NW Code Savings Final

Non-Residential Energy Savings From Northwest Energy Code Changes 1996-2004

Final Report

March 30, 2005

Mike Kennedy, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT..................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND – REGIONAL CODE ADOPTIONS 1996-2004........................................................................2
IDAHO...........................................................................................................................................................2 MONTANA......................................................................................................................................................3 OREGON........................................................................................................................................................3 WASHINGTON.................................................................................................................................................3 Seattle.......................................................................................................................................................4

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES.......................................................................................................5
SIMULATION METHOD......................................................................................................................................5 Defining the Savings Increment...............................................................................................................6 Application of the Savings Scenarios.......................................................................................................7 ENGINEERING METHOD....................................................................................................................................7 RECENT WASHINGTON CODE CHANGES..............................................................................................................8 DATA SOURCES..............................................................................................................................................8

CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................8
Lighting Power Density............................................................................................................................8 Envelope Measures..........................................................................................................................10 Heating and Cooling Equipment.................................................................................................10 SAVINGS METHODOLOGY – INDIVIDUAL MEASURES...........................................................................................11 Lighting Controls - Office/Conference/Classroom Occupancy Sensors (Oregon only)........................11 Lighting Controls - Sweep.............................................................................................................11 Lighting Controls – Bi-level (Idaho & Montana only).........................................................12 Intermittent Ignition Devices, Power Vent, Standby Loss Requirements........................12 Fan Motor Adjustable Speed Drive............................................................................................12 Pump Motor Adjustable Speed Drive (Oregon only)............................................................13 Air Transport Factor (Oregon only)..........................................................................................13 Duct Sealing.......................................................................................................................................13 Temperature Reset (Oregon only)...............................................................................................14 Economizer.........................................................................................................................................14 Off-Hour Controls (Oregon only)...............................................................................................14 Transformers (Oregon only).........................................................................................................15 Commissioning (Washington only).............................................................................................15

RESULTS............................................................................................................................................16 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A. NEW IDAHO CODE PROVISIONS........................................................................................23 APPENDIX B. NEW MONTANA CODE PROVISIONS...................................................................................26 APPENDIX C. NEW OREGON CODE PROVISIONS.....................................................................................29 APPENDIX D. NEW WASHINGTON CODE PROVISIONS..............................................................................37 APPENDIX E. FW DODGE NEW CONSTRUCTION DATA...........................................................................42
Northwest Construction Starts (square feet in thousands)....................................................................42 Construction Starts –State Shares - Years 2001-2004...........................................................................42

Construction Starts –State Shares - Years 2001-2004

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.

Introduction and Purpose of Report
The Northwest has been a leader in the adoption of progressive residential and commercial building energy codes. Over the last decade each state has adopted energy codes to improve the efficiency of new buildings. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has supported the adoption and implementation of energy codes in the region since 1996. At that time, nonresidential energy codes existed in Montana, Oregon, and Washington but not Idaho. Since then Idaho adopted its first commercial building energy code, and Montana, Oregon and Washington significantly strengthened their codes. 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. Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

As with any work of this nature, there is significant uncertainty with the savings estimates contained within. By necessity, only the primary code provisions are evaluated in this work. Many other code provisions have not been quantified, mostly due to expected small overall savings, or occasionally to uncertainty about current practice and application. Taken together these un-quantified provisions likely lead to significant additional savings. As such, this work forms a conservative estimate of energy savings resulting from code changes.

