Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1996-2004
Final Report
Page 2
Page 3
Executive Summary
The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has supported the adoption and implementation of
energy codes in the region since 1996. This report seeks to estimate energy savings associated
with regional non-residential code changes made between 1996 and 2004. Specifically, it
quantifies changes that have already been adopted with planned enforcement dates on or before
July 2005. Savings are projected from the date of their implementation through 2025. This
exercise is necessary because no attempt to quantify regional code-related energy savings has
been made since 1996.
The first step of this project was to identify all code changes during the period of interest. They
were then prioritized by anticipated magnitude of energy savings, reviewed by Alliance code
contractors in each state and then decisions were made as to which should be estimated. Every
energy code change from 1996 through 2004 is listed by state in appendices A through D. The
evaluation method column indicates whether it has been included in this energy savings
evaluation. If not, the reasoning for exclusion is presented in the comment field.
Two basic quantification methods, simulation modeling and engineering calculations, were used
to calculate savings estimates. Savings for each code measure were estimated with one of these
methods and then were normalized by floor area for each building type/state combination. State
and regional savings were then calculated by multiplying the per square foot savings with actual
floor area for 2001-2004 and floor area projections from the Northwest Power Planning Council
medium growth forecast for 2005 through 2025. Calculation details for each code change
evaluated are presented in the Calculations and Assumptions section starting on Page 8.
Results by year of estimated energy code savings are shown on Page 20 for average megawatts
and on Page 21 for therms. Estimated savings for 2005 are 4.87 aMW and .30M therms;
cumulative through 2010 are 34.1 aMW and 2.3M therms; cumulative through 2025 are 102.4
aMW and 7.14M therms. As code changes are the results of a wide variety of both technical and
political influences no attempt was made in this report to attribute a specific portion of these
savings to Alliance efforts.
This report seeks to estimate energy savings associated with regional non-residential code
changes made between 1996 and 20041. Specifically, it quantifies changes that have already been
adopted with planned enforcement dates on or before July 2005. Savings are projected from the
date of their implementation through 2025. This exercise is necessary because no attempt to
quantify regional code-related energy savings has been made since 1996.
1 Residential code energy savings for the same period were estimated by the Northwest Power &
Conservation Council.
Each state in the Northwest has a unique energy code history differing in code content as well as
enforcement. The following sections contain chronologies of energy code adoptions by state.
Idaho
Idaho was the last state in the region to adopt a non-residential energy code. In 1996 it did not
have an energy code though the City of Idaho Falls and Kootenai County enacted the Northwest
Energy Code (NWEC) in 1989 which included by reference ASHRAE 90.1-1989. In 1999 all
state buildings were required to meet 90.1-1989. In 2002 the 2000 IECC was adopted for all state
buildings. In 2003 the 2000 IECC was adopted for all buildings in the state. In spring 2004, the
2003 IECC was adopted for all buildings starting on January 1 2005.
In 1992 Montana adopted the Model Energy Code (MEC) which referenced ASHRAE 90.1-1989.
This code was the law of the land until summer 2004 when the 2003 IECC was adopted.
Oregon
Oregon adopted a state-promulgated non-residential energy code applying only to the building
envelope in 1978; this was expanded to include HVAC systems in 1980. A complete energy code
was adopted in 1996. In 1998 slight changes were made, and in 1999 a high glazing path was
added to allow up to 40% glass in Zone 1 (increased from 30%) and up to 33% in Zone 2
(increased from 25%). The windows required in the high glazing path were significantly
improved so that overall thermal integrity was not compromised. In 2001 equipment efficiency
tables were updated to reflect ASHRAE 90.1-1999 2001 values.
In 2003 major changes were made to the code. Lighting and HVAC were dramatically improved.
Maximum lighting power density (LPD) requirements were reduced, minimum lighting controls
increased, and HVAC language improved. In April 2004 further revisions were made to the Air
Transport Factor (ATF) calculation, and in October 2004 additional requirements for window
wall construction types were implemented.
Washington
Seattle
Seattle has the most stringent code in the region. With each Washington State code revision, the
City of Seattle adopts amendments strengthening the code. The amendments are tailored to the
Seattle building stock and its political climate. By law they must be equal to or better than state
code. Typically they have been significantly more stringent with regards to building envelope,
HVAC, and lighting. The 2002 Seattle amendments included the following major requirements:
ASD drives on motors with variable loads including fan powered boxes, decreased lighting power
densities, and increased envelope insulation.
The impact of the Seattle amendments are not quantified here since this work is focused on state
code changes. However, the impact of the 2002 Seattle amendments was estimated in other work
(Kennedy, Baylon 2002). With the most recent state code change many of the most significant of
the 2002 amendments are now state code. Left out are school lighting LPD and ECM motors for
fan powered boxes. It is important to note that while we are crediting state code with these
savings a significant fraction of them would have been realized within Seattle without state
action.
2 Officially a Council recommendation must sit through the next (2005) legislative session to become code.
Estimated savings for the changes are included in this report because historically virtually all recommended
code changes have gone through the legislature without being challenged.
Over the period of interest there have been a large number of changes to state codes. Some
changes are very important with respect to energy savings, many more are clarifications, or
codify existing official interpretations. Others have significant energy impacts in very specific
situations that occur relatively infrequently. The first step of this project was to identify all code
changes during the period of interest. They were then prioritized by anticipated magnitude of
energy savings, reviewed by Alliance code contractors in each state and then decisions were
made as to which should be estimated. Every energy code change from 1996 through 2004 is
listed by state in appendices A through D. The evaluation method column indicates whether it
has been included in this energy savings evaluation. If not, the reasoning for exclusion is
presented in the comment field.
