RESNET SDC 900 first developed proposed updates to the MINHERS Chapter 6 Sampling requirements during the Covid Pandemic and released them to the public for feedback. The input received on the initial draft was considered by the SDC and incorporated into Preliminary Draft Standard, PDS-01 which is being released for public review and comment. Comments will be accepted on all proposed changes to the current requirements as indicated by red text in draft PDS-01 and shown by strike-through and underline marking. To review and comment on the Draft follow the links below. The public comment period begins July 24, 2023, and ends August 22, 2023. To review the draft addendum click on Draft PDS-01, MINHERS Addendum 46, Sampling Update To submit your comments, click on “SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE” below. Comments are posted in real time and you will be able to review comments by clicking on “VIEW COMMENTS HERE” below. SUBMIT COMMENTS HERE: The public comment period has ended VIEW COMMENTS HERE: Entry Date: August 4, 2023 at 4:07 PM Full Name: Clara TEST Affiliation: TEST Address: TEST, TEST, Alabama TEST United States of America Phone Number: TEST Email: clara@resnet.us Page Number: TEST Section/Table/Figure Number: Comment Intent: Objection Comment Type: General Comment: testing country code issue Proposed Change to Amendment: Test Entry Date: August 7, 2023 at 12:52 PM Full Name: Katie Johnson Affiliation: JKP Energy Inspections Address: 1410 W Guadalupe Rd, Ste 124, Gilbert, Arizona 85233 United States of America Phone Number: 8 Email: katie@jkpenergy.com Page Number: 8 Section/Table/Figure Number: Comment Intent: Objection Comment Type: Technical Comment: The increase of 30-days to 90-days within a sample set is a great improvement as construction has changed drastically in the past few years. Arranging the sample set by stage of construction though seems complicated. For production builders, the timeline for each stage of construction per home can vary dramatically. Trying to track each home’s progress and then rearrange sample sets based on that would be a large undertaking. For example, we have one builder that currently has over 600 active homes. Rearranging sample sets constantly would be difficult. Some builders also do not release a schedule when they release a start to us. This would mean we could not create a sample set for those homes until the schedule is released. Builder’s are also notorious for not having accurate construction schedules. Even though most use scheduling software , the reality is probably 90% or more of it is inaccurate. Depending on the superintendents ability to keep schedules updated, or even answer their phones, for a Rater to be able to create accurate sample sets is going to create problems. Also, the inconsistency of construction stage could affect the sample plan. We price based on sample set size at the beginning of a community. With the flexibility of construction stage, and depending on the market, this could mean batches could be smaller which would change our sampling rate. Though we understand where this idea of sample set by construction is coming from, applying it with the current inconsistent production building schedules is going to make creating sample sets complicated and time consuming. Many production builders release houses in batches for construction. Creating sample sets by start date, a fixed date, instead of construction stage, a flexible date, seems the best way. Proposed Change to Amendment: A group of Dwelling Units at the same stage of construction (e.g., pre-drywall, final) within a 90-day period that the Sampling rate is applied to. A group of Dwelling Units with a start date within a 90-day period that the Sampling rate is applied to. Entry Date: August 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM Full Name: Paul Gay Affiliation: US EcoLogic Address: 911 Maryland Dr, Irving, North Carolina 28104 United States of America Phone Number: 9 Email: paul.gay@us-ecologic.com Page Number: 9 Section/Table/Figure Number: 606.2.1 Comment Intent: Objection Comment Type: General Comment: Remove this section 606.2.1 A builder or developer shall complete and have verified the installation of a minimum of five (5) of each Sampled Feature prior to conducting a Qualification Set for each Sampled Feature. to determine if a project is ready to qualify for sampling is a good practice but seems overly burdensome to require it Proposed Change to Amendment: 606.2.1 A builder or developer shall complete and have verified the installation of a minimum of five (5) of each Sampled Feature prior to conducting a Qualification Set for each Sampled Feature. Entry Date: August 9, 2023 at 3:55 PM Full Name: Sharla Riead Affiliation: EnergySmart Institute Address: 11601 Orchard Rd., Kansas City, Missouri 64134 United States of America Phone Number: 5 Email: sharla@energysmartinstitute.com Page Number: 5 Section/Table/Figure Number: 600.2 Scope Comment Intent: Not an Objection Comment Type: Editorial Comment: This section uses the word “chapter” the changes to “standard”. A chapter does not establish procedures, a standard does. The more correct word to use is “standard”. Proposed Change to Amendment: 600.2 Scope This chapter standard establishes the procedures for energy modeling, labeling, inspections, testing, quality assurance by Sampling Providers, and Sampling Provider Accreditation criteria as they pertain to Sampling. The procedures described in this chapter are applicable to the following Dwelling Units: single family homes (attached and detached) units within a multifamily building or within multiple buildings. This chapter standard does not provide any warranty, either explicit or implied, that Sampled Dwelling Units will meet or exceed the Threshold Specifications for the Sample Set. There may be instances in which local laws or regulations differ from these Standards. In such instances, local law or regulation shall take precedence over this standard. Entry Date: August 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Full Name: Ben Cohen Affiliation: ReVireo Address: 675 Morris Ave, Suite 200, Springfield, New Jersey 07081 United States of America Phone Number: 0 Email: bcohen@revireo.com Page Number: 0 Section/Table/Figure Number: Comment Intent: Not an Objection Comment Type: General Comment: The proposed addendum does not address the implementation timeline for the changes. Since many projects that pursue sampling have a long design and construction period, and Rating companies are already contracted to pursue sampling on projects that have not started construction. It is important that a clear implementation timeline be implemented so that Raters and project teams can account for this and that projects do not incur additional costs due to these amendments. Proposed Change to Amendment: Entry Date: August 21, 2023 at 2:25 PM Full Name: Scott Pusey Affiliation: Steven Winter Associates, Inc. Address: 55 N Water Street, Suite 1, Norwalk, Connecticut 06854 United States of America Phone Number: Multiple Email: spusey@swinter.com Page Number: Multiple Section/Table/Figure Number: Comment Intent: Not an Objection Comment Type: Editorial Comment: Please see the attached pdf & word doc with multiple comments. Proposed Change to Amendment: Tips and Reminders for Submitting Public Comments Comments must pertain to text in draft PDS-01 that is shown as either strikethrough or underlined and red print. Comments on portions of draft PDS-01 where no change is indicated will be rejected. Comments should include a specific proposed change to the text of the draft open for comment. Proposed added text must be underlined and text proposed to be removed must be shown using strike-through. If not submitted in this format, the public comment may be rejected. Do not submit comments on standards other than this one that is out for public comment. If you submit public comment representing the collective interests of a group of stakeholders, you are encouraged to submit ONE public comment and identify all stakeholders in that comment. While not required, this expedites the ability of the committees to respond to commenters in a timely manner. Public comments are reviewed by committees with volunteer members, that are Raters, Providers, Software Developers and other industry and public interest stakeholders. They are not reviewed by RESNET Staff. Most amendments to RESNET standards are proposed by industry and public stakeholders not RESNET. To learn more about submitting proposed amendments visit this page: https://www.resnet.us/about/standards/submit-proposed-amendments/
