Energy Rating adoption ground rules

If your jurisdiction is adopting the IECC, and if you expect projects to use the ERI path, chapter 406, for energy conservation compliance. Or possibly you are looking to modify the rules or goals to accelerate the energy-efficiency or carbon reduction goals of your community? Then there are a few ground rules you should establish ahead of time, so everybody is on the same page.

Raters need to know exactly what was adopted, how special cases are handled and policies surrounding ratings. Below is a list of things that should be thought of before embarking on an adoption…

  1. IECC code year adopted?
  2. Adopt HERS or ERI rating?
  3. If HERS, what is the required score?
  4. If ERI, are test results required to be submitted?
  5. If ERI, what is done if test results do not comply?
  6. If ERI, what is done with mandatory items that do not comply?
  7. What is policy, how do you handle atmospherically detached ADUs?
  8. What is policy, how do you handle remodels?
  9. What is policy, how do you handle additions?
  10. What is policy, how do you handle off-grid houses?
  11. What is policy, if scores at final do not reach the goal?
  12. What is policy, in multi-family, is whole-building infiltration testing allowed? Or must units be tested for compartmentation?
  13. What is policy, withhold the TCO & CO until the confirmed rating certificate is issued?

HERS or ERI… To boil it down, the main difference here is that a HERS ratings don’t enforce the IECC. Whereas the ERI version has the Rater checking for mandatory IECC requirements and performing the required testing. JHAs that are relying on Raters as an extension of their own inspection staff, need to have an understanding of what Raters are looking for and what they are not. For instance, a Rater has to perform their own pipe insulation inspection, but they would have no reason to check the vapor retarder, snowmelt controls or pools and spas. Even if a Rater inspects and fails an IECC item, it doesn’t necessary mean that information will automatically be transmitted to the building department. It’s possible that the pipe insulation might fail the Rater’s inspection and pass the building department’s inspection, or visa-versa. HERS ratings scores are always more flattering than ERI scores. And HERS ratings come with a colorful certificate that gives a dollar amount of estimated savings. HERS ratings don’t have any pass/fail thresholds, so their flexibility can easily be used for existing and non-conforming homes. A HERS rating doesn’t require any construction inspections, although the score will benefit if the insulation is inspected, and it turns out to be better than default, which is “poor installation, grade III”. The HERS rating score (not ERI) will appear on the RESNET Registry, which is the database for the MLS (Multiple Listing Service). So if you go with ERI, it will not match the score listed on the MLS.

ADUs and other kinds of out buildings… Ratings don’t deal well with attached or unattached ADUs, guesthouses, party barns, etc. I recommend making a proactive statement in your adoption about how these kinds of things will be handled. Ignore ADUs entirely? Make ADUs stand on their own additional rating? Just an infiltration test for out buildings, no rating?

Remodels and additions… When a Rater inspects a project with existing assemblies and unstickered windows, they must assume the worst. The project will have a hard time making a good score with existing assemblies holding them back. Raters cannot rate just part of a house and ignore part. I recommend additions would be allowed to submit prescriptively, or are required to meet a less stringent score than new construction.

Compartmentalization…  I recommend making a proactive statement in your adoption about infiltration testing in multi-family buildings. Whole-building testing of multi-family buildings has been permitted in the past. Whole-building testing does not test the party wall, corridor wall and floor/ceiling assemblies. If individual unit testing is expected, then make that very clear up front. Typically party assemblies are not designed to create an airtight barrier between units. The unit-to-unit air leakage will make every unit perform poorly on the infiltration tests.

TCO before Confirmed rating…  It would be good to have a policy on whether or not projects can get a TCO before the Confirmed rating is issued. The pro is flexibility. For example, I have had projects lately that had major delays getting their solar installed. I am not able to final a job until the PV is on the roof and functioning. But a house can obviously be occupied safely without solar. Cons are that if people get to move in before I finish my inspection and testing, I often have access problems and new liabilities as a jobsite converts into someone’s home.