Many code changes have not been evaluated in this work. Typically they impact a limited
number of buildings or system types. Individually they are not important, but taken together they
represent significant additional savings not captured in these estimates. Some notable omissions
are the extension of economizer requirements to data centers and rooms in Oregon and
Washington and duct insulation in Idaho and Montana. We therefore believe that the savings
shown in this report represent a conservative estimate of the true savings that have been achieved
in the region.
Two basic quantification methods, described below, were used to calculate savings estimates.
Savings for each code measure were estimated with one of these methods and then were
normalized by floor area for each building type/state combination. State and regional savings
were then calculated by multiplying the per square foot savings by actual (2001-2004) and
projected (2005-2025) floor area for the period.
Simulation Method
The DOE2.2 Building Energy Use Simulation program was used to determine baseline energy
usage and savings from incremental changes in the primary performance variables -- lighting
LPD, equipment efficiency, and envelope component efficiency requirements. Eleven building
prototypes were used to represent the general building stock. These were primarily derived from
the BPA regional prototypes that were based on regional audit data. Two other prototypes were
derived from prototypes developed by the State of Washington.
Prototype Descriptions
Building Type Original Source Baseline System/Fuel
Office – Large from BPA 89 vintage VAV – Series boxes, Electric reheat
Office – Medium from WSEO VAV – non-fan powered boxes. Gas boiler
Office – Small from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Retail – Large from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Retail – Small from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Grocery from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
School from BPA 89 vintage Unit ventilators & Package single zone, gas boiler
School – Elementary from WSEO Two pipe fan coil, gas boiler
Warehouse from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat & gas unit heaters
Hospital from BPA 89 vintage VAV and CV reheat. HW reheat, gas boiler.
Restaurant - Sit Down from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Key traits of the prototypes such as heat loss rate and lighting level were altered to represent
baseline 1996 construction standards. Baseline characteristics for each prototype were derived
from averages of regional audit data (see Data Sources). For example, the prototype office
The code characteristics were determined from the same audit data as baseline data. Each aspect
of the audited building was compared with the new codes to determine what would change to
make the building comply with the new codes. These new conditions were averaged to derive an
average code characteristic for each parameter. Lost in this method is the impact of significant
changes in system types or building configuration in the future. The world is seen through the
lens of the audit data.
Energy savings were determined by comparing results from models using baseline characteristics
with those using code characteristics. The Boise ID, Missoula MT, Portland OR and Seattle WA
TMY2 weather sites were used to represent Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington
respectively.
Results were calculated for electric, gas, and heat pump heat from the default system using
simplified conversion factors. These results were averaged using regional heating fuel saturation
to arrive at typical savings for each simulation.
The definition of savings increment under the simulation method is critical. For measures that
involve performance criteria, such as maximum LPD, the chosen increment has a significant
impact on savings. Three scenarios have been used in previous work. All three are based upon
applying the scenario logic to a sample of real buildings to determine individual impacts of code
changes, averaging the individual impacts by climate and building type, and then modeling the
average impacts to determine savings. Assumed in all scenarios is that the actual starting
building characteristics are from buildings representing construction under the base code.
Scenario 1 looks at the savings from direct application of the most recent code as a code official
would. It assumes that buildings not meeting the current code will just meet it and buildings
already better than code will not change. In the case of LPD, the savings increment is the
difference between the building LPD and code LPD; if the building LPD is already better than the
new code there are no savings. The assumption is that buildings will move to the new code level
but not beyond which makes this the most conservative estimator. It has been called the “first
year savings” in some of the previous code potential work.
Scenario 2 assumes that future buildings will pass the current code by the same margin that recent
buildings passed the 1996 code. It assumes a building built to the base code that is X% better or
worse than base code would be X % better or worse than the current code if it were built now or
in the future. Unlike Scenario 1, a building will show savings even if it is already better than the
new code.
This proportional shift in the population performance fits with past response to lighting code
changes. Scenario 2 assumes that technology will give designers the tools they need to exceed
code by a similar amount in the future as they did previously. It therefore implicitly assumes
technology increments are always available. In reality, just because a new code is 5% better than
the old one does not mean that there are, say, commercially available windows that are 5% better
than what the builder was previously using.
Scenario 3 looks at the difference between the codes directly. The sample buildings are used only
to determine system types and basic building geometry. Code savings are assumed to be the
difference between the old code and the new one. Using an LPD example once again, if the old
code required a 1.4 w/sqft LPD and the new code requires 1.2 w/sqft the savings for all lighting is
0.2 w/sqft. This is the most generous scenario and is often used in code comparisons.
This work uses Scenario 1 to evaluate envelope code requirements as these tend to be prescriptive
and buildings are therefore most likely to just comply with code.
For lighting power density all three scenarios have serious deficiencies. Scenario 1 is too
obviously conservative even with its 100% code compliance assumption. Scenarios 2 and 3
aren’t usable in Idaho, which has no base code, and give unreasonable results in Montana where
the base code has very high maximum LPD values which do not represent current practice well.
High base code LPDs result in much larger savings than a situation with a base code closer to
current code, even if the new code and current practice are the same.
