Since no one else has developed a certification process such as this, BPI certification and protocol is naturally favored above anyone else.

My state certifies energy auditors and will certify people who are either certified by BPI or ...... and the "or" is very important to this conversation ..... anyone who is trained and certified by another agency applying the same or similar standard.

BPI and RESNet, today, are the only ones.....but the government's preference is for the protocol and will recognize other certifications. They just don't exist, yet.

Even engineers who are enrolling in classes and testing for this certification are failing either the written or field exam. This protocol is not taught in any college engineering curriculum. The instructor who did my field exam told me that engineers have the hardest time getting certified due to the field exam requirement....where they have to actually demonstrate their abilities to inspect a house, report what they found, account for it in their calculations, and to properly operate the equipment. Engineers are pros with slide rules and calculators....but when it comes to tying their own shoes, many rely upon penny loafers, I'm afraid.