90-1-2007 Commercial Nationwide Analysis

8/8/2019 90-1-2007 Commercial Nationwide Analysis

1/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM

Impacts of Standard 90.1-2007

for Commercial Buildingsat State Level

September 2009

Prepared by Pacic Northwest National Laboratory

for the U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program


2/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT STATE LEVEL


3/184


III

Executive Summary

The Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) recently conducted a nationwide commercial energy codeanalysis for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The analysis compares ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA1 Standard

90.1-2007 with the commercial code in each state as of June 2009. The results are provided in this report inchapters specific to each state.

Standard 90.1-2007 was chosen for this analysis because it is the baseline energy standard established in theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the subject of DOEs forthcoming determination ofenergy savings for Standard 90.1. An overview of Standard 90.1-2007, as well as a brief comparison to previousversions, is provided as introductory information.

States with unique energy codes were not included in the analysis as the codes in these states would be difficultto appropriately compare to Standard 90.1 and most of these states have energy offices that routinely assesstheir codes against the national codes. In states with codes prior to and including the 2000 IECC or Standard

90.1-1999, those states with no statewide energy code, and home rule states which did not specifically requestthat another code be used, Standard 90.1-1999 was used as the baseline for comparison. Standard 90.1-1999was chosen as the default baseline because BECP believes it fairly represents current construction practice instates with older codes or no codes.

Three DOE Benchmark buildings were used for the simulation used in this analysis: a medium office building(53,600 ft2), a mid-rise apartment building (33,700 ft2), and a non-refrigerated warehouse (49,500 ft2)representing the Standard 90.1 nonresidential, residential, and semiheated requirements, respectively. Thebuildings are described in further detail in the report, and in Appendix A.

Locations for the analysis were selected based on obtaining a sample representative of each climate zone in thestate, where TMY2 weather file locations existed, making sure to include the state capital. In the absence of aTMY2 weather file for a particular climate zone in a state, a representative location in an adjacent state wasused for the purposes of the simulation. These locations, and the full results of each state specific analysiscompleted by BECP, are provided in the following report.

2

1 American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers/IlluminatingEngineering Society of North America2 DISCLAIMER: The results contained in these reports are complete and accurate to the best of BECPs knowledge, based oninformation available at the time it was written.


4/184


5/184


V

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Overview of Standard 90.1-2007 ................................................................................................................. 13.0 Comparison to Previous Versions of Standard 90.1 .................................................................................... 2

4.0 Energy Analysis Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 State Base Codes ...................................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Benchmark Buildings ............................................................................................................................... 4

4.3 The 2003 IECC and Lighting Power Density .......................................................................................... 5

4.4 Selected Locations .................................................................................................................................... 6

Alabama .................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Alaska ................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Arizona .................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Arkansas ................................................................................................................................................................ 21Colorado ................................................................................................................................................................ 25

Connecticut ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

Delaware ............................................................................................................................................................... 31

District of Columbia ............................................................................................................................................. 33

Georgia .................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Hawaii ................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Idaho ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Indiana................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Iowa....................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Kansas ................................................................................................................................................................... 57

Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................................... 61

Louisiana ............................................................................................................................................................... 63

Maine .................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Maryland ............................................................................................................................................................... 71

Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................................................... 75

Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................... 77

Minnesota .............................................................................................................................................................. 81

Mississippi ............................................................................................................................................................ 85Missouri ................................................................................................................................................................ 89

Montana ................................................................................................................................................................ 93

Nebraska ............................................................................................................................................................... 95

Nevada .................................................................................................................................................................. 97

New Hampshire .................................................................................................................................................. 101

New Jersey .......................................................................................................................................................... 105

New Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................ 109


6/184


VI

New York ............................................................................................................................................................ 113

North Carolina .................................................................................................................................................... 117

North Dakota ....................................................................................................................................................... 121

Ohio..................................................................................................................................................................... 125

Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................................................ 129

Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................................................................... 133Rhode Island ....................................................................................................................................................... 137

South Carolina .................................................................................................................................................... 139

South Dakota ....................................................................................................................................................... 141

Tennessee ............................................................................................................................................................ 145

Texas ................................................................................................................................................................... 149

Utah ..................................................................................................................................................................... 153

Vermont .............................................................................................................................................................. 157

Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................... 159

West Virginia ...................................................................................................................................................... 161

Wisconsin ............................................................................................................................................................ 165

Wyoming............................................................................................................................................................. 169

Appendix A Prototype Building Descriptions ................................................................................................. 173


7/184


1

1.0 Introduction

This report describes the results of a nationwide commercial energy code analysis undertaken by the BuildingEnergy Codes Program (BECP) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The task involved comparing each

states current commercial energy code3

to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA4

Standard 90.1-2007 (Standard 90.1-2007).State-specific results are provided in separate chapters.

The commercial comparison is made to Standard 90.1-2007 because that is the baseline commercial energystandard established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Standard 90.1-2007 will alsosoon be the subject of DOEs latest determination of energy savings for Standard 90.1.

2.0 Overview of Standard 90.1-2007

Standard 90.1-2007 sets requirements for the cost-effective use of energy in commercial buildings. Certainbuildings that have very low energy use, such as buildings with no heating or cooling, are exempt. Standard

90.1-2007 applies to new buildings and to alterations and additions to existing buildings.

Table 1 shows the organization of Standard 90.1-2007. Most of the actual requirements are contained inSections 5-10.