To address this situation “Code+5%”,a modified version of Scenario 1, was developed and used
to evaluate lighting LPD changes. It assumes that buildings surpassing the current code by 5%
will not change, and that everything else will improve to exceed current code by 5%. This
scenario addresses the fact that new buildings will typically beat code by some margin; in terms
of savings potential it falls midway between Scenarios 1 and 2. As outlined above this scenario
assumes 100% compliance with the energy code. However, without changes in code enforcement
non-compliance is unlikely to change from the base code conditions. To remedy this, an LPD
adjustment was made so that the same amount of code non-compliance as currently exists is
assumed in the scenario LPD. This was done by subtracting the base code to actual LPD
difference from the scenario LPD for all sites where the actual LPD was higher than the base
code.
The average difference between the actual building LPDs and the code plus 5% LPD, with the
code compliance adjustment, was then averaged by building type and state and used as the
modeled lighting power density shift in the savings predictions.
Scenario 2 was used for savings from equipment cooling efficiency and heat pump heating
efficiency. The equipment efficiency base code is more closely aligned with current practice
making scenario 2 a good measure of savings.
Engineering Method
Measures such as motor control and lighting control improvements were evaluated using a
simplified engineering approach. Savings are calculated as a fraction of total use or of a specific
end use, as determined from the prototype simulations, or through engineering calculations. The
savings are modified to account for the applicability of the code language to given building or
system types, and for the current saturation of the technology. Total saturation is assumed. All
applicable buildings without a particular required technology are assumed to install it. To
minimize double counting, end use consumption was taken from simulations that incorporated
code characteristics for LPD, UA, and HVAC performance.
The above methods were not applied to the most recent Washington code changes since these
were adopted after this evaluation was substantially complete. However, energy savings for these
new code provisions were estimated during the code deliberation process (Kennedy and Baylon,
2004). The estimates are based generally upon the same data and similar calculation procedures
as used in this study. Therefore, energy savings estimates from this previous work have been
used here. Energy savings per unit floor area were taken directly from the study after corrections
were made to remove savings measures that were not included in the final legislation.
Data Sources
The Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA) data set was used for system type and fuel
type information3. The CBSA lighting LPD and geometry information was found to be to
general. The application of lighting and equipment codes required substantially more detail than
that contained in the data set. The CBSA “New cohort” is largely (>90%) drawn from 3 studies:
“Baseline Characteristics Of The Non-Residential Sector In Idaho, Montana, Oregon And
Washington”, “Survey of Energy Efficiency in Seattle’s New Non-Residential Buildings: 1995-
2000”, and “Compliance with the 1994 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code (NREC)”.
Each contained much greater detail than is included in CBSA. Therefore, this work leaned
heavily upon these source data sets. In this work these studies are referred to as the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Seattle City Light (SCL), and Utility Code Group (UCG)
data sets respectively. They were used to determine HVAC equipment type, performance, and
associated minimum code performance, building lighting power densities (LPD) and associated
code maximum LPD, and building envelope characteristics and geometry. These studies
represent buildings that are built to the standards current during the 1997 code year. As such they
are or should be in compliance with the code in place at that time and the beginning of the period
of analysis for this report.
Floor area projections for years 2005-2025 were taken from the Northwest Power Planning
Council medium growth forecast. Constructed floor area for years 2001-2004 was determined
from FW Dodge data (Appendix E).
Idaho, Montana and Oregon implemented major changes in LPD requirements. Washington made
changes to retail lighting provisions.
Savings for these changes are simulation predicted using the regional prototypes and local new
building lighting data. The Idaho, Montana and Oregon modeled increments were determined by
applying the 2004 energy codes to buildings audited in the NEEA Baseline study (1996
construction year). For each building, data at a tenant and at a space by space level of detail is
used to determine how the codes would be applied.
The table below shows summary LPD results for each state. The “Ending LPD” column is the
average LPD of the audit buildings that would result if the scenario savings are realized.
3 http://www.nwalliance.org/resources/reportdetail.asp?RID=134
The next table presents the same data by building type (excluding Washington data as it had no
overall LPD code change). This is for illustration only. The underlying data set has no statistical
significance at these levels of detail.
Lighting Data Summary by Building Type (w/sqft). NEEA Baseline (excludes Washington)
Building Type Obs Avg. Code LPD (w/sqft) Ending Delta
Actual 1996 Code 2004 Code 2004 Code LPD LPD
LPD (building value) (building value) (space by space) (w/sqft) (w/sqft)
Assembly 10 1.35 1.42 1.19 1.25 1.23 -0.11
Education 21 1.18 1.41 1.17 1.23 1.10 -0.08
Grocery 6 1.53 1.89 1.50 1.81 1.53 -0.01
Health Services 11 1.29 1.40 1.11 1.14 1.13 -0.16
Institution 3 1.14 1.12 1.20 0.98 1.03 -0.11
Office 24 1.21 1.35 1.00 1.08 1.03 -0.18
Other 15 1.17 1.27 1.03 1.15 1.05 -0.12
Lodging 9 0.88 1.27 0.80 0.74 0.70 -0.18
Restaurant / Bar 1 0.94 1.50 1.40 1.25 0.94 0.00
Retail 15 1.39 1.97 1.29 1.36 1.20 -0.21
Warehouse 14 0.97 1.18 0.80 0.96 0.92 -0.06
The retail lighting change in Washington eliminated the separate Retail “A” and Retail “B” paths
and implemented a single retail lighting budget. Retail “A” allowed 1.0 w/sqft for “non-
display” lighting, and unlimited “ceiling mounted adjustable tungsten halogen and HID”
luminaries. Retail “B” allowed 1.5w/sqft for both types of lighting. The current code allows
1.5w/sqft for “non-display” lighting, and up to 1.5w/sqft of display lighting. In all cases building
showcase, free-standing case, and display window illumination were exempt in both paths. The
result of the new code is that buildings previously capped at 1.5w/sqft can now install up to an
extra 1.5w/sqft of display lighting, and buildings with previously unlimited display lighting are
now capped at a total LPD of 3.0 w/sqft. With the somewhat flexible concepts of building
showcase and free-standing case being exempt it is easy to imagine boutique retail managing to
get significant amounts of lighting above and beyond the official budget. Even so, using City of
Seattle data we estimate that retail display lighting would be reduced 0.77w/sqft in boutique retail
establishments. We estimated boutique retail be comprise 8% of the total retail floor area.