Plan for what happens when a project does not meet it’s score requirement… An ERI score is a moving target, it will fluctuate throughout a construction project. Details and specs become available, changes and substitutions are made, inspection and test results become available, etc. I always try to build in a small point buffer to offset any score creep, but invariably some projects will land above their target. Some jurisdictions will say that the project needs to do what is necessary to gain the missing points. Sometimes that works. I have been able to ask builders to upgrade a hot water recirculation pump at final to make up a couple of points. But pretty quickly we run out of options for making points that don’t involve taking the house apart in some way, significant occupation delays, etc. This puts a lot of pressure on the Rater as this starts to get into real money fast. And a Rater does not have the authority or protections of an agent of a governmental jurisdiction. Raters aren’t enforcement officers. There needs to be a way out of this situation. Some jurisdictions use a fee-in-lieu of points model. I suppose that is a reasonable way to go, probably with some limitations.

Thirteen facts about Raters and ratings every jurisdiction should know…

  1. Ratings are great for comparing the performance of simple, common, no-frills houses; production homes. The further from “average” the house is, the less reliable the rating is. I would not recommend using ratings alone to cap the energy consumption of custom luxury homes. Even if the software manages to compensate for the volume and glazing ration differences, once you start putting what are essentially commercial mechanical systems in a house, all bets are off.
  2. Rating software is much more sophisticated than something like REScheck, but not sophisticated enough to really handle a complex mechanical system with complex controls and operation. Especially dual-fuel houses.
  3. Rating software is not like mechanical system design software or Manual J & S software, like Wrightsoft or Elite. Rating software does not how to make “zones” comfortable, so I find it underestimates cooling loads in heavily glazed rooms.
  4. Rating software simultaneously checks the energy model for compliance with 36 different codes and programs including; 2006 IECC Prescriptive to 2021 IECC ERI, ENERGY STAR, LEED, 45L Tax Credit, etc.
  5. Ratings affect the construction schedule. As a job starts to wind down, there is often much pressure on a Rater to final inspect, test-out and produce a confirmed rating. Ratings cannot be finaled until the house is completely finished; solar installed, door hardware and thresholds installed, ventilators running, appliances etc. It takes at least two business days to get a final certificate from RESNET after a Rater makes the final inspection, builders often neglect to build this time into their schedule.
  6. Ratings are not black and white. Different software and different Raters may get slightly different results. The more complex the house, the more ratings will vary.
  7. Ratings don’t include all of the energy used in a project. Be cognizant of what is included in a rating and what is not. If you are trying to create a “total energy budget” for a house, know that ratings look only for specific items. People tend to ignore the little asterisks next to the HERS index utility bill estimate that says “*relative to an average U. S. home”. A model Renewables Energy Offset Program would need to catch, not just snow melted driveways and outdoor pools, but also everything about the house that is above “average” in order to have a comprehensive accounting of projected energy usage. And that “average” house is looking at a national scope, I find that almost all of the single-family houses I rate in Colorado are above average in the amount of energy that gets used beyond the scope of a rating. For instance rating do not capture… Anything outside the thermal boundary of the living spaces of the house, like; heated garages, ADUs, out buildings, pools, pool houses, fountains, patio kitchens, patio heating, snowmelt, hot tubs, etc. Items inside the house that a rating will not capture; make-up air for a large kitchen hood or draft inducer for a fireplace, steam showers, humidifiers, oxygen concentrators, elevators, radon fans, multiple redundant appliances, redundant heating systems, whirlpool tubs, pools, supplemental ventilation or dehumidification for pools, etc. We know from study by a local engineering firm (Resource Engineering Group, Crested Butte) that these items, that differentiate an average house from a custom luxury house, are the very things that make these houses exponentially more energy consumptive. Ignoring the burden of the luxury items is really a form of discrimination against anyone trying to build an average house.
  8. Ratings are very harsh on uninspected existing assemblies and unstickered windows. If a project covers insulation before I get to inspect it, I am required to assume the worst, and grade the insulation at the worst possible installation level; poor installation. This can add several points to the final score, even though the insulation may have been great. It would help Raters immensely if jurisdictions would stamp the drawings with something like, “Confirmed rating required for CO. Contact the Rater of Record at start of construction, before insulation is installed, after insulation is installed and at substantial completion.”
  9. Ratings don’t necessarily push projects to electrification. Ratings are based on dollars, not carbon. Ratings don’t know how clean or dirty the local electrical grid is. Science tells us that we should discourage the use of fossils fuels in new construction and embrace electrical technologies. If you want to incentivize electrification, then something more than a standard rating is required.
  10. Ratings are typically full of assumptions and the Projected level. Raters usually get Design Development drawings without PV design, appliance schedule, glazing specs, etc. The rating will gradually get more accurate as the project develops.
  11. Home Energy Raters are all certified by RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) at least until another certification group emerges. Once certified, they can perform HERS, ERI ratings and issue IECC compliance documents. With a little more training and testing, they can issue ENERGY STAR documents. With a little more training and testing, they can become a Green Rater and issue LEED documents.
  12. Rater certification and maintenance is not easy. Raters have to take classes in Building Science and how to use the software. Then pass the tests. Then you have to intern on a number of probationary ratings, all before you start work. It takes a load of expensive equipment to actually perform ratings- usually have about $25,000 worth of equipment in my car. I have to pay dues to a company to provide QA (Quality Assurance) which means they review my work answer questions and process the record keeping. Every year I pay for that company to send a representative to one of my jobs to do a live rating review on the spot. Every three years I have to complete 18 hours of continuing education. Plus annual equipment calibration, insurance, vehicle and computer overhead.
  13. Raters have no power of enforcement on their own, other than the fear of a non-compliant score. No power to compel document changes, no power to reject work, no power to withhold a CO. If energy conservation measures are to be enforced on a project, then a Rater needs to be supported by the AHJ.