Table 1. Standard 90.1-2007 Table of Contents

1 Purpose

2 Scope

3 Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

4 Administration and Enforcement5 Building Envelope

6 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning

7 Service Water Heating

8 Power

9 Lighting

10 Other Equipment

11 Energy Cost Budget Method

12 Normative References

Appendices

Sub-section numbers are standardized across the requirements sections. For example, sub-section 4 (x.4) isalways the Mandatory Requirements. Table 2 shows the basic organization of the sub-sections used in Section5-10, although not all sub-sections are used in every Section.

3 Defined as the commercial energy code in effect on January 1, 2009, and referred to as the base code. Exceptions to this definitiare noted in the individual state chapters.4 The American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-ConditioningEngineers/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America


8/184


2

Table 2. Organization of Sub-Sections

x.1 General

x.2 Compliance Paths

x.3 Simple Buildings or Systems

x.4 Mandatory Requirementsx.5 Prescriptive Requirements

x.6 Alternative Compliance Paths

x.7 Submittals

x.8 Products

3.0 Comparison to Previous Versions of Standard 90.1

The first Standard 90.1 was published in 1975, with revisions released in 1980, 1989, and 1999. Standard 90.1was placed under continuous maintenance in 1999 which allowed the Standard to be updated with publication

of approved addenda. Beginning with Standard 90.1-2001, the Standard moved to a three-year publicationcycle.

Substantial revisions to the Standard have occurred since 1989. One major change was a complete revision ofthe climate zones in 2004. These revised climates zones are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Climate Zones


9/184


3

Some of the significant requirements in Standard 90.1-2007 include:

Stringent building insulation requirements

Simplified fenestration requirements excluding orientation and window wall ratio

Demand control ventilation requirements for spaces with an occupant density greater than 40 people per

1000 ft2

Separate simple and complex mechanical requirements.

4.0 Energy Analysis Assumptions

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. EnergyPlus was developed by the U.S. Department ofEnergy5 (DOE).

4.1 State Base Codes

States with unique energy codes (i.e., those that do not adopt/amend the International Energy ConservationCode [IECC] or Standard 90.1) were not included in the analysis. This decision was made by DOE for tworeasons: 1) these states generally have codes that have little resemblance to Standard 90.1, making a thoroughcomparison beyond the scope of this effort, and 2) most of these states have highly capable energy offices thatroutinely assess their codes against the national codes. However, states that were not included in the originalanalysis may request to be considered for a similar analysis by contacting BECP at [email protected].

In some cases, decisions about base codes needed to be made. For example, all versions of the IECC includetwo compliance options for commercial buildings: the commercial requirements in the IECC and Standard90.1. Since there can only be one base code in the analysis, if a state specifically adopts the IECC as itscommercial code, the commercial requirements from the applicable IECC were used in the analysis. There are

several states with older commercial codes6. For states with codes prior to and including the 2000 IECC orStandard 90.1-1999, Standard 90.1-1999 was used as the base code.

Standard 90.1-1999 was chosen as the baseline construction for states with older codes because it has beenaround long enough (about 10 years) to allow many of the concepts and requirements embodied in it to becomecommon practice in the construction industry. Standard 90.1-1999 also represents a major change in ASHRAEstandards, coming ten years after the previous version of Standard 90.1. Standard 90.1-1999 is old enough thastates considering adoption of Standard 90.1-2007 will still see significant savings, but not so old that states willbe misled by the savings shown in this report. Keeping with the concept of Standard 90.1-1999 as commonpractice in the construction industry, Standard 90.1-1999 was also used as the base code for states with nostate-wide commercial energy code. Some home rule states

7requested a specific code be used in the analysis;

for all other home rule states Standard 90.1-1999 was used as the base code.

5 EnergyPlus is available and discussed in more detail at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/6 Examples include codes based on 90A90B, 90.1-1989, and the 1992 Model Energy Code.7 In home rule states, codes are adopted and enforced on a local level.


10/184


4

4.2 Benchmark Buildings

Three DOE Benchmark buildings8

were used for the simulation: a medium office building, a mid-riseapartment building, and a non-refrigerated warehouse (semiheated). These three building types represent theStandard 90.1 nonresidential, residential, and semiheated requirements, respectively. For states that haveadopted a newer version of Standard 90.1 (1999 or later), the three types of envelope requirements werecompared directly. For states that have adopted a version of the IECC that contains only a single set ofcommercial envelope requirements (any version prior to the 2009 IECC), the medium office and mid-riseapartment buildings were modeled using the single set of IECC requirements. The warehouse building wasmodeled using the semiheated envelope requirements from the reference standard version of Standard 90.1incorporated in the version of the IECC under consideration. DOE assumes that any designer of a warehousethat would truly be considered semiheated within Standard 90.1 would be motivated to use the Standard 90.1semiheated envelope requirements as allowed by the IECC.

Use of the IECC requirements for semiheated values in a comparison with Standard 90.1-2007 would lead tothe awkward conclusion that the IECC is more stringent. This is true in the sense that use of more insulation isemiheated buildings will save some energy. However, because Standard 90.1-2007 is the designated

comparison and it has separate semiheated envelope requirements, DOE chose to compare those semiheatedrequirements in the ASHRAE reference standard to the IECC.

The medium office has a gross area of 53,600 ft2, three floors, and a window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of 33%. Th

HVAC systems are assumed to be a gas furnace and a packaged DX unit. The walls are modeled as steel framwalls, and the roof as insulation entirely above deck.

The mid-rise apartment building has a gross area of 33,700 ft2, four floors, and a WWR of 15%. The assumedheating system is a gas furnace, with one split DX system assumed to provide cooling for each apartment. Thewalls are modeled as steel frame walls, and the roof as insulation entirely above deck.

