It has been more than two weeks now since Dr. Wolfgang Feist sent a letter to North American Passive House stakeholders announcing his decision to sever relations with Passive House Institute/US. I assume that anyone reading this can find endless blog posts and “green” building newsletter articles about this so I need not go into details. Indeed you may find all the meeting notes and letters back and forth on line.
But I feel that I, as a Certified Passive House Consultant, and the owner of a business dedicated to Passive House as a design standard and methodology, need to make some statement with regards to the legitimacy of Passive House and how we intend to move forward as designers and energy consultants.
The most important thing to say is that for the purposes of our work and the implementation of the Passive House standard in our projects, nothing has changed. The standard is science based and dependable, and we have done and will do everything we can do to be sure that our projects are planned, modeled and constructed in strict compliance with the standard.
There may be some changes in certification of projects (whether to certify as North American Passive Houses though PHIUS or as international Passive Houses through PHI) but these will essentially be administrative decisions that should not affect the experience of clients or the quality of the buildings. The key will be, as it always has been, with the accuracy of the energy model, the appropriate detailing of the building envelope, and the accurate accounting of site conditions.
How one chooses to certify will, in my opinion, be decided based on which organization can best provide support and information for designers relevant to both the unchanging limiting criteria of the standard itself, and locally and regionally appropriate building science and climate-sensitive building strategies.
As in all such situations, the truth is hard discern when there are competing versions of events. I have a great deal of confidence in Katrin Klingenberg. I have watched her on many occasions speak sincerely and knowledgably about Passive House in general, and regarding the minutia of specific applications. I have spoken with her personally on numerous occasions, and while this may lead to a bias on my part, I can also attest to her sincerity and the depth of her commitment. She has worked tirelessly to advance the standard and climate sensitive design across North America. While advocating the PH standard she has also been very forthcoming bout where she feels more work needs to be done. For the leader of an organization dedicated to a particular approach, in my experience she is far from dogmatic or partisan.
While the birth of the PH movement in the US has not been without some complications, and undoubtedly some things could have more organized and better handled, I trust PHIUS to be a good faith partner that will do everything it can to be sure Passive House is implemented accurately, diligently and safely through all climate zones in the US.
We must remember several things as principal concerns:
1) We need to reduce carbon emissions by 85% from current levels by 2050 to avoid the more dire predictions of climate scientists, though climate models are proving, if anything, to be conservative, not alarmist.
2) Passive House can achieve these sorts of results cost-effectively NOW, building by building.
3) The culture of design and construction in this country is one of inertial adherence to unwise and appallingly wasteful design and building practices. We must change this culture by raising awareness of impacts, such that good-willed people can choose for themselves. The best way is to lead by example.
4) We cannot for a moment allow such controversy undermine the legitimacy of the low-energy building effort in general, or to sway us from diligently and aggressively pushing for the wide-spread adoption of SANE building practices, which I believe are very well and reliably modeled and implemented using the Passive House approach, regardless of who is certifying a given project.
Consistent with the Passive House approach of reducing demands and mitigating harm, rather than trying to engineer solutions to our destructive behavior, I would like to suggest that we all work for healing this rift and refrain from language and behavior that exacerbates the it. We must start from an assumption of good faith by all concerned and work to help PHIUS and PHI find a way back to productive collaboration. Reconciliation would be beneficial for all.
Given the nature of our political discourse, we all can see what happens when people resort to vitriol and posturing rather than compassionately working to understand and correct misperceptions and mistakes – which we all must remember are inevitable in any such undertaking. I, for one, am going to get back to work and avoid partisanship to whatever degree possible, while honoring the contributions of both parties.
It is time to come together and work assiduously to save the climate and our children’s future.