 

Below is my model code adoption language. Please use it, customize it and evolve it…

HERS model adoption language

  1. The JHA will stamp the rating type, goal and any other special requirements on the cover sheet of the record documents kept on site.
  2. New construction projects, gut remodels and atmospherically detached Accessory Dwelling Units shall achieve a HERS score of 50 (Climate zone 7).
  3. Addition projects shall have a Home Assessment made of the existing structure and recommendations undertaken. New work to follow Prescriptive requirements. Final infiltration test not required.
  4. Multi-family units shall undergo compartmentation testing, whole-building tests will not be accepted.
  5. Off-grid houses shall follow the Prescriptive path.
  6. CO shall not be issued until confirmed rating is issued. A TCO may be issued for house that have completed testing but the confirmed rating is delayed for extenuating circumstances.
  7. If a site is deemed unsuitable for PV; projects may calculate how much solar is required and install that amount off-site. Or PV may be purchased at a community solar farm. Or the PV may be donated to another building in the community.
  8. Projects with non-compliant HERS scores shall; calculate how much additional PV it would take to make the score complaint and donate $7.00 per watt to a local community solar cooperative.

 

2021 IECC ERI model adoption language

  1. The JHA will stamp the rating type, goal and any other special requirements on the cover sheet of the record documents kept on site.
  2. New construction projects and gut remodels shall achieve a 2021 ERI score of 60 without PV and a 2021 ERI score of 53 with PV (Climate zone 7).
  3. Atmospherically detached Accessory Dwelling Units shall achieve a 2021 ERI score of 53 (Zone 7).
  4. Addition projects shall have a Home Assessment made of the existing structure and recommendations undertaken. New work to follow Prescriptive requirements. Final infiltration test not required.
  5. All ERI requirements of 2021 IECC Table 406.2 shall be met. The JHA shall be responsible for all inspections in enforcement of the IECC.
  6. Infiltration, ventilator efficacy and Total Duct Leakage test result reports shall be submitted.
  7. Ventilator flow test result reports shall be submitted. Non-compliant ventilation flows shall be rectified and re-tested. In the event of the test not being able to be executed for technical reasons, ventilation flows may rely on manufacturer’s data plate specifications.
  8. Multi-family units shall undergo compartmentation infiltration testing, whole-building tests will not be accepted.
  9. Off-grid houses shall follow the Prescriptive path.
  10. CO shall not be issued until confirmed rating is issued. A TCO may be issued for house that have completed testing but the confirmed rating is delayed for extenuating circumstances.
  11. If a site is deemed unsuitable for PV; projects may calculate how much solar is required and install that amount off-site. Or PV may be purchased at a community solar farm. Or the PV may be donated to another building in the community.
  12. Projects with non-compliant ERI scores shall calculate how much additional PV it would take to make the score complaint and donate $7.00 per watt to a local community solar cooperative.

Please note that I work in the mountains, custom luxury home market- climate zones 6 and 7. This could all change quite a bit in another part of the country. I don’t know a thing about termites, exterior vapor retarders, radiant barrier, etc.…

Thank you,

Mark McLain

Architect

ICC/HERS Compliance Specialist

ICC Residential Energy Inspector/Plans Examiner

RESNET Certified Home Energy Rater

BPI Building Analyst Professional

BPI Multi-family Building Analyst Professional

 

Link to Colorado Energy Conservation Code Hub for; Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village and the Town of Mountain Village

Getting to Zero

Confluence Architecture was instrumental in turning an old 1970 energy hog home into a an efficient, low energy use residence.   The project qualified for $12,000 in  grants from CORE and $7,092 in rebates from Holy Cross Energy.      The home is fully electric and uses air-source heat pumps for heating and cooling.  It is projected to be net-zero. Confluence was responsible for planning, architecture and energy modeling on this home.