The semiheated warehouse has a gross area of 49,500 ft

2

, one floor, and no windows in the storage area.Limited heating is provided by unit heaters and no cooling is provided. The walls and roof are modeled asmetal building walls and roof.

The DOE Benchmark buildings are also further described in Appendix A.

Equipment efficiencies are assumed to be the current Federal requirements for all codes. While older codesmay have older (lower) equipment efficiencies listed in them, equipment that meets the requirements of theseold codes may no longer be manufactured or imported into the United States. Thus, this equipment is typicallynot available. There are some pieces of HVAC equipment that are not covered by the Federal requirements(notably, chillers), but the HVAC equipment modeled in the three benchmark buildings used in the analysis iscovered by the Federal requirements.

The HVAC system for the medium office building is simulated with an economizer when required by the code.By default, the economizer requirements are based on Table 6.5.1 in Standard 90.1-2004. A design daysimulation was done in all climate zones to determine the cooling capacity and the economizer requirement.The typical cooling capacity in the medium office building exceeds 135,000 Btu/h in all climate zones. Table shows the economizer requirement for representative locations in the various climate zones. The building

8 The Benchmark buildings are available at and discussed in more detail athttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/benchmark_models.html.


11/184


5

simulation assumes that the economizer high limit shutoff will be controlled by differential dry bulbtemperature, a control option allowed by the Standard. Under this control scenario, when the outdoor airtemperature is below both the return air temperature and the high ambient shutoff temperature, the economizeris enabled.

Table 3. Economizer Requirements in Standard 90.1-2004

Climate

Zone

Representative

City

Economizer

Requirement

1A Miami No

2A Houston No

2B Phoenix Yes

3A Atlanta No

3B Los Angeles Yes

3C San Francisco Yes

4A Baltimore No4B Albuquerque Yes

4C Seattle Yes

5A Chicago Yes

5B Denver Yes

6A Minneapolis Yes

6B Helena Yes

7 Duluth Yes

8 Fairbanks Yes

4.3 The 2003 IECC and Lighting Power Density

Over the two decades of commercial energy code development, changes in allowable lighting power densityhave been one of the most important drivers of energy efficiency. As an example, Table 4 shows the allowablinterior lighting power densities for the three buildings used in this analysis. Similar differences inrequirements for other building types can also be listed.


12/184


6

Table 4. Comparison of Lighting Power Density Requirements

Standard/Code

Version

Allowable Interior Lighting Power Density (whole building)

watts per square foot

Office Mid-RiseApartment

Warehouse

Standard 90.1.1989,1998 IECC, 2000 IECC

1.5 to 1.9 Apartment lightingnot covered,

Multifamily notlisted

0.4 to 0.8

Standard 90.1-1999,Standard 90.1-2001

1.3 Apartment lightingnot covered,

Multifamily 1.0

1.2

Standard 90.1-2004,Standard 90.1-2007,

2003 IECC, 2006 IECC,2009 IECC

1.0 Apartment lightingnot covered,

Multifamily 0.7

0.8

The issue with the 2003 IECC is that it uses Standard 90.1-2001 as its reference standard. The 2003 IECCcontains the low lighting power densities exemplified by the 1.0 watt per square foot value in the actual text ofChapter 8. But the 2003 IECC also allows the use of Standard 90.1-2001 under the provisions of Chapter 7.And Standard 90.1-2001 has the mid-range interior lighting power densities exemplified by the 1.3 watts persquare foot value. No other version of the IECC has as significant a discontinuity between the requirements ofthe IECC and the requirements of the ASHRAE reference standard.

For this analysis, the requirements of the 2003 IECC were used. While lighting designers may very well havediscovered this discontinuity, the use of the 2003 requirements provide a conservative estimate of the savingsassociated with adoption of Standard 90.1-2007. Use of Standard 90.1-2001 lighting densities as the baselinewould simply increase the savings.

The simulation models for nonresidential and semiheated buildings use the lighting power density requirementsfor office and warehouse, depending on the activity type of the thermal zone. In the case of the residentialbuilding model, the lighting power density is not regulated in older codes and is assumed to be 0.36 W/sf inapartment units based on the Building America benchmark model. The office area and corridor lightingrequirements in the residential building model are based on Standard 90.1-2004 requirements.

4.4 Selected LocationsThe approach used to select representative locations for the analysis first focused on the goal of having onelocation to represent each climate zone within a state, with one of the locations being the state capital. TMY2weather file locations were used. When a climate zone in a state was not represented by a TMY2 weather filelocation in that state, a representative location in an adjacent state was selected to represent the climate zone forpurposes of the simulation. However, a representative city within the actual state is referenced in the reporttables. A listing of the selected locations is shown below.


13/184


7

State Location Climate Zone State Location Climate Zone

AL Mobile 2A NE Omaha 5A

AL Montgomery 3A NV Las Vegas 3B

AK Anchorage 7 NV Reno 5B

AK Fairbanks 8 NH Manchester 5A

AR Little Rock 3A NH Concord 6AAR Fayetteville 4A NJ Newark 4A

AZ Phoenix 2B NJ Paterson 5A

AZ Sierra Vista 3B NM Las Cruces 3B

AZ Prescott 4B NM Albuquerque 4B

AZ Flagstaff 5B NY New York City 4A

CO La Junta 4B NY Albany 5A

CO Boulder 5B NY Binghamton 6A

CO Eagle 6B NM Santa Fe 5B

CO Alamosa 7B NC Charlotte 3A

CT Hartford 5A NC Raleigh 4A

DE Wilmington 4A NC Boone 5A

DC Washington DC 4A ND Bismarck 6AGA Savannah 2A ND Minot 7

GA Atlanta 3A OH Cincinnati 4A

GA Rome 4A OH Columbus 5A

HI Honolulu 1A OK Oklahoma City 3A

ID Boise 5B OK Guymon 4A

ID Pocatello 6B PA Philadelphia 4A

IL Belleville 4A PA Harrisburg 5A

IL Springfield 5A PA Bradford 6A

IN Evansville 4A RI Providence 5A

IN Indianapolis 5A SC Columbia 3A

IA Des Moines 5A SD Yankton 5A

IA Mason City 6A SD Pierre 6AKS Topeka 4A TN Memphis 3A

KS Goodland 5A TN Nashville 4A

KY Lexington 4A TX Austin 2A

LA Baton Rouge 2A TX Houston 2B

LA Shreveport 3A TX El Paso 3A

ME Portland 6A TX Fort Worth 3B

ME Caribou 7 TX Amarillo 4B

MD Baltimore 4A UT Saint George 3B

MD Mtn. Lake Park 5A UT Salt Lake City 5B

MA Boston 5 UT Logan 6B

MI Lansing 5A VT Burlington 6A

MI Alpena 6A VA Richmond 4AMI Sault Ste. Marie 7 WV Charleston 4A

MN St. Paul 6A WV Elkins 5A

MN Duluth 7 WI Madison 6A

MS Biloxi 2A WI Superior 7

MS Jackson 3A WY Torrington 5B

MO Saint Louis 4A WY Cheyenne 6B

MO St. Joseph 5A WY Rock Springs 7B

MT Helena 6B


14/184


15/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN ALABAMA

9

Alabama

Summary

Alabama has no statewide commercial code, therefore for this state comparison, DOE has selected Standard90.1-1999 as the baseline standard for the analysis. Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Alabama. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy andcost savings.

Main Differences Between the Current State Code and Standard 90.1-2007

Standard 90.1-1999 precedes Standard 90.1-2004 and is therefore older (and less stringent) than DOEscurrently mandatedcommercial building energy standard Standard 90.1-2004. This selection was made withthe belief that Standard 90.1-1999 is an appropriate representation of commercial current practice, as it wasdeveloped more than ten years ago. DOEs analysis of Standard 90.1-1999 is included in DOEs determination

of energy savings for Standard 90.1-2004, which compared Standard 90.1-2004 to Standard 90.1-2001 andStandard 90.1-1999. The complete results of this analysis may be found athttp://www.energycodes.gov/implement/determinations_90.1-2004.stm. In comparing Standard 90.1-1999 toStandard 90.1-2007, Standard 90.1-2007:

Has fewer climate zones or bins (26 bins versus 8 climate zones).

Has more stringent building envelope requirements (due in large part to having fewer climate zones).

Has more strict requirements for vestibules in cold climates.

Differentiates windows by fixed versus operable rather than by frame material and usage.

Includes a requirement for demand controlled ventilation in high occupancy spaces.

Removes a deadband exception for data processing centers that eliminates the possibility of

simultaneous heating and cooling. Increases stringency in fan power limitations.

Increases boiler efficiency requirements.

Applies part-load fan power requirements to more smaller systems.

Revises the additional lighting power allowance for retail displays to lower the allowance for somecategories of merchandise.

Has more detailed outdoor lighting power requirements.

Has more stringent indoor lighting power allowances.

A comparison of the thermal envelope requirements is provided in Table 5.


16/184


10

Table 5. Comparison of Envelope Requirements (U-factors in Btu/hr.ft2.F)

Climate Zone 2A Climate Zone 3A

90.1-1999 90.1-2007 90.1-1999 90.1-2007

NonresidentialExterior Wall

RoofSlab

Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.1240.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.0840.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

ResidentialExterior Wall

RoofSlab

Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.0640.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.0840.063NR

1.22 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

Semiheated

Exterior WallRoofSlab

0.1840.167NR

0.1840.167NR

0.1840.097NR

0.1840.097NR

*Window SHGC shown in parentheses next to the U-factor

Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percent

reduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energycost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.


17/184


11

Alabama Energy End Use and Percentage Savings

Energy Use Intensity Savings

90.1-2007 vs.

90.1-1999

90.1-1999 90.1-2007Building

Prototype

Location Electricity(kWh/sf/yr)

NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Electricity(kWh/sf/yr)

NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Mobile 13.60 2.89 12.44 2.82 8.2% 8.4%

Residential Mobile 9.31 4.50 9.06 3.32 5.7% 4.2%

Semiheated Mobile 4.22 4.98 4.22 4.82 0.8% 0.4%

Nonresidential Montgomery 13.88 3.35 11.86 3.34 13.6% 14.1%

Residential Montgomery 9.54 4.18 9.22 2.97 6.2% 4.7%

Semiheated Montgomery 4.31 4.83 4.31 4.69 0.7% 0.4%


18/184


19/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN ALASKA

13

Alaska

Summary

Alaska has no statewide commercial code, therefore for this state comparison, DOE has selected Standard 90.1-1999 as the baseline standard for the analysis. Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Alaska. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and costsavings.


Standard 90.1-1999 precedes Standard 90.1-2004 and is therefore older (and less stringent) than DOEscurrently mandated commercial building energy standard, Standard 90.1-2004. This selection was made withthe belief that Standard 90.1-1999 is an appropriate representation of commercial current practice, as it wasdeveloped more than ten years ago. DOEs analysis of Standard 90.1-1999 is included in DOEs determination













Has more stringent indoor lighting power allowances.



20/184


14


Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 8

90.1-1999 90.1-2007 90.1-1999 90.1-2007

NonresidentialExterior WallRoofSlab

Window*

0.0640.063NR

0.46 (0.45)

0.0640.048

R-15/2ft.0.42 (0.45)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.46 (0.45)

0.0640.048

R-15/2ft.0.42 (0.45)

Residential


Window*

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft0.62 (0.49)

0.0420.048

R-10/2ft.0.42(0.45)

0.0550.048

R-10/2ft.0.46 (0.45)

0.0370.048

R-20/2ft.0.42 (0.45)

SemiheatedExterior Wall

RoofSlab

0.113

0.097NR

0.113

0.097NR

0.113

0.072NR

0.113

0.072NR


Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percentreduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energy

cost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.


21/184


15

Alaska Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

90.1-1999

90.1-1999 90.1-2007Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Anchorage 13.27 10.40 11.91 9.49 10.0% 10.1%

Residential Anchorage 8.91 28.03 8.73 24.85 6.5% 4.7%

Semiheated Anchorage 4.32 28.33 4.32 28.14 0.5% 0.4%

Nonresidential Fairbanks 14.84 16.61 13.65 15.05 8.3% 8.2%

Residential Fairbanks 9.49 38.23 9.30 35.56 4.7% 3.7%

Semiheated Fairbanks 4.34 39.95 4.33 39.45 0.9% 0.7%


22/184


23/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN ARIZONA

17

Arizona

Summary

Arizona is a home rule state with no mandatory state-wide commercial energy code. However, manycounties and cities have adopted an energy efficiency code, most often the 2006 International EnergyConservation Code (IECC), therefore the 2006 IECC was used as the base code in the analysis. Standard 90.12007 would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings in Arizona. The analysis of the impact ofStandard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and cost savings.


The 2006 IECC is the most commonly adopted commercial building energy code at the time this report waswritten. The reference standard for the 2006 IECC is Standard 90.1-2004 and the 2006 IECC shares manyfeatures with Standard 90.1-2004. However, the 2006 IECC was created slightly later than Standard 90.1-200

and thus was able to benefit from changes to Standard 90.1 being contemplated for Standard 90.1-2007. The2006 IECC is widely considered to be slightly more stringent due to the later creation date in addition to thedifferences in the development process at ASHRAE and ICC.

Less strict requirements for vestibules in cold climates in Standard 90.1-2007.

A requirement for demand controlled ventilation in high occupancy spaces in Standard 90.1-2007.

Fan power limitation in Standard 90.1-2007.

Revision of the additional lighting power allowance for retail displays to lower the allowance for somecategories of merchandise in Standard 90.1-2007.

Lack of residential and semiheated space requirements in the 2006 IECC. (However, these are availabby way of the ASHRAE reference standard, Standard 90.1-2004.)

Lack of a detailed space-by-space lighting design method in the 2006 IECC. (However, this is availabby way of the ASHRAE reference standard, Standard 90.1-2004).

More stringent economizer requirements in colder climates in Standard 90.1-2007.

A comparison of the thermal envelope requirements is provided in Table 7 and Table 8.


24/184


18


Climate Zone 2B Climate Zone 3B

IECC 2006 90.1-2007 IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Nonresidential


Window*

0.1250.063NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1240.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1250.063NR

0.62 (0.25)

0.0840.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

Residential


Window*

0.1250.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.0640.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1250.063NR

0.62 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.62 (0.25)


RoofSlab

0.1840.167NR

0.1840.167NR

0.1840.097NR

0.1840.097NR


Table 8 Comparison of Envelope Requirements (U-factors in Btu/hr.ft2.F)


IECC 2006 90.1-2007 IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Nonresidential

Exterior Wall

RoofSlab

Window*

0.125

0.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.064

0.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

0.085

0.048NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.064

0.048NR

0.48 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.1250.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.52 (0.40)

0.0850.048NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.48 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.1340.097NR

0.1340.097NR

0.1230.097NR

0.1230.097NR



25/184


19

Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-

year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percentreduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energycost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.

Arizona Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.IECC 2006

IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Phoenix 13.12 2.45 12.95 2.43 1.3% 1.3%

Residential Phoenix 10.19 2.28 9.68 1.60 6.6% 5.8%

Semiheated Phoenix 4.22 4.12 4.22 3.96 0.8% 0.3%

Nonresidential Sierra

Vista

11.75 3.13 11.52 3.08 2.0% 2.0%

Residential SierraVista

9.88 2.18 9.40 1.60 6.1% 5.4%

Semiheated SierraVista

4.33 4.32 4.33 4.17 0.8% 0.4%

Nonresidential Prescott 11.36 4.25 10.90 3.97 4.3% 4.1%

Residential Prescott 9.27 8.37 9.04 5.69 8.7% 5.6%

Semiheated Prescott 4.33 10.27 4.33 10.12 0.6% 0.4%

Nonresidential Flagstaff 10.85 5.36 10.56 4.88 3.5% 3.0%

Residential Flagstaff 8.73 12.67 8.73 10.28 5.7% 3.0%

Semiheated Flagstaff 4.35 15.39 4.34 15.29 0.4% 0.3%


26/184


27/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN ARKANSAS

21

Arkansas

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state code, the 2003International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Arkansas. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy andcost savings.


The 2003 was a widely adopted version of the IECC, which was the first non-supplement version of the IECCto reference the newer ASHRAE standards. The reference standard for the 2003 IECC is Standard 90.1-2001.


More climate zones or bins defined in 2003 IECC than in Standard 90.1-2007 (33 bins versus 8climate zones).

More stringent building envelope requirements (due in large part to having fewer climate zones) inStandard 90.1-2007.

No differentiation of window types, as opposed to the differentiation by frame material and usage inStandard 90.1-2007.




Energy recovery ventilation systems in Standard 90.1-2007.

More strict requirements for VAV fan control in Standard 90.1-2007.


More detailed outdoor lighting power requirements in Standard 90.1-2007.

Potential loophole for indoor lighting power density in that Standard 90.1-2001 has the old lightingpower densities, while Chapter 8 of the 2003 IECC has the new lighting power densities. (Example,old value for offices = 1.3 watts per square foot, new value for offices = 1.0 watt per square foot).



28/184


22


Climate Zone 3A Climate Zone 4A

IECC 2003 90.1-2007 IECC 2003 90.1-2007


Window*

0.1380.062NR

0.62 (0.40)

0.0840.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

0.1050.059NR

0.62 (0.40)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.1380.062NR

1.22 (0.50)

0.0640.048NR.

0.62 (0.25)

0.1050.059NR

0.62 (0.50)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.184

0.097NR

0.184

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR


Energy Analysis




29/184


23

Arkansas Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

IECC 2003

IECC 2003 90.1-2007Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Little Rock 12.52 3.89 12.05 3.63 4.0% 3.9%

Residential Little Rock 9.66 10.00 9.14 6.44 12.4% 9.0%

Semiheated Little Rock 4.35 7.35 4.35 7.21 0.6% 0.3%

Nonresidential Fayetteville 12.37 4.49 12.00 4.17 3.4% 3.2%

Residential Fayetteville 9.70 7.86 9.52 5.84 6.4% 4.1%

Semiheated Fayetteville 4.35 8.99 4.35 8.84 0.7% 0.4%


30/184


31/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN COLORADO

25

Colorado

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state code, the 2003International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Colorado. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy andcost savings.


The 2003 was a widely adopted version of the IECC, which was the first non-supplement version of the IECCto reference the newer ASHRAE standards. The reference standard for the 2003 IECC is Standard 90.1-2001.


More climate zones or bins defined in 2003 IECC than in Standard 90.1-2007 (33 bins versus 8climate zones).

More stringent building envelope requirements (due in large part to having fewer climate zones) inStandard 90.1-2007.









Potential loophole for indoor lighting power density in that Standard 90.1-2001 has the old lightingpower densities, while Chapter 8 of the 2003 IECC has the new lighting power densities. (Example,old value for offices = 1.3 watts per square foot, new value for offices = 1.0 watt per square foot).

A comparison of the thermal envelope requirements is provided in Table 10 and Table 11.


32/184


26



IECC 2003 90.1-2007 IECC 2003 90.1-2007


Window*

0.1030.054NR

0.62 (0.40)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

0.0920.061NR

0.62 (0.40)

0.0640.048NR

0.48 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.1030.054NR

0.62 (0.50)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.52 (0.40)

0.0920.061NR

0.62 (0.50)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.48 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.134

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR

0.123

0.097NR

0.123

0.097NR



Climate Zone 6B Climate Zone 7

IECC 2003 90.1-2007 IECC 2003 90.1-2007

Nonresidential

Exterior Wall

RoofSlab

Window*

0.071

0.05NR

0.57 (0.50)

0.064

0.048R-10/2ft.

0.48 (0.40)

0.067

0.047NR

0.57 (0.50)

0.064

0.048R-15/2ft.

0.48 (0.40)


RoofSlab

Window*

0.0670.047NR

0.52 (0.50)

0.0640.048

R-15/2ft.0.48 (0.40)

0.0710.05NR

0.52 (0.40)

0.0640.048

R-15/2ft.0.48 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.1130.097NR

0.1130.097NR

0.1130.097NR

0.1130.097NR



33/184


27

Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-

year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percentreduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energycost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.

Colorado Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

IECC 2003

IECC 2003 90.1-2007

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential La Junta 12.04 4.90 11.67 4.44 3.7% 3.4%

Residential La Junta 9.27 11.01 9.14 8.31 7.4% 4.5%

Semiheated La Junta 4.36 12.73 4.35 12.58 0.6% 0.3%

Nonresidential Boulder 11.48 5.40 11.03 4.93 4.5% 4.2%

Residential Boulder 9.18 12.42 9.06 9.52 7.5% 4.6%Semiheated Boulder 4.37 14.69 4.36 14.58 0.5% 0.3%

Nonresidential Eagle 11.45 6.35 10.95 5.89 4.8% 4.6%

Residential Eagle 8.98 13.99 8.98 13.22 1.7% 0.9%

Semiheated Eagle 4.37 18.68 4.36 18.57 0.4% 0.3%

Nonresidential Alamosa 11.30 6.43 10.88 5.97 4.3% 4.0%

Residential Alamosa 8.93 15.62 8.91 14.43 2.7% 1.6%

Semiheated Alamosa 4.39 21.34 4.39 21.22 0.3% 0.3%


34/184


35/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN CONNECTICUT

29

Connecticut

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state code, the 2006International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)9. Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Connecticut. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy andcost savings.


The 2006 IECC is the most commonly adopted commercial building energy code at the time this report waswritten. The reference standard for the 2006 IECC is Standard 90.1-2004 and the 2006 IECC shares manyfeatures with Standard 90.1-2004. However, the 2006 IECC was created slightly later than Standard 90.1-200and thus was able to benefit from changes to Standard 90.1 being contemplated for Standard 90.1-2007. The

2006 IECC is widely considered to be slightly more stringent due to the later creation date plus the differencesin the development process at ASHRAE and ICC.






Lack of a detailed space-by-space lighting design method in the 2006 IECC. (However, this is availab

by way of the ASHRAE reference standard, Standard 90.1-2004). More stringent economizer requirements in colder climates in Standard 90.1-2007.


9 Connecticuts new code, the 2006 IECC, became effective August 2009.


36/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN CONNECTICUT

30


Climate Zone 5A

IECC 2006 90.1-2007


Window*

0.0850.048NR

0.55 (0.40)

0.0640.048NR

0.48 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.0850.048NR

0.55 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.48 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.123

0.097NR

0.123

0.097NR*Window SHGC shown in parentheses next to theU-factor

Energy Analysis



Connecticut Energy End Use and Percentage Savings Energy Use Intensity Savings

90.1-2007 vs.

IECC2006

IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Hartford 12.04 6.77 11.68 5.81 4.6% 3.8%

Residential Hartford 9.00 18.04 8.96 15.69 5.1% 3.1%

Semiheated Hartford 4.35 19.03 4.34 18.92 0.4% 0.3%


37/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DELAWARE

31

Delaware

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state code, the 2001 IECC.Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings in Delaware. The analysis of thimpact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and cost savings.


The 2001 IECC was a widely adopted version of the IECC, and was the first version of the IECC to referencethe newer ASHRAE standards. The reference standard for the 2001 Supplement to the 2000 IECC is Standard90.1-1999.

Lack of residential and semiheated space requirements in the 2001 IECC. (However, these are availabby way of the ASHRAE reference standard - Standard 90.1-2001.)

More climate zones or bins defined in 2001 IECC than in Standard 90.1-2007 (33 bins versus 8climate zones)

More stringent building envelope requirements (due in large part to having fewer climate zones) inStandard 90.1-2007








Increased boiler efficiency requirements in Standard 90.1-2007.


More stringent interior lighting power requirements in Standard 90.1-2007. (Example, old value foroffices = 1.3 watts per square foot for whole building, new value for offices = 1.0 watt per squarefoot).



38/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DELAWARE

32


Climate Zone 4A

IECC 2001 90.1-2007


Window*

0.0980.062NR

0.62 (0.40)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.0980.062NR

0.62 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.52 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.134

0.097NR

0.134


Energy Analysis



Delaware Energy End Use and Percentage Savings Energy Use Intensity Savings

90.1-2007 vs.

IECC 2001

IECC 2001 90.1-2007

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Wilmington 13.19 5.06 11.82 4.68 10.1% 10.3%

Residential Wilmington 9.12 14.97 8.98 12.02 7.4% 4.7%

Semiheated Wilmington 4.34 14.22 4.34 14.07 0.5% 0.3%


39/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMB

33

District of Columbia

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current code, the 2006 InternationalEnergy Conservation Code (IECC) with an amendment to reference Standard 90.1-2007. Standard 90.1-2007would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings in Connecticut. The analysis of the impact ofStandard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and cost savings.

Main Differences Between the Current Code and Standard 90.1-2007


2006 IECC is widely considered to be slightly more stringent due to the later creation date in addition to thedifferences in the development process at ASHRAE and ICC.










40/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMB

34


Climate Zone 4A

IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Nonresidential


Window*

0.1250.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)


RoofSlab

Window*

0.1250.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

Semiheated

Exterior Wall

RoofSlab

0.134

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR


Energy Analysis



Washington D.C. Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

IECC 2006 90.1-2007 IECC 2006

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential DC 12.46 5.19 11.86 4.62 5.5% 5.1%

Residential DC 9.24 15.40 9.03 11.36 10.2% 6.6%

Semiheated DC 4.34 13.69 4.33 13.54 0.5% 0.3%


41/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN GEORGIA

35

Georgia

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state commercial energy code,Standard 90.1-2004 with amendments. The Georgia state-specific version of COMcheck3.6.1 was used toidentify the envelope and lighting requirements to be used in the baseline for the analysis. Standard 90.1-2007would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings in Georgia. The analysis of the impact of Standard90.1-2007 resulted in energy and cost savings.


Standard 90.1-2004 is currently DOEs requirement for commercial building energy codes, based on DOEsmost recent determination of energy savings as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. DOE expects toissue its determination on Standard 90.1-2007 sometime in the Summer or Fall of 2009. When published, the

complete results of this comparison may be found athttp://www.energycodes.gov/implement/determinations_com.stm. ASHRAE processed 44 separate addendStandard 90.1-2004 in creating Standard 90.1-2007. In comparing Standard 90.1-2004 to Standard 90.1-2007,Standard 90.1-2007:




Removes a deadband exception for data processing centers that eliminates the possibility ofsimultaneous heating and cooling.

Increases stringency in fan power limitations.

Increases boiler efficiency requirements. Applies part-load fan power requirements to more smaller systems.


The 2006 Georgia amendments provide assembly U-factors for metal building roofs taking into accountthe purlin spacing and a lab-tested U-factor of R-19 for screw down roofs without thermal blocks.

Overall, Standard 90.1-2007 is expected to be more stringent than Standard 90.1.2004, as demonstrated by thesimulation results shown below.



42/184


36


Climate Zone 2A Climate Zone 3A Climate Zone 4A

State Code 90.1-2007 State Code 90.1-2007 State Code 90.1-2007


Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.39)

0.1240.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0840.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.72 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0840.048NR

0.62 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048NR

0.52 (0.40)


RoofSlab

0.184

0.167NR

0.184

0.167NR

0.184

0.097NR

0.184

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR

0.134

0.097NR


Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percent

reduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energycost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.


43/184


37

Georgia Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

90.1-2004 90.1-2007 90.1-2004

BuildingPrototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Savannah 12.73 3.05 12.54 2.90 1.7% 1.6%

Residential Savannah 9.27 4.68 9.05 4.28 3.2% 2.8%

Semiheated Savannah 4.22 5.72 4.22 5.56 0.8% 0.4%

Nonresidential Atlanta 12.09 3.85 11.71 3.60 3.4% 3.3%

Residential Atlanta 9.15 6.69 8.93 6.14 3.5% 2.9%

Semiheated Atlanta 4.33 7.34 4.33 7.24 0.4% 0.2%

Nonresidential Rome 12.15 4.57 11.71 4.22 4.0% 3.8%Residential Rome 9.41 6.96 9.31 5.36 5.0% 3.0%

Semiheated Rome 4.31 8.25 4.31 8.10 0.7% 0.4%


44/184


45/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN HAWAI

39

Hawaii

Summary

Hawaii has no statewide commercial code, therefore for this state comparison, DOE has selected Standard 90.1-1999 as the baseline standard for the analysis. Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Hawaii. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and cossavings.


Standard 90.1-1999 precedes Standard 90.1-2004 and is therefore older (and less stringent) than DOEscurrently mandated commercial building energy standard, Standard 90.1-2004. This selection was made withthe belief that Standard 90.1-1999 is an appropriate representation of commercial current practice, as it wasdeveloped more than ten years ago. DOEs analysis of Standard 90.1-1999 is included in DOEs determination















46/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN HAWAI

40


Climate Zone 1A

90.1-1999 90.1-2007


Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

Residential


Window*

0.1240.063NR

1.22 (0.25)

0.1240.048NR

1.22 (0.25)


RoofSlab

1.18

1.28NR

1.18


Energy Analysis



Hawaii Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

90.1-1999

90.1-1999 90.1-2007

Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Honolulu 13.99 2.18 12.77 2.18 8.4% 8.6%

Residential Honolulu 9.93 0.00 9.85 0.00 0.8% 0.8%

Semiheated Honolulu 4.61 0.16 4.61 0.01 0.9% 0.4%


47/184

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM IMPACTS OF STANDARD 90.1-2007 FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN IDAHO

41

Idaho

Summary

Standard 90.1-2007 contains improvements in energy efficiency over the current state code, the 2006International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Standard 90.1-2007 would improve energy efficiency incommercial buildings in Idaho. The analysis of the impact of Standard 90.1-2007 resulted in energy and costsavings.



2006 IECC is widely considered to be slightly more stringent due to the later creation date in addition to thedifferences in the development process at ASHRAE and ICC.










48/184


42



IECC 2006 90.1-2007 IECC 2006 90.1-2007

Nonresidential


Window*

0.0850.048NR

0.57 (0.49)

0.0640.048NR

0.48 (0.40)

0.0850.048NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048R-10/2ft.

0.48 (0.40)

Residential


Window*

0.0850.048NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-10/2ft.0.48 (0.40)

0.0850.048NR

0.57 (0.39)

0.0640.048

R-15/2ft.0.48 (0.40)


Roof

Slab

0.1230.097

NR

0.1230.097

NR

0.1130.097

NR

0.1130.097

NR*Window SHGC shown in parentheses next to the U-factor

Energy Analysis

An energy analysis was conducted comparing each states base code to Standard 90.1-2007. The EnergyPlussoftware was used to determine the energy impacts. Summary savings results are shown below by buildingtype. Results are shown for the electricity and natural gas energy use intensity (in kWh/sf-year and kBtu/sf-year, respectively) for both the base code and Standard 90.1-2007. Results are also shown for the percentreduction of overall site energy usage and energy cost from the base case to Standard 90.1-2007. The energycost savings are estimated using national average energy costs of $0.0939 per kWh for electricity and $1.2201

per therm for natural gas. Presentation of the individual results for electricity and natural gas usage allowsinterested parties to calculate source energy or energy cost savings based on state (rather than national average)fuel prices. Total annual energy usage for the three building prototypes may be calculated by multiplying theenergy use intensity numbers by the square footage of the prototype building.


49/184


43

Idaho Energy End Use and Percentage Savings


90.1-2007 vs.

IECC 2006

IECC 2006 90.1-2007Building

Prototype


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)


NaturalGas

(kBtu/sf/yr)

Energy Cost

Nonresidential Boise 11.72 5.21 11.17 5.01 4.6% 4.6%

Residential Boise 9.08 13.33 9.03 11.13 5.4% 3.1%

Semiheated Boise 4.34 14.60 4.34 14.49 0.5% 0.3%

Nonresidential Pocatello 11.79 6.70 11.36 5.84 5.0% 4.3%

Residential Pocatello 9.15 18.32 9.10 15.59 5.8% 3.5%

Semiheated Pocatello 4.37 20.29 4.36 20.19 0.4% 0.3%


50/184


51/

Documents

90-1-2007 Commercial Nationwide Analysis