Background – Regional Code Adoptions 1996-2004
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.
Idaho Code Chronology Enactment Description Date 1989 City of Idaho Falls & Kootenai county adopted NWEC 1999 State buildings required to meet ASHRAE 90.1 1989. June 2002 Adopted 2000 IECC for state buildings Jan 2003 Adopted 2000 IECC for whole state. Jan 2005 Adopting 2003 IECC for whole state

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

Montana 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.
Montana Code Chronology Enactment Description Date 1992 ASHRAE 90.1-1989 (by reference in MEC). July 2004 Adopted 2003 IECC

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.
Oregon Code Chronology Enactment Description Date 1978 Envelope only code 1980 HVAC coverage added to code (1979 UBC) 1996 Major non-residential code established. 1998 Code update with limited changes. No changes to envelope or lighting components. 1999 Added 40% window path, energy neutral Oct 2001 Updated equipment standards 90.1-99 (2001 values) Nov 2003 New Oregon Code - Changes in all areas including lighting LPD and equipment efficiency tables Mar-04 Slight revisions with significant change to the Air Transport Factor requirement and calculations. Oct-04 Slight revisions with significant increases in deemed to comply window traits for window wall components.

Washington Washington adopted a state-promulgated energy code for non-residential buildings in 1986. An update in 1994 made it the most stringent in the region. Since that time it has undergone three code revision cycles and one emergency rule- making. Equipment efficiency was increased in 2001 to reflect the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 2001 values. Retail lighting requirements changed significantly in structure between 1996 and 2004 though the impact on average retail LPD is questionable.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

In November 2004, the State Building Code Council recommended a significant package of proposals, which will become law in July 20052.
Washington Code Chronology Enactment Description Date 1986 First state non-residential code. 1994 Second state non-residential code. 1997 Code cycle revision. Expanded default values, no change to envelope requirements, equipment efficiency tables, or LPD requirements. 2000 Code cycle revision. Expanded default values, changed retail lighting paths and increased main floor lobby lighting. No change in envelope requirements or equipment efficiency tables, July 2001 Emergency changes initiated by Governor Locke. Equipment efficiency tables updated to 90.1-1999 2001 format and values. No changes in LPD requirements envelope. 2003 Editorial changes, essentially the same as 2001 Second edition. July 2005 Building Code Council recommended package of changes (Nov 2004). Significant LPD changes. (Evaluated in other work, Kennedy & Baylon, May 2004 )

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. Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 3

Methodology and Data Sources
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 Office – Large from BPA 89 vintage Office – Medium from WSEO Office – Small from BPA 89 vintage Retail – Large from BPA 89 vintage Retail – Small from BPA 89 vintage Grocery from BPA 89 vintage School from BPA 89 vintage School – Elementary from WSEO Warehouse from BPA 89 vintage Hospital from BPA 89 vintage Restaurant - Sit Down from BPA 89 vintage Baseline System/Fuel VAV – Series boxes, Electric reheat VAV – non-fan powered boxes. Gas boiler Package single zone, gas heat Package single zone, gas heat Package single zone, gas heat Package single zone, gas heat Unit ventilators & Package single zone, gas boiler Two pipe fan coil, gas boiler Package single zone, gas heat & gas unit heaters VAV and CV reheat. HW reheat, gas boiler. 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
Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

lighting power density (LPD) was the average office LPD found in all the audited buildings within a given state. As such the baseline lighting level is not the code LPD but an average of real buildings which could be better or worse than code. 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. Defining the Savings Increment 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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 2

Another assumption of Scenario 2 that is especially problematic in the current analysis is that (a) there is a base code (not the case in Idaho) and (b) that it is not too out of alignment with current practice. 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. Application of the Savings Scenarios 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.
Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Recent Washington Code Changes 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: 19952000”, 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).

Calculations and Assumptions
This section presents the calculation details for each code change evaluated. Lighting Power Density 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 Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 3

The UCG and SCL data were used to determine the baseline lighting levels in Washington. The Washington 2004 code does not reflect retail lighting changes, which are treated separately using detailed retail lighting data collected as part of the SCL characteristics study.
Lighting Data Summary by State (w/sqft). NEEA Baseline State Obs Avg. Code LPD (w/sqft) Actual 1996 Code 2004 Code 2004 Code LPD (building value) (building value) (space by space) ID 37 1.17 1.46 1.11 1.13 MT 27 1.28 1.35 1.05 1.05 OR 50 1.11 1.27 1.01 1.15 WA 108 1.03 1.27 1.27 ----Ending LPD (w/sqft) 1.03 1.09 1.05 1.03 Delta LPD (w/sqft) -0.14 -0.19 -0.07 0.00

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 LPD LPD 2004 Code 2004 Code 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 “nondisplay” 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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 3

Envelope Measures
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.