Idaho and Montana had major changes in envelope requirements, and Washington and Oregon
had performance neutral additions.
Savings for these changes were simulated using the regional prototypes and data from regional
building surveys. The increments modeled in Idaho and Montana are determined by applying the
2004 energy codes to buildings audited in the NEEA Baseline study (1996 construction year).
For each building, shell data is used to determine how the codes would be applied.
Simple code compliance (Scenario 1) with the 2004 codes was chosen as the increment of choice
for both states because in Idaho there was no code prior to 2001 and in Montana the base code is
ASHRAE 1989 which is significantly more stringent than the 2003 IEEC. It is assumed that 75%
of savings will be achieved and the other 25% lost to non-compliance.
All states have adopted codes that implement the ASHRAE 1999 equipment efficiency standards
including the 2001 performance values. ASHRAE cooling efficiency requirements went through
major revision with the 2001 values. Heat pump efficiency is improved as well. Combustion
heating efficiency changed in some cases but mostly to accommodate new testing methods while
being performance neutral.
Savings for this change have been simulation predicted using the regional prototypes and energy
efficiency rating (EER) increments determined for real building characteristics. The increments
modeled are determined by applying the 1996 and 2004 energy codes to equipment audited in the
NEEA Baseline (1996 construction year), UCG, and SCL studies. For Idaho, with no base code,
ASHRAE 1989 was used. The average equipment improvement by building type is modeled in
each state with local climate.
The savings increment assumes that future EER will pass code by the same margin as the current
EER passes the 1996 code (Scenario 2). Here the more consistent code increment makes
Scenario 2 a good choice.
Savings for the heat pump heating efficiency improvement are calculated using the simulation
predicted heating energy use and the estimated electric input ratio (EIR) increment. The
increment is calculated by applying the 1996 and 2004 energy codes to equipment audited in the
NEEA Baseline study (1996 construction year), UCG and SCL studies. The individual building
increments are averaged by state for input into the prototype models. The state average is used
since heat pumps are only represented in a small number of cases and EIR and delta EIR are more
state correlated than building correlated.
Oregon implemented a requirement for occupancy sensors in enclosed offices, conference rooms
and classrooms. Savings from this measure rely on data developed by the City of Seattle and
California Energy Commission (CEC). The data is assumed to be applicable to Oregon.
Occupancy sensors are assumed to reduce lighting energy by 20%. A recent study that monitored
office occupancy found savings would be 28 percent in enclosed offices and 32 percent in
classrooms (Mahone et al ). This greater savings estimate includes savings from automated
shutoff at night. In this work automated shutoff is accounted for in the Lighting Sweep Controls
measure.
Building Type Building Area Office Area All Office (%) Small Office (%)
sqft sqft
Education 235,474 15,043 6.4 2.1
Grocery 148,040 3,720 2.5 0.8
Institution 419,868 83,309 19.8 6.4
Office-Large 1,616,926 1,099,974 68.0 21.8
Office-Small 121,403 44,818 36.9 11.9
Retail 503,404 1,294 0.3 0.1
Warehouse 21,241 1,021 4.8 1.5
Laboratory 48,421 4,716 9.7 3.1
Classrooms are assumed to comprise 50% of education floor area and occupancy sensors are
assumed to save 10% in these spaces (from CEC).
Based upon the SCL study, the current saturation of occupancy sensors is low/none in offices.
School classrooms however have a significant current saturation. This can be attributed to the
fact that the Seattle school district has occupancy sensors connected to lighting and HVAC as part
of their standard design. How applicable this is to Oregon is debatable but it can be assumed that
some school districts are installing occupancy sensors. Twenty-five percent of the classrooms are
assumed to have occupancy sensors.
All states increased the number of building types and/or decreased the minimum sizes that are
required to have sweep controls. The percentage of the floor area by building type fitting into
the relevant size categories was determined from the CBSA data set. The current saturation was
assumed to be 100% in large and medium office, 50% in large retail, and 0% everywhere else.
Savings, where applicable, were assumed to be 10% of the simulation predicted lighting energy
use. This is in line with CEC findings.
Idaho and Montana enacted requirements for bi-level lighting controls that allow occupants of
most buildings to choose from 3 levels of illumination. Savings predictions for this measure are
highly variable. A recent study monitoring bi-level lighting estimated savings to be 8% in schools
The study also assumed that the baseline condition was all lighting on. While this might seem
reasonable, the study found a significant number of occupied hours when all lighting was
switched off. If one assumes that the baseline condition is a weighted average of the off and on
condition, the savings estimate in offices drops to 2.4% and it is negative in classrooms. The
authors of the study did not agree with this interpretation of the data and increased usage in
classrooms seems like a suspect conclusion. Five percent was chosen in this work as a
compromise. The current saturation is assumed to be zero.
All four states have adopted the ASHRAE requirement for large (>225kBtu) furnaces to have
intermittent ignition devices (IID), power burner or vent dampers, and reduced shell heat loss.
This is a significant step since these measures greatly increase seasonal efficiency, which is not
regulated in commercial equipment. The regulated size range (>225kBtu) of equipment greatly
limits the scope of this measure.
Savings are difficult to quantify exactly. A natural draft furnace with a pilot light is assumed to
have a seasonal efficiency of 64% (Kennedy et all, 1995). An IID, power draft, low loss unit is
assumed to have a 78% seasonal efficiency (Kennedy et all, 1995). Equipment data from SCL,
NEEA and UCG indicates 9.8% of the gas heating capacity fell into the regulated equipment
type/size class (furnaces>225kBtu). This percent was used to determine the impacted floor area.
Current saturation could be very high as all rooftop equipment has IID and power draft. Fifty
percent pre-requirement saturation is assumed.
Oregon, Idaho and Montana improved or implemented for the first time requirements for
adjustable speed drives (ASDs) on fan motors serving variable loads. Oregon reduced the size
threshold from 25 horsepower to 10 horsepower. Idaho and Montana now require ASDs on fan
motors greater than 25 horsepower.
Savings for this measure were established by modeling ASD drives in 3 building types. The
average floor area weighted savings for the modeled prototypes were used for non-modeled cases.
The applicability of each provision was roughly determined from CBSA system type information,
and fan motor data in the SCL new construction and NEEA Baseline surveys. The fraction of
floor area served by variable flow systems was determined from CBSA system type information.
The fraction of floor area served by variable flow systems with motors in the applicable size
ranges has been deemed to be 25% in Oregon and 65% in Idaho and Montana. The fraction of
floor area already served by ASD controlled motors in the respective size ranges has been
deemed to be 65% in Oregon and 80% in Idaho and Montana.
Oregon strengthened the pump motor ASD requirement from 25 to 10HP and also requires all
hydronic loops served by motors of 10HP or greater to be variable flow.
Savings for this measure were established at 0.2 kWh/sqft for cooling loops and 0.1kWh/sqft for
heating loops based upon a DOE-2 simulation. A significant uncertainty is the baseline
prevalence of pump staging and the exact strategy employed, whether the staged pumps are truly
staged or simply backup pumps. Audit data indicates most pump loops are served by multiple
pumps.
The floor area fraction served by hot and cold water loops was established on a regional basis by
building type from CBSA. The fraction of hydronic floor area served by pump motors in the
impacted size range was estimated at 89% using data collected in the NEEA baseline and SCL
New Construction surveys.
Oregon strengthened minimum efficiency requirements for air handling systems using the
complex system path. The total impact of this is hard to judge due to uncertainty in the baseline
conditions and because the Oregon requirement shifted from regulating installed horse power to
regulating brake horsepower. Depending upon system flow rate and an assumption of designers’
minimum safety factors, the maximum ATF change from 1996 to 2004 is between a 30%
reduction and a 14% increase.
Assuming a minimum safety factor of 18% and a size range weighting similar to the NEEA data,
savings for this measure are estimated to be 7.6% of the air system energy use for central air
systems that utilize the complex code path. Air system energy use was determined from the
prototype simulations. CBSA data was used to determine the fraction of VAV and CV central
air systems. Code requires all VAV systems to utilize the complex path, and 10% of the constant
volume systems are assumed to utilize it.
Duct Sealing
Idaho, Montana and Oregon now require the sealing of all duct joints and seams. This reduces
leakage of hot and cold air to ambient and interior spaces. The impact of this is highly variable
depending upon the location and extent of the ducts. Generally commercial building ducts are
located in the building interior. The extent of duct work ranges from very little in box retail to
extensive in hospitals. The impact of the leaked air is also highly dependent upon system type
and operating mode.
Savings were deemed to be 5% of heating and cooling energy for all ducted air systems. Heating
and cooling energy use were determined from the prototype simulation. Heating fuel saturation
was determined from CBSA data and conversations with Charlie Grist of the Northwest Power &
Conservation Council. The air system fraction was determined from CBSA.
The current saturation of duct sealing was deemed at three levels (25%, 50%, or 75%) with more
sealing occurring in larger building types.
Oregon code requires hot and cold water loops and multi-zone air systems to implement
temperature reset control strategies. Variable flow water loops are exempted from this.
Elsewhere there is a requirement for water loops with motors 10HP or larger to be variable flow,
so the water loop temperature reset requirement is limited to small systems.
Therefore applicability was limited to floor area served by multi-zone air systems as determined
from CBSA. Savings were determined through simulation of the large office prototype. Current,
pre-requirement saturation was assumed be 80% in large buildings, 50% in medium and 0% in
small.
Economizer
Idaho and Montana now require economizers on all equipment larger than 54,000 Btu/hr cooling.
Oregon, which already had an economizer size threshold, capped the cooling capacity without
economizer at 240kBtu.
Savings for this measure were modeled in the small office and small retail prototypes. A non-
integrated, single sensor, 65°F changeover, 80% maximum air fraction economizer was modeled.
The average percent reduction in cooling energy use for these buildings was used to extend
savings to other building types.
Applicability was formulated as a percent of total cooling capacity. The current fraction of
equipment capacity with economizers was calculated from NEEA baseline equipment data. The
new code provisions for each state were applied to the equipment data and a new fraction
calculated that reflects the equipment capacity that would have economizers if all equipment
complied with the new code. The difference between these fractions is the percentage of floor
area that will be impacted by the provision.