Before

           

 

After

      

Snowmass Village Energy Code Requirements

Town of Snowmass Village Community Development website here…

2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and REOP adoption…

Ordinance No. 2 2011  adoption…

Town of Snowmass Village CFA Maximum
Tier I 1000-3000 HERS 75
Tier II 3001-5000 HERS 70
Tier III 5001-10000 HERS 65
Tier IV 10000+ HERS 60

Link to Colorado Energy Conservation Code Hub for; Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Town of Telluride and the Town of Mountain Village

Town of Mountain Village

As of August 20, 2020…

2018 International Energy Conservation Code

Special provisions for exterior energy use.

Permit fee discounts available for nonexistent or offset exterior energy uses.

Link to Town website and adoption language…

CFA TOMV yes snowmelt no snowmelt
< 3600 Tier I prescriptive prescriptive
3601-7000 Tier II 2018 HERS 60 2018 HERS 60
7001-13000 Tier III 2018 HERS 55 2018 HERS 60
13001+ Tier IV 2018 HERS 50 2018 HERS 60

 

Hi Allison,

I wanted to follow up after our conversation this morning addressing the issue of mechanical rooms and unconditioned space in new construction in the Town of Mountain Village.

As a policy we are allowing for mechanical rooms, and unconditioned garages to be exempted from habitable HERS calculations with the following criteria;

  • No heating of any type will be permitted in these locations
  • Exterior envelope insulation requirements shall be met for ALL walls, ceilings and floors (per the HERS design), with a designed thermal break at floors, including concrete (Check with your engineer as this may cause problems with structural slabs).
  • Doors to these rooms shall be fully gasketed
  • At least one, or a minimum of 25% of the walls shall be directly adjacent to the exterior of the structure.

As you are aware, our CDC and the 2018 IECC do not specifically provide for the installation of PV systems to offset HERS ratings in a residential application. The allowance above will hopefully provide for an easier time of meeting the HERS requirements of the Town, and meets prescriptive requirements. In the future, if one of your raters can provide additional information to review that will support the PV to HERS tradeoff, we are available to review.

Thank you and please contact me with any questions

 

Lars Forsythe

Building Inspector

Building Department

Town of Mountain Village

455 Mountain Village Blvd, Suite A

Mountain Village, CO 81435

O :: 970.369.8246

C :: 970.729.3439

 

Performance HERS changes
Currently the Mountain Village Building Regulations has adopted the 2018 energy code. Per (section 17.7.12.7.i.D) renewable energy sources can be used to lower the HERS score if the Smart Build Program is utilized. Buildings designed with a HERS rating below 50 is the starting threshold to allow the renewable offset. It has come to my attention that RESNET/ICC 301 allows for renewable energy sources to be used to lower the HERS score. In keeping with our commitment to support renewable energy the Mountain Village Building Department has reviewed this document and will allow renewable energy to aid in lowering the HERS score. Effective immediately the Mountain Village Building Department will allow all new residential projects to utilize renewable energy sources to lower the HERS score providing:
(1) All 2018 IECC Residential Mandatory requirements in chapter 4 are utilized.
(2) Depending on the type of construction the minimum requirements of 2018 IECC Tables 402.1.2, 402.1.4 and 402.2.6 are followed prior to the addition of the renewable energy source to assist in the HERS score.
(3) Building Regulations section (17.7.12.D. V.I. A), the onsite renewable energy system will be required to be maintained and operational for the lifetime of the property, through a written agreement with the property owner and a covenant on the property.
Inspection Changes as follows:
The Mountain Village Building Department will require the Performance Rater to perform all the insulation inspections. The Performance Rater will be required to sign off on the pre-drywall inspection prior to drywall being installed as well as any partial inspections. An acceptance email must be sent to the building department for all inspections as well as the final acceptance certificate prior to CO being issued. The Building Department will provide a red line stamp on the reviewed plans stating (3rd party insulation inspection required) to help the contractor be aware of this requirement. The following emails may be utilized for the acceptance reports: larsforsythe@mtnvillage.org and dharrington@mtnvillage.org.
Sincerely Drew Harrington
Chief Building Official
970- 708-7537
970- 369-8251

 

Link to Colorado Energy Conservation Code Hub for; Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village and the Town of Mountain Village

Colorado Energy Conservation Code Hub

One stop for energy code information on the multiple jurisdictions of the Roaring Fork Valley, Telluride and Mountain Village.