Heating and Cooling Equipment
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. Savings Methodology – Individual Measures Lighting Controls - Office/Conference/Classroom Occupancy Sensors (Oregon only) 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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

A small survey of Seattle office lighting found daytime office occupancy rates of 58% (Kennedy, Baylon 2001). Auditors noted a significant amount of lighting turned on with spaces unoccupied. Occupancy sensors in enclosed offices and conference rooms would ensure all lights are off when the spaces are not occupied. Other studies have found similar occupancy rates (Mahone et al). The table below summarizes the amount of floor area in offices within various building types. Based upon a sub-sample of offices, small offices (<300sqft) and conference rooms comprised 32% of the office area as found in the SCL baseline study. 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 Education Grocery Institution Office-Large Office-Small Retail Warehouse Laboratory Building Area sqft 235,474 148,040 419,868 1,616,926 121,403 503,404 21,241 48,421 Office Area sqft 15,043 3,720 83,309 1,099,974 44,818 1,294 1,021 4,716 All Office (%) 6.4 2.5 19.8 68.0 36.9 0.3 4.8 9.7 Small Office (%) 2.1 0.8 6.4 21.8 11.9 0.1 1.5 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.

Lighting Controls - Sweep
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.

Lighting Controls – Bi-level (Idaho & Montana only)
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
Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 3

and 17.9% in offices (Mahone et al). Several important factors are not addressed in the study. First, the spaces were not new and do not represent current lighting systems or levels. Only spaces with lighting power over 1 watt per square foot were included. It’s entirely possible that some of the spaces had more light in one of the partial switch states than current codes allow. 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.

Intermittent Ignition Devices, Power Vent, Standby Loss Requirements
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.

Fan Motor Adjustable Speed Drive
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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 2

Pump Motor Adjustable Speed Drive (Oregon only)
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.

Air Transport Factor (Oregon only)
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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

Temperature Reset (Oregon only)
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 nonintegrated, 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.

Off-Hour Controls (Oregon only)
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.
Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Only the warm-up and night-cycle outside air control were evaluated here since they are broadly applicable with little saturation. Savings were modeled using the prototypes. Applicability was limited to constant volume air systems (as determined from CBSA). Variable air volume systems were assumed to already have controls that included these features. 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.

Transformers (Oregon only)
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.

Commissioning (Washington only)
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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

Results
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.
Annual Energy Savings by State State Normalized Savings 2006 New Sector Savings

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

Electric KWh/sqft Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Washington-2005 Total
1-

Gas kBtu/sqft 1.37 0.16 0.38 0.26 0.61 0.77

1.59 1.16 1.15 0.30 0.38 0.95

Floor Area Estimate (millions) 5.52 1.93 12.31 24.05 24.051 43.81

Electric mWh aMW 8,794 2,239 14,103 7,186 9,124 41,447 1.00 0.26 1.61 0.82 1.04 4.73

Gas mmBtu 7,588 305 4,663 6,273 14,708 33,537

Washington-2005 floor area is duplicate of Washington area and not included in total

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 Electric Gas kWh/sqft kBtu/sqft 0.72 0.21 0.15 0.05 0.19 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.07 1.59 0.39 0.13 0.11 0.06 0.20 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.07 1.16 0.30 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.07 (1.08) 2.05 (0.22) (0.24) 0.34 (0.02) 0.53 1.37 (0.59) 0.42 (0.29) (0.29) 0.40 (0.02) 0.53 0.16 (0.46) (0.23) (0.09) 0.29 (0.01) 0.13 0.53 Sector Savings Electric mWh avg MW 3,985 1,141 842 272 1,061 913 136 31 414 8,794 743 258 209 121 379 319 47 19 145 2,239 3,680 1,573 537 2,172 761 312 481 832 54 1,586 924 0.45 0.13 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.42 0.18 0.06 0.25 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.18 0.11 Gas mmBtu (5,952) 11,386 (1,247) (1,308) 1,863 (83) 2,929 7,588 (1,137) 812 (556) (560) 765 (41) 1,023 305 (5,678) (2,866) (1,133) 3,618 (129) 1,565 6,531 Page 1

