Commercial Building Energy Assessor Credentialing

IMT conducted a review of professional certification programs in the building industry.  There is growing demand from local, state, and national jurisdictions to streamline building professional credentialing programs in order to more easily integrate them as requirements.  The goal of the research was to identify which existing credentialing programs can be used as part of requirements under new energy-efficiency legislation and other related programs.

Based on market research, IMT had identified that the most significant benefit of requiring building professionals to hold a credential in their field is to ensure the quality of their work.  Therefore, IMT also assessed the quality of existing certifications and related training programs.  The assessment included examination of program curriculum, cost, delivery methods, testing rigor, quality assurance mechanisms, competencies indentified in the knowledge base, and continuing education requirements. 

IMT’s review included fifteen credentialing programs provided by eight different agencies.  IMT received varying levels of input and support from these agencies in conducting the research.  The review focused on existing energy auditor, commissioning, retro-commissioning, and energy modeler programs that provide professional certification to participants.  IMT initiated and participated in meetings, calls and discussions with providers of these credentialing programs.

CURRENT LANDSCAPE

Several agencies in the United States offer professional credentialing for energy auditors, energy modelers, commissioning, and retro-commissioning agents.   There is an increasing demand for the services of these credentialed building professionals.  While strong programs exist, there is significant variance between the rigor, requirements and standards attendant to these credentialing programs. 

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

Evaluation of these programs has led to the following observations:

• Current certifications in the same field have very different standards.
• The programs test for varying skill sets (ex. different levels of energy audits).
• Some certifications have their own written body of knowledge; others do not.
• There is a diverse range of building types in the commercial building sector. Therefore, certifications’ written bodies of knowledge vary greatly depending on which type of buildings are targeted by the program.
• Each program has different prerequisites to be eligible to participate in the certification program.
• Programs do not generally have an established auditing process for checking documentation that participants meet prerequisites or complete continuing education requirements.
• Some programs require a specified training program before being eligible to sit for an exam while some have optional or no training requirements.
• Training programs are often provided by the same organization that administers the exams. This could lead to a training curriculum being angled at passing an exam as opposed to specific competencies required in an actual field assessment.
• Continuing education requirements are not included in all programs.
• Program fees vary widely, from $150 to $1800.
• Information is inconclusive on how often the exams are audited/updated.
• Not all programs have quality assurance mechanisms built in.
• Programs do not generally include field assessment components; participants are often only assessed by written examinations.
• Programs generally lack accountability mechanisms for professional misconduct after award of certification.

KEY LIMITATIONS

The key issues with current energy assessor credentialing programs are 1) lack of uniformity among existing programs in terms of content, rigor, process, and cost; and 2) insufficient quality assurance and professional accountability, largely because of resource and staffing limitations.  Developers of energy-efficiency legislation, mandates, and programs currently perceive that credentials in themselves are not enough, thus leading to the need to set further requirements, such as stipulations for minimum professional experience and additional review by licensed design professionals.  These requirements add cost and complexity, slowing the implementation of energy efficiency initiatives.

Lack of Uniformity

Many of the observations from the credentialing program review relate to the significant variation among the program prerequisites, examination procedures and training requirements. Without an industry standard for what knowledge base, skill sets, and professional experience a certified building professional possesses, the merit and usability of the credential is diminished. In addition, continuing education and recertification procedures vary greatly from program to program, making it difficult to assess the long-term value of holding one of the existing professional certifications.

Insufficient Quality Assurance

Most credentialing programs do not have built-in standards for monitoring the performance and professional conduct of individuals who have earned a certification. The programs that do have some procedures for revoking a certification lack funding or staff to conduct regular audits or inspections of certified professionals. Legislation and energy efficiency programs that mandate building professionals to hold a certification currently must also require professional licenses such as a Professional Engineer (PE) or a Registered Architect (RA) to ensure accountability. Such design professionals are not always necessary for tasks such as energy audits or for the commissioning process. Therefore, mandates that must rely on other mechanisms to provide quality assurance can lead to higher costs for building owners who need to comply with new rules and procedures. This is particularly true for small commercial and multifamily residential buildings. Higher costs can be a barrier inhibiting the widespread implementation of energy efficiency programs for commercial buildings.