I will try to keep this list current.

Aspen

Jump to Aspen Colorado’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Basalt

Jump to Basalt Colorado’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Carbondale

Jump to Carbondale Colorado’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Eagle County

Jump to Eagle County Colorado’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Pitkin County

Jump to Pitkin County’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Town of Snowmass Village

Jump to TOSV’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Town of Telluride

Jump to Town of Telluride Colorado’s energy conservation code compliance page…

Town of Mountain Village

Jump to TOMV energy code compliance page…

San Miguel County

Jump to San Miguel County’s energy code compliance page…

 

 

 

 

 

How much solar PV do I need for my electric vehicle?

EV+PV

There is much to like about Electric Vehicles (EVs). There is much to like about Solar Photovoltaic power collection (PV) too. But when you put the two together, something extra happens… You can now think of your solar system as being paid off, not by offsetting the cost of the electricity that runs your house, but by offsetting the cost of the gas you’re not buying.

Below, I am going to list the real-world drive data from our two company cars, a Nissan Leaf EV and a Prius Prime PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle). Sorry hybrids, you don’t get to play this game. Then I’ll list our real-world solar array data and calculate the value of the electricity we have harvested from our PV array. And answers some important questions; How much PV do I need to offset driving an EV or PHEV?

3.24 kW PV array:

Number of panels:                           12

Power per panel:                              344 watts

Annual production:                         4,128 kWh

Cost after rebates:                          $5,796

Thermal solar panels on lower roof, PV array on upper roof

Thermal solar panels on lower roof, PV array on upper roof

The calculations will vary, of course, from place to place and car to car and driver to driver. These cars live in Carbondale, Colorado. The climate is pretty good for EVs; not too hot, not too cold. Typically highway driving punctuated by small towns. The road is never level, up valley, down valley, up the hill, down the hill. We run Blizzak winter tires for about five months, and Michelin Energy-savers the rest of the year. I’m no engineer; there is much rounding and estimating used in these calculations. For projections I will use these fuel values:

Street value of a kWh:                    $.11 (summer 2019)

Street value of a gallon of gas:    $2.60 (summer 2019)

Total annual value of electricity produced by PV based on utility cost of kWh:

Total:                                                $520

Confluence company cars at local EV event.

Confluence company cars at local EV event.

2013 Nissan Leaf EV, 24.0 kWh battery

Miles driven annually:                     13,000

Miles/kWh: (average)                      4.4 miles/kWh

Total kWh consumed:                      3,022

Percentage of public charging:      10%

kWh provided by PV:                       2,720

Leaf consumes:                                 66% of our production

Leaf consumes:                                 8.0 panels

Miles per panel:                                1,463

Confluence company cars at local EV event.

Confluence company cars at local EV event.

2018 Prius Prime PHEV, 8.8 kWh battery

Miles driven annually:                      19,000

Hybrid ratio:                                       50% EV : 50% ICE (Internal Combustion Engine)

MPG:                                                    80.5

Gallons of gas:                                   118

Cost of gas:                                         $307

Miles/kWh:                                        5.4 miles/kWh

Total kWh consumed:                      1,713

Percentage of public charging:       10%

kWh provided by PV:                       1,542

Prius consumes:                                 37% of our production

Prius consumes:                                 4.5 panels

Miles per panel:                                 2,111

Total annual value of electricity produced by PV based on gasoline offset:

If 22,500 miles were driven in a gas drive vehicle (e.g. 2005 Subaru Outback, 32 MPG)

Gas offset EV portion of Prius:      $772

Gas offset Leaf:                                 $1,056

Total value of gas offset:                 $1,828 (703 gallons)

 

Every solar PV panel you put on your roof will push your EV 1,500-2,000 miles.

So, the bottom line is that our PV system makes us $520 worth of electricity annually, not bad. It would pay itself off in about 11 years at that rate. But when we put that electricity into an EV, it saves us from buying $1,828 worth of gas over our old ICE car, which translates to a 3.2 year payback!