Idaho LPD Changes Envelop Changes EER Changes HP Changes Lighting Controls – Sweep Lighting Controls – Bilevel IID, Power Vent Requirement ASD on VAV AHU Motors>25hp Economizer Duct Sealing Total Montana LPD Changes Envelop Changes EER Changes HP Changes Lighting Controls – Sweep Lighting Controls – Bilevel IID, Power Vent Requirement ASD on VAV AHU Motors>25hp Economizer Duct Sealing Total Oregon LPD Changes EER Changes HP Changes Lighting Controls – Sweep Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors IID, Power Vent Requirement ASD on VAV AHU Motors>10hp ASD all Variable Load Pumps >10hp Air and Water Temperature Reset Economizer ATF Duct Sealing

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Shutdown Damper Controls Transformers - TP-1 Curtain Wall Deemed to Comply Total Washington LPD Changes EER Changes HP Changes Lighting Controls – Sweep IID, Power Vent Requirement Commissioning Total Washington-2005 Economizer Envelope – Glazing Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors LPD Changes Envelope – Opaque Transformers - TP-1 Total

0.00 0.08 0.02 1.15 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.38

0.17 0.06 0.38 (0.05) (0.02) 0.27 0.06 0.26 0.00 (0.04) (0.01) (0.00) 0.66 0.61

51 947 193 14,103 1,400 2,310 893 348 2,235 7,186 1,300 1,173 1,102 1,923 2,409 1,217 9,124

0.01 0.11 0.02 1.61 0.16 0.26 0.10 0.04 0.26 0.82 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.27 0.14 1.04

2,085 669 4,663 (1,313) (489) 6,511 1,564 6,273 86 (892) (348) (73) 15,934 14,708

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

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 2

The following tables present the annual energy savings by year and state. Savings are those acquired in the given year. The total column presents both the per year and cumulative savings. Code Energy Savings - Average Megawatts per Year
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Idaho 1.16 1.00 0.99 1.02 1.03 1.05 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05 20.8 Montana 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 5.3 Oregon 2.08 1.86 1.61 1.59 1.64 1.65 1.68 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.52 1.53 1.55 1.57 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 35.4 Washington 0.98 1.05 1.06 1.55 1.86 1.84 1.90 1.90 1.94 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.74 1.75 1.77 1.79 1.81 1.83 1.85 1.87 1.90 1.92 1.94 41.0 Per Year Total Cumulative 0.98 1.0 1.05 2.0 3.14 5.2 4.87 10.1 4.73 14.8 4.68 19.5 4.83 24.3 4.84 29.1 4.94 34.1 4.19 38.3 4.23 42.5 4.26 46.8 4.31 51.1 4.41 55.5 4.46 59.9 4.51 64.4 4.56 69.0 4.61 73.6 4.66 78.3 4.71 83.0 4.76 87.7 4.82 92.6 4.88 97.4 4.94 102.4 102.4

Code Energy Savings - Average Therms per Year (1000000s)
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Idaho 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 Montana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oregon 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 Washington 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.19 Per Year Total Cumulative 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.34 0.94 0.33 1.27 0.34 1.61 0.34 1.95 0.35 2.30 0.30 2.60 Page 1

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 1.57

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.02

0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 4.49

0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 7.14

2.90 3.20 3.51 3.82 4.14 4.46 4.78 5.11 5.44 5.77 6.11 6.45 6.79 7.14

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 2

Bibliography
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 NonResidential 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. Mahone, D., C. Chappell, O. Howlett, D. Dohrmann, and F. Rubinstein. (to be published). Effectiveness of Bi-Level Switching in Offices, Retail Space and Classrooms. Heschong Mahone Group Inc. Fair Oaks, CA. 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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 1