Three percent of Oregon cooling capacity would have been impacted by the new provision based
upon the NEEA data set. Primary impacted building types were schools, small retail, and
lodging. The Oregon code provision exempts lodging rooms otherwise applicability would be
much larger. The percent increase in cooling capacity with economizer was assumed to reflect
the percent of additional floor area with economizers.
Oregon code now requires several off-hour control strategies including optimum start and closed
outside air dampers during building warm up and night cycling. This is an interesting provision
since most control systems; even standard Honeywell thermostats are capable of delivering these
control strategies.
Optimum start is part of most standard programmable thermostats. Perhaps the system most
often lacking this are low-end EMS systems in which the control logic is not implemented.
Closing the outside air dampers while the unit fan is off is a common strategy as well. Closing the
outside air damper during morning warm-up and night-cycling is not common in small systems.
Unlike optimum start it is seldom implemented outside of large projects even though some basic
Honeywell thermostats are capable of it.
The code provision exempts equipment with less than 300cfm outside air. All equipment over
10 tons and either 25% or 100% (depending upon occupancy) of the equipment between 5 and 10
tons were assumed to satisfy this. Equipment 5 tons and smaller units were treated as exempt.
The proportion of equipment in the size ranges was determined from the NEEA baseline
equipment data.
Oregon code changed in 2004 to require all distribution transformers to meet minimum efficiency
levels equivalent to NEMA TP-1. Savings from this measure are near constant per transformer
and do not vary significantly with actual electric use. Even so many authors have estimated
energy savings to be 1% of use. One percent is used here.
Applicability is limited to buildings with 480V or higher electrical service where transformers are
installed as part of the building. The large offices, large retail, and hospital building types were
assumed to be impacted. Modern office buildings often have 1 or 2 transformers per floor.
In the SCL New Construction Survey all transformers were found to be standard units, so current
saturation for this measure in Oregon is assumed to be zero.
Washington code requires all new buildings to have a commissioning plan and to have equipment
control and sequence of control commissioned. The scope of this provision is broad, but not
specific. Assuming the commissioning is a verification of design intent, with no review of the
intent itself, and also that most buildings will be commissioned before occupancy, it is difficult to
imagine HVAC energy savings in many common buildings served by single zone equipment.
Specific requirements to verify economizer function would strengthen the case for achieved
energy savings in smaller buildings. Lighting savings are easier to imagine as new lighting
control requirements extend into new building types. This is currently limited to offices in
Washington, but will soon expand.
Even in buildings where commissioning is likely to make improvements, the magnitude and
possibly even the sign of energy savings is uncertain. Some problems remedied by
commissioning will make the building better but lead to an increase in energy use. In addition,
energy savings from scheduling improvements will have much shorter persistence than other
code items, as schedules must be continuously adjusted to maintain savings.
The NEEA Commissioning in Public Buildings project estimated energy savings from intensive
third party commissioning of new buildings at 0.96 kWh/sqft. This work assumes that code
required commissioning would achieve 10% of the savings found in that work (0.096kWh/sqft).
Commissioning has a pretty high saturation in public and other building projects attempting to
attain LEED certification as well as health care. Current saturation was assumed to be 25% in
large office, large retail and schools, and 100% in hospitals.
For each code provision analyzed the simulation and engineering calculations produced estimates
of energy savings per square foot by building type and state. These were multiplied by the
applicable new construction square footage in each state as forecast in the Power Planning
Council medium growth scenario to create average state and measure energy savings estimates.
The Council’s forecast provides square footage estimates for each year through 2025; estimates
for code savings were therefore calculated separately for each year through 2025.
Since the purpose of this report is to estimate future energy savings associated with code changes
enacted between 1996 and 2004 it was necessary to determine a starting date for the impacts.
While minor changes occurred in the late 1990s, the first significant statewide regional code
changes occurred in 2001 thus impacting the 2002 construction year. We have therefore
assumed no energy savings prior to 2002.
The significant changes in Oregon code were implemented for the 2004 construction year and
savings are assumed to start accumulating in 2004. Washington has had two main change cycles,
the first impacting the 2002 construction year, and the second impacting the last half of 2005.
These were treated separately and assumed to start accumulating in 2003 and July 2005
respectively. All changes in the Montana code are effective as of summer 2004, and are assumed
to start accumulating in 2005.
In Idaho there have been a progression of code changes starting in June 2002 and ending in
January 1 2005. In June 2002 the 2000 IECC was adopted for state buildings. In January 2003
the 2000 IECC was applied to all buildings. This latter adoption contained a majority of the
evaluated envelope measures, none of the equipment ones, and a very small portion of the
lighting increments. The equipment increment and a majority of the lighting increment are
contained in the code to be effective January 2005. Savings are assumed to start accumulating in
2005.
In summary, Oregon savings start in 2004, Montana in 2005, Idaho in 2005, and Washington’s
are split between 2002 and July 2005. Using these dates slightly overestimates savings since
buildings built in a given year are likely permitted in the previous year.
For illustrative purposes, the “Annual Energy Savings by State” table below presents energy
savings attributed to all the code changes analyzed for the Council forecast for 2006. This is the
first full year that all 1996-2004 code changes will be enforced. Total regional savings for that
year are 4.73 average megawatts of electricity and 33,537 mmBtu of gas. Floor area normalized
regional savings are 0.95 kWh/sqft of electricity and 0.77 kBtu/sqft of gas.