 

 

 

 

Prince Creek Home Breaks Ground

 

 

 

 

Confluence is excited to announce that Prince Creek Home (outside of Carbondale Colorado) is framing. This home is a modern reinterpretation on an existing ranch home foundation. It will be net zero! To achieve net zero the home uses SIPS, good foundation insulation, heat pump heating system, proper window location and shading and PV.

The underutilized U-factor alternative?

I review quite a few residential IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) submittals, and I would estimate that three-quarters of them are submitted as a straight-up prescriptive submittal. That’s when the table below is followed, without deviation. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but if a little flexibility is required, then leave the R-values behind and look at assemblies as U-factors, that can be morphed and traded around.

Table R402

The U-factor alternative (2015 IECC R402.1.4) is a very powerful and useful method, but I don’t see it get used much.

Table R402 U-factor alternative

I think it can be useful to use a chart like the one below to see building assembly alternatives by U-factor. PDF link…  U-factor alternative assemblies

For instance; can I substitute OVE (Optimum Value Engineering) or Efficient Framing for CI (Continuous Insulation) in zones 6 & 7. The Prescriptive compliance alternative would have at least R5 CI installed on the exterior of the above grade walls. The U-factor alternative says; use any wall with a U-factor of .045 or better. So, at a glance, from the list, I see that I could substitute R3.6 CI (i.e. 1.5” ZIP insulated sheathing) for the R5 CI and bump up the cavity insulation number to R23 and build the wall with efficient framing techniques. Don’t like CI at all? Then substitute an efficient framed wall with the cavities foamed solid to R36. Don’t like CI or efficient framing? Then you could use a 6” SIP, ICF or straw bale. Check the total U-factor of your specific assembly, it could vary from the U-factors on the list by a couple of thousands. Here is a super-good online wall calculator for R-values and U-factors including checks for moisture control.

https://www.appliedbuildingtech.com/fsc/calculator

If you still don’t like the choices that the U-factor alternatives gives, then it is time to move up to the Total UA Alternative, AKA RESchecks (2015 IECC R402.1.5). Often, projects get bumped out of the prescriptive path alternative because the insulation can’t easily be provided in a particular location. Then the Total UA Alternative could be used, because it can trade-off different assemblies. For instance, slab edge insulation, often hard to do at a door threshold, patio or deck attachment or behind stone veneer. The uninsulated slab edge can be “traded” for surplus U-factors on completely different assemblies anywhere in the project.

If you still don’t like the choices that the Total UA Alternative gives, or still having trouble reaching the code threshold, then it is time to go fully custom with the Simulated Performance Alternative (2015 IECC R405) or the Energy Rating Index (ERI) Compliance Alternative (2015 IECC R406). Both alternatives can checked by the software at the same time, but the ERI Alternative is more powerful, because it take into consideration low infiltration rates, high efficacy lighting, appliances and renewable energy sources. The only certified ERI program currently is the HERS Rating.

Please contact us if we can help you comply with the energy code in the smartest possible way.

Link to Colorado Energy Conservation Code Hub for; Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Telluride and the Town of Mountain Village

Energy & Sustainability Services

Recently more jurisdictions have adopted the 2015 IECC or the IgCC and we have been helping several architects & designers with energy and sustainability code compliance.

Go custom! You don’t have to follow the recipe. Make the energy code work for your project.

Farm out the energy work to Confluence. We will be responsible for any or all of these, bring value to the performance of the building, and take the load off of your hands:

  • Energy code compliance
    • Infiltration (blower door) testing
    • Assembly UA trade-off (calculation software)
    • Total UA trade-off (REScheck or HERS Rating)
    • Performance path compliance (REScheck or HERS Rating)
    • ERI path compliance (HERS Rating)
  • Code compliance/optimization and Construction Documents
    • Ventilation calculations
    • Sealed crawlspace & ventilation details
    • Continuous Insulation details
    • Back-ventilating siding and attachment details
    • Efficient framing details
    • Fenestration flashing details
    • Radon mitigation details
    • Thermal and pressure envelope delineation
    • Vapor retarder specifications
    • Air-sealing details
  • Local/municipal Green/Efficient Building Checklists
    • Carbondale, Basalt, Town of Snowmass Village, Telluride, Mountain Village
  • Above-code/Net Zero design and certification
    • LEED, Passive House, HERS Rating, etc.