Appendix A. New Idaho Code Provisions
Idaho Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC Section Description Envelope Component Opaque U-values Performance Envelope Component Glazing values Performance Equipment Minimum Minimum Equipment cooling and heating efficiency tables Efficiency Maximum Lighting LPD Requirements Power Density Lighting Controls Sweep/automated required in all buildings >5000sqft Max Sweep Zone <25000 or 1 floor size Max Sweep Override 5000sqft Zone size Max Override Time 2 Holiday Scheduling requires "automatic holiday scheduling feature that turns off all loads for at least 24 hours" Bi-level switching Required Comment Evaluate values for Boise climate. Evaluate values for Boise climate. Evaluate values for Boise climate. Evaluate values for Boise climate. Definitely an energy saver in office buildings. Larger than other codes but still smaller than maximum sweep zone. Evaluation Method DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. Evaluate – Engineering. Part of sweep control Part of sweep control

Part of sweep control Unclear what impact this has. Would seem to outlaw Not evaluated. standard programmable thermostats, in other situations with EMS it is probably standard practice. Savings function of feature usage and base condition. Evaluated. Engineering. Providing the capability will allow those interested to use it. Unclear what impact this has. Would seem to outlaw Not evaluated. standard programmable thermostats, in other situations with EMS it is probably standard practice. Part of lighting LPD calculation. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Miscellaneous Lighting Holiday Scheduling requires "automatic holiday scheduling feature that turns off all loads for at least 24 hours"

Treatment of line 30 watts/lineal foot voltage track lighting Airtight Can Lights Required Economizer Maximum DX 65kBtu or 135kBtu CZ14(ID counties: Benewah, cassia, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Kootenai, Latah, Shoshone, Twin falls) Capacity Without Economizer Important Exceptions to Economizer requirement. DX-Economizer Integration Waterside Economizer if EER meets table 703.2.6 (EER better by 10-20%) but only in SE WA (Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties) Required where economizer required. 100% at 50Fdb/45Fwb

Evaluated. DOE2 on average of code modified baseline characteristics. This seems interesting in terms of flexibility but presumably Not evaluated. these are generally equivalent so there would be no energy Equivalent path. savings. Integration is nearly meaningless unless the compressor can Not evaluated modulate. Not directly evaluated. All prototypes assume air systems so waterside economizer savings are assumed.

Ducts

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 2

Idaho Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC Section Description Duct sealing – All ALL joints, seams, and connections locations.

Duct Insulation Exterior

Exterior - R8, Vented Space – R5, Unconditioned Space – R5, Conditioned R0

Comment Very simple but stringent requirement that will likely not be implemented fully. Most exterior duct work is currently sealed and even some interior. Uncertainty about current practice and the results code will obtain make this difficult to quantify. Duct insulation requirements are hard to evaluate, as there is little or no information on current practice. Mostly exterior duct use insulated sound board.

Evaluation Method Evaluated. Percent of heating and cooling energy. Not evaluated.

Equipment - Minimum Efficiency Boiler control modulating or staged if cap>500kbtu VSD VSD - fan motors VSD or Two speed on cooling tower

Requiring boiler staging is probably a good thing. Individual Not evaluated. units start to be come modulating some where around 1 mmBtuh. Multiple units are always possible. High threshold, and generally small population of sites that don't currently have ASD. Evaluated. Modeled. Not evaluated. Two speed fans have a high saturation.

Required on motors>=25hp with variable loads. yes

Controls Small Building Controls Basic Thermostat 7 day programmable, battery backed, manual override Capabilities Heat pumps Thermostat must minimize auxiliary on startup Sup H2O Temp Reset required if cap>300kBtu min dead band Heat Rejection Condenser HR. 5F Required if 24hr facility and rejection capacity is >6mmbtu, and service hot water heating capacity is >1mmbtu.