Savings per square foot are largest in Idaho and Montana, slightly less in Oregon, and
significantly less in Washington. The two Washington entries are additive. The ‘Washington’
entry is for changes 1996-2004. The ‘Washington-2005’ entry is attributed to the most recent
changes that will become law in July 2005.
Total savings are small in Montana due to the small projected floor area. Likewise, total savings
are relatively large in Washington due to the much larger projected new floor area. Oregon
attains the high total savings by having significant unit savings as well as significant floor area
additions.
The next table presents a more detailed breakout of the 2006 energy savings by state and code
provision. Electric savings within each state are dominated by the main LPD changes to the
code, lighting control changes, and ASHRAE 90.1 equipment changes. Because of the large
amount of new construction in Washington, the commissioning measure is also significant. The
lighting measures lead to large increases in gas use, while envelope, duct sealing measures, and
IID measures lead to decreases. Overall, gas usage is decreased.
2005
Normalized Savings Sector Savings
Electric Gas Electric Gas
kWh/sqft kBtu/sqft mWh avg MW mmBtu
Idaho
LPD Changes 0.72 (1.08) 3,985 0.45 (5,952)
Envelop Changes 0.21 2.05 1,141 0.13 11,386
EER Changes 0.15 - 842 0.10 -
HP Changes 0.05 - 272 0.03 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.19 (0.22) 1,061 0.12 (1,247)
Lighting Controls – Bilevel 0.17 (0.24) 913 0.10 (1,308)
IID, Power Vent Requirement - 0.34 - - 1,863
ASD on VAV AHU Motors>25hp 0.02 (0.02) 136 0.02 (83)
Economizer 0.01 - 31 0.00 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 414 0.05 2,929
Total 1.59 1.37 8,794 1.00 7,588
Montana
LPD Changes 0.39 (0.59) 743 0.08 (1,137)
Envelop Changes 0.13 0.42 258 0.03 812
EER Changes 0.11 - 209 0.02 -
HP Changes 0.06 - 121 0.01 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.20 (0.29) 379 0.04 (556)
Lighting Controls – Bilevel 0.17 (0.29) 319 0.04 (560)
IID, Power Vent Requirement - 0.40 - - 765
ASD on VAV AHU Motors>25hp 0.02 (0.02) 47 0.01 (41)
Economizer 0.01 - 19 0.00 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 145 0.02 1,023
Total 1.16 0.16 2,239 0.26 305
Oregon
LPD Changes 0.30 (0.46) 3,680 0.42 (5,678)
EER Changes 0.13 - 1,573 0.18 -
HP Changes 0.04 - 537 0.06 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.18 (0.23) 2,172 0.25 (2,866)
Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors 0.06 (0.09) 761 0.09 (1,133)
IID, Power Vent Requirement - 0.29 - - 3,618
ASD on VAV AHU Motors>10hp 0.03 (0.01) 312 0.04 (129)
ASD all Variable Load Pumps >10hp 0.04 - 481 0.05 -
Air and Water Temperature Reset 0.07 0.13 832 0.09 1,565
Economizer 0.00 - 54 0.01 -
ATF 0.13 - 1,586 0.18 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 924 0.11 6,531
Cumulative electric savings for the period from 2001 through 2025 are presented in Figure 1.
Under the Council’s medium forecast the regional non-residential energy code changes enacted
between 1996 and 2004 are set to capture 104 average megawatts over the 25-year period from
2001 through 2025.
Figure 1
Cumulative gas savings of 7.1 million therms for the period from 2001 through 2025 are
presented in Figure 2. The large contribution by the Washington-2005 provisions is mainly
attributable to the increase in wall insulation requirements.
Figure 2
Baylon, D., M. Kennedy, and S. Borrelli. 2000. Baseline Characteristics of the Non-Residential Sector
in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Ecotope for the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance, Portland, OR.
Baylon, David, Aaron Houseknecht, Jonathon Heller & Les Tumidaj. 1997. Compliance with the
1994 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code (NREC) Ecotope for the Utility Code
Group.
EPA study Occupancy Sensor Simulations and Energy Analysis for Commercial Buildings,
Lighting Research Center Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2000
Kennedy, M. and D. Baylon. 2004. Potential Energy Savings of Proposed Washington Non-
Residential Energy Code. Ecotope, Seattle WA.
Kennedy, M. and D. Baylon. 2001. Survey of Energy Efficiency in Seattle’s New Non-Residential
Buildings: 1995-2000. Ecotope for Seattle City Light, Seattle WA.
Kennedy, M. 1998. Comparison of Proposed Idaho and ASHRAE 90.1 Non-Residential Codes. For
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, WA.
Kennedy, Mike, J. Hanford, A. Houseknecht and D. Baylon. 1995. Demand-Side Energy Savings in
WNG Firm Commercial Sector. For Washington Natural Gas, Seattle, WA.
Optimal Energy, Inc. 2004. Documentation of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Efforts to Support Energy Codes and Participate in the Federal Standards Setting Process.
Optimal Energy, Inc. Bristol VA.
Forces compliance with occupancy sensor control requirements when new wiring is being installed to serve added or moved fixtures.
1132.3 “Where new walls or ceiling-height partitions are added to an existing space and create a new enclosed space, but the lighting fixtures are not being Not evaluated.
changed, other than being relocated, the new enclosed space shall have controls that comply with Sections 1513.1 through 1513.2, 1513.4, and
1513.6 through 1513.7.” Forces compliance with all lighting control requirements when new interior partitions are installed creating new enclosed
space.
1322 Adjustment in exception to above grade slab edge insulation, this looks somewhat neutral. Old language required an extra R2 in the wall insulation Not evaluated.
to eliminate slab edge insulation. New language requires better windows: U0.05 better if glazing<=30% to lower the slab edge requirement to R5;
and U0.1 better if glazing >30% to lower slab edge to R0. Possible issue with fact that buildings with<30% glass do not have an option for no slab
edge insulation while those with >30% do.
Impact is highly dependent on whether test values or default glazing values are used. For the use of tested values the new tables represent a
definite improvement except where the prescriptive path has been extended to higher glazing levels. For projects using the default tables several
factors related to the nominal window traits need to be accounted for. The default table has performance gradations for different low-e coatings
and for frame type. The degree which windows must be improved depends upon the type of coating and frame. There is some standardization
around good low-e coatings and even thermally improved frames. This moves many windows well up the performance tree. A third factor is
which code path is being used prescriptive or component trade-off. The u-value change in the low fraction cases will not change the prescriptive
window (it was hard to find a U0.9 window) but it will have a significant impact if compliance is demonstrated with the component trade-off
approach.
All these factors are difficult to sort out. For low glazing cases there is improvement but the extension of the prescriptive path to higher glazing
fractions with no significant tightening of prescribed values will allow some projects to reduce thermal integrity. The Window Traits table
summarizes speculation on the changes that will be forced. This is very hard to quantify.
Table 13-1 Glazing SHGC is radically reduced for all glazing cases. Most changed are the values for buildings with small amounts of glass ( U-value 1.0 to 0.45). see above
SHGC High glazing fraction buildings moved from 0.45 to 0.4.
The new SHGC requirement forces a choice between heavy tinting and 0.04 emissivity low-e in many cases. The change is most significant in
building with less than a 20% glazing fraction. The impact of this depends to a significant degree upon the base case window assumed since
clearly all windows exceeded the previous code values.
Table 13-1 Mass Removes mass wall table and inserts exception to wall requirements of 13-1 for mass walls. This amplifies mass wall treatment by removing Assume no change.
Walls different requirements for windows. Wall requirement changed from “0.19 for interior insulation and 0.25 for integral and exterior insulation” to
“a. the U-factor may be increased to U-0.15 maximum, or minimum additional R-5.7 continuous insulation uninterrupted by framing; or b. the wall
may be ASTM C90 concrete block walls, un-grouted or partially grouted at 32 in. or less on center vertically and 48 in. or less on center
horizontally, with un-grouted cores filled with material having a maximum thermal conductivity of 0.44 Btu/ft2 • °F.”
Good simplification but likely a weakening of the code as buildings can now have full glazing with their poorly insulated mass walls. The u-factor
is a bit improved but for CMU walls it looks like the same perlite core wall will be used. They can just have more glass. Limited applicability.
Assume minor impact.
Table 13-2 Opaque Slightly decreases u-value and slightly increases the nominal insulation scheme for metal framing. Makes adjustments to u-values used in trade- Use State Evaluation
off/calculations to allow for metal studs but limit trade-off if wood used. Also, small reduction roof u-value is made.
Good change. Better wall when metal framing used. Trade off limitation important but difficult to quantify and small rate of application.
Table 13-2 Glazing Changes inline with Zone One (table 13-1) discussion above. Only difference is that the top prescriptive bracket for non-electric heat is extended See zone 1 strategy
U-Value from 30% to 45% in zone 2. See zone one discussion.
1413.4 Language clarification that reiterates need to have waterside economizer on a water cooled water chiller or integrated operation on the air systems Not Evaluated.
it serves.
1423 Reduces mandatory equipment capacity at which economizer is required to 20Kbtu when equipment is outside or adjacent to outdoors. Otherwise Use State Evaluation.
it is the same except for explicit coverage of electronic equipment. Since exception to the mechanical systems scope (1401) was removed in 2001
it's not clear clarification is needed that this is applicable to equipment rooms but this makes interpretation easy.
1433 Gives back some of the economizer by letting units off the hook if they exceed EER by 10% (up to 480kBtu). For heat pump loops an unlimited Not evaluated. XXX
Exceptions 1 and 6. number of units are exempt if they are 15% better EER/COP (heating and cooling), 60% economizer, high efficiency boiler, and heat recovery on check to make sure this
exhaust air. Equivalent paths so no energy impact. option taken
Table 14-1A&B Added 2006 changes for AC and HP units <65Kbtu cooling Not Evaluated
1513.6 Expands automatic shut off to all buildings >5000sqft from just offices and classrooms. Requires occupancy sensors in enclosed spaces < 300sqft Use State Evaluation.
and in classrooms. Both the expansions of the sweep requirements and the occupancy sensor requirements seem like important changes.
1521 Change to require reflector or louver, and daylight zone dimming controls for unlimited prescriptive path. 5% exception tightened to exclude Not Evaluated.
incandescent but does let one get around dimming requirement. Prescriptive path extended to metal halide if reflector/louver and fitted with
ceramic metal halide lamp < 150watts, and electronic ballast. Also, track lighting is now excluded.
Much tougher. Old prescriptive was standard practice and was made for straight forward, easy, and fair compliance for small retrofits. This will
make retrofits do additional calculations. Retail stores using this path will probably still do so.
Table 15-1 Code LPD lower 0.2w/sqft in lab, police/fire, and office, and 0.1 in laundries. Big changes in requirements. Less so over current practice. Use State Evaluation.