Overview: Compare energy standards, models, and results. How difficult is it? What can we do to accelerate the recognition and acceptance of Passive House performance?
Presentation 1: A Modeling Crosswalk: Recognizing Passive House Performance within California Title 24 and Beyond
Description: Passive House design performance can be translated into state energy code compliance software while preserving credit for high-performance envelope and ventilation strategies. By examining a case study comparing PHPP, WUFI Passive, and CBECC results across residential prototypes and climate zones in California, differences in modeling tools that cause Passive House measures to lose visible credit in compliance outputs are identified. The results provide a repeatable framework for improving consistency, documentation, and recognition of Passive House performance within compliance pathways for energy codes in California and other jurisdictions.
Learning Objectives:
- Explain how differences in model purpose, inputs, defaults, and output metrics create credit loss when moving from Passive House tools into compliance software.
- Apply a practical framework for producing consistent cross tool comparisons that can be replicated in other jurisdictions and software environments.
- Identify which measures map cleanly across tools and which are prone to muted credit.
- Describe how to interpret site energy, peak demand, and compliance metrics such as long-term system cost and source energy across different platforms, and how to frame results for agencies, utilities, and program administrators.
Presentation 2: PHN Energy Study – Phase II
Description: See the results of a PHN commissioned study by RDH that set out to compare widely-used building standards (IECC, ASHRAE 90.1, LEED) against Passive House for multifamily buildings across climate zones 1-7. The study can provide policy markers and market actors better clarity on where Passive House sits relative to code-minimum and other performance-based pathways. Study outcomes will help inform incentives and compliance pathways through better recognition of Passive House outcomes within familiar code frameworks.
Learning Objectives:
- Outline the need for better clarity with technical evidence on where Passive House sits relative to code-minimum and other performance-based pathways.
- Highlight key inputs and protocol differences between hourly and Passive House energy models, and how those differences affect reported building performance.
- Provide clear insights to support policy and program design, by placing Passive House among IECC/ASHRAE/LEED pathways and allow increased adoption of recognition of Passive House as a compliance pathway.
CEUs:
Upon completion of all modules a Certificate of Attendance will be automatically issued for AIA & PHI credit. Please self report to both AIA & PHI using the codes provided.