Not evaluated/ Unclear what the commercial baseline is. Most likely high Not evaluated. current saturation. Only applicable to heat pumps. Savings relatively small unless system uses massive Not evaluated. radiators. High saturation in larger systems. Most systems are capable of this currently. How they are set Not evaluated. is another matter. Very small applicability. Hospitals are often on a central Not evaluated. plant so might typically be unaffected. Nursing homes are a possibility. The DHW capacity in grocery is probably too small on average. Codes standardized on ASHRAE. Not clear what the Not evaluated. existing baseline is. This is pretty much standard practice. Not evaluated.

Cooling Tower Establishes efficiency requirements for heat rejection devices. Efficiency Miscellaneous Air inlet, outlet, and requires "automatic" method (barometric or motorized) for systems >3000 CFM relief dampers HP Loop unit valves required

Codes standardized on ASHRAE. This forces HP loop to be Not evaluated. variable volume, which in some cases forces the use of VSDs but not with IECC. Without VSD this could increase energy use.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 3

Appendix B. New Montana Code Provisions
Montana Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC from ASHRAE 90.1-89 Section Description Envelope Component Opaque U-values Performance Envelope Component Glazing values Performance Equipment Minimum Minimum equipment heating and cooling efficiency tables Efficiency Maximum Lighting LPD Requirements Power Density Lighting Sweep/automated IECC requires in all buildings >5000sqft. 90.1-1989 allows 15% extra lighting power if sweep is implemented. Holiday Scheduling Bi-level switching Treatment of line voltage track lighting Treatment of low voltage track lighting Tandem Wiring (min 2 lamps/ballast) requires "automatic holiday scheduling feature that turns off all loads for at least 24 hours" Required 30 watts/lineal foot Transformer 90.1-89 requires tandem wiring and IECC requires it if an electronic ballast is not used. Comment Evaluate values for Missoula climate. Evaluate values for Missoula climate. Evaluate values for Missoula climate. Evaluate values for Missoula climate. Definitely an energy saver in office buildings. It's unclear whether 15% is a good "savings" number for this measure. ASHRAE 90.1-89 has very liberal lighting allowance so credit probably never used. Unclear what impact this has. Would seem to outlaw standard programmable thermostats, in other situations with EMS it is probably standard practice. Savings function of feature usage and base condition. Providing the capability will allow those interested to use it. Part of lighting LPD calculation. Part of lighting LPD calculation. This is a step backwards since IECC exempts electronically ballasted fixtures, which is just about everything. This is hopefully a small item. Evaluation Method DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. DOE2 on average characteristics. Evaluate but disregard 90.1 baseline credit. Not evaluated. Evaluated. Engineering. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. 90.1-89 required economizer on all equipment > 90 kBtuh Evaluated. Modeled with a total non-economizer cap of 600 kBtuh. So new code DOE2. is tighter in some ways and looser in others Interesting in terms of flexibility but presumably these are Not evaluated. generally equivalent so there would be no energy savings. Integration is nearly meaningless unless the compressor can Not evaluated. modulate. In the 90-180 kBtuh range units typically have dual compressors which provide some modulation and therefore causing some savings. Integration is standard practice.

Airtight Can Lights IECC required Mechanical – Economizer Maximum DX 65kBtu Capacity Without Economizer Important Exceptions if EER meets table 703.2.6 (EER better by 10-20%) but only in SE WA (Benton, to Economizer Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties) requirement. DX-Economizer 90.1-89 requires integration in equipment with >180kbtuh cooling. IECC requires Integration where economizer required so increases cases with integration.

Mechanical – Ducts

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 4

Montana Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC from ASHRAE 90.1-89 Section Description Duct sealing – All ALL joints, seams, and connections Locations.

Duct Insulation – Exterior

Exterior R8 (90.1 1989 >7500DD R8), Vented and Unconditioned Space R5 (90.1 1989 depends upon DT. Either R3.3 or R5), Conditioned R0 (90.1 R0)

Comment Very simple but stringent requirement that will likely not be implemented fully. Most exterior duct work is currently sealed and even some interior. Uncertainty about current practice and what result code will obtain make this difficult to quantify. 90.1 1989 is very similar. IECC is marginal improvement mainly with return ducts. Duct insulation requirements are hard to evaluate, as there is little or no information on current practice. Mostly exterior duct use insulated sound board.

Evaluation Method Evaluated. Percent of heating and cooling energy. Not evaluated.

Equipment - Minimum Efficiency Boiler control modulating or staged if cap>500kbtu Mechanical – VSD VSD - fan motors

Requiring boiler staging is probably a good thing. Individual Not evaluated. units start to be come modulating some where around 1 mmBtuh. Multiple units are always possible. 90.1-1989 only required 50% reduction of fan energy at 50% flow on motors over 75HP that serve variable loads. New language is great improvement, though high threshold, and generally small population of sites that don't currently have ASD limit actual savings. 90.1-1989 does require hydronic balancing happen with VSD or impeller trimming rather than valve on systems with >10hp. This is a set back wards. Not covered in 90.1-1989. Evaluated. Modeled DOE2.

Required on motors>=25hp with variable loads.

VSD - pump motors VSD or Two speed on cooling tower

not required yes

Not evaluated. Not evaluated. High saturation in current practice.

Mechanical – Controls Small Building Controls Basic Thermostat 7 day programmable, battery backed, manual override Capabilities Sup H2O Temp Reset required if cap>300kBtu

Clear requirement not stated in 90.1-1989. 90.1-1989 did Not evaluated. specify automatic controls to shutdown systems during periods of non-use. 90.1-1989 had threshold at >600kbtuh. This is currently Not evaluated. common practice in larger systems. Savings are small unless system uses massive radiators.

Mechanical - Heat Rejection Condenser HR. Required if 24hr facility with heat rejection capacity >6mmbtu and service hot water Hospitals are often on a central plant so might typically be Not evaluated heating capapcity >1mmbtu. unaffected. Nursing homes are a possibility. The DHW capacity in grocery is probably too small on average. Why isn’t HR to space heat mandated for grocery stores in any of these codes? Cooling Tower Establishes efficiency requirements for heat rejection devices. Codes standardized on ASHRAE. Not clear what the Not evaluated. Efficiency existing baseline is. Mechanical – Miscellaneous Motorized air inlet, requires "automatic" method (barometric or motorized) for systems >3000 CFM 90.1-89 does not have damper requirements but this is pretty Not evaluated. outlet, and relief much standard practice. dampers

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 5

Montana Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC from ASHRAE 90.1-89 Section Description HP Loop unit valves required

Fan Power

IECC 2003 drops fan system power limits that are present in 90.1 1998. Examples are fan system power limits of 1.25 w/CFM for VAV and 0.8 for CV

Comment Evaluation Method Codes standardized on ASHRAE. This forces HP loop to be Not evaluated. variable volume, which in some cases forces the use of VSDs but not with IECC. Without VSD it's not clear that this saves energy. It might increase energy use. Another weaken of the code though it is unclear that this Not evaluated. section of code is ever enforced. The IECC 2003 definitely is a step backwards but the consequences are likely small as few people respect this part of the ASHRAE code. It does have wide applicability however.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 6

Appendix C. New Oregon Code Provisions
Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description 1996 to 1998 1312 Exceptions – Criteria for unheated exemption changed from 8 to 15btuh in zone 1 and from 12 to Unheated 20btuh in zone 2. Also, doors in unheated must now meet code, where as in 1996 code only windows and roof needed to. Comment Evaluation Method

1312.1.1

Air sealing requirements expanded. Plenums must be caulked and gasketed, and corners and joints must be sealed in manner approved by building official. Ground-couple heat pumps<54kBtuh are allowed to qualify as simple systems Maximum glazing fraction for paths changed for 30% to 40% for all wall types allowing 30%. Windows for high glazing cases must be substantially better U0.37, SC0.35 (deemed TB, e-0.05, 0.5" gap, argon, tinted) compared with U0.54 and SC0.57 (deemed e-0.4, 0.5" gap, tinted).

1313.2 1998 to 2002 13-E

If space is really controlled to 45F then this should be Not evaluated. neutral, but the overall capacity here is enough to fully heat a lot of spaces. It would be reasonable to assume that increased capacity would lead to increased energy use in most cases. Assume increased energy use is offset by requirement that doors, floors and skylights be insulated. Plenum sealing is a good addition. Uncertain impact since Not evaluated. Better method of sealing left up to the building official. data needs to be developed regarding plenum leakage. More administrative than anything Not evaluated. Actual impact depends upon assumed baseline windows and Not evaluated. Assume amount of window above 30%. Assuming 0.04e coatings energy neutral. with TB as standard then this allows a lot of extra window for argon fill. Assuming a 0.4e coating and solid frame then improved window should offset increased window. Apparently many are using trade-off approach to avoid the extra shading coefficient. See 13-E discussion. Not evaluated. Assume energy neutral. Not evaluated. Assume current practice. Not evaluated. Assume energy neutral. Not Evaluated Not evaluated.

13-F

1313.3.1.2 ATF 2002-2003 Building Envelope Tables 13-E and 13-F Prescriptive Glazing and Skylight “Fractions” 1312.2.1 1312.1 1312

Maximum glazing fraction for paths changed from 25% to 33% for all wall types allowing 25%. Windows for high glazing cases must be substantially better U0.37, SC0.43 (deemed TB, e-0.05, 0.5" gap, argon, tinted) compared with U0.50 and SC0.57 (deemed e-0.4, 0.5" gap, tinted). Added exemption to automatic switching "Switching for industrial or manufacturing Probably not installed in previous code, or installed and process facilities as may be required for production." disabled if it was a problem. Changed ATF requirements to calculation. Does not appear to be change in level of fan energy.

Skylight shading coefficient (center-of-glass) requirement is improved to 0.47 for both Climate Zones. “Tinted outdoor pane” is no longer a prescriptive alternative. Previous code had no shade coefficient requirement for skylights except requirement for tint if prescriptive path taken. Window and skylight fractions (as a part of walls or roof/ceilings) shall be calculated This change may improve some “cheating” where separately for conditioned spaces, semi-conditioned spaces, mechanical penthouses warehouse and storage walls were included with more and parking garages. highly glazed areas. This was how the previous code was generally but not always interpreted. Demising elements (walls, floors, ceilings, windows, etc.) separating conditioned from unconditioned or semi-heated spaces shall comply with code requirements. Semi-conditioned spaces are required to meet floor and skylight requirements in addition to window, door, and roof. This was probably how the previous code was interpreted. Increased energy use from higher capacity is offset to some degree by including doors in 1998, and floors and skylights in 2003 codes.

Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 7

Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description Comment 1312 Motor Vehicle service facilities with max 55F must meet floor, skylight, and window Applicable to a small floor area fraction. Poor information requirements in addition to roof requirements. on this building type, in particular how they are actually heated. 1312.1.3.1 Window sizes for ratings changed from 1993 ASHRAE to 2001 ASHRAE Does not change default values. Mechanical 1317.1 Hospitals, laboratories, computer rooms and thermally sensitive equipment are no This is likely rather important though the applicable floor longer exempt from “all” HVAC requirements in code. There are now a few area is limited. Very few buildings of this type are “specific requirements” that these uses are exempt from in code. contained in existing Oregon data sets so it is hard to access the impacts of the HVAC code. HVAC is generally fairly efficient in these building types. The main impacts will be related to the hood requirements, fan power limits, and economizer requirements. 1317.3 Exception 3 Current economizer requirements exempt all individual HVAC systems <54kbtuh I don't believe the audit data has any sites in any states that size. New requirements are based on system size no greater than 54,000 Btu/hr total would be impacted by this. cooling capacity “and” not exceeding 240,000 Btu/hr cooling per building served by one utility meter or service. Ventilation HVAC systems with ventilation air capacities of at least 1,500CFM and serving This is a significant measure but CFM limit really limits the Controls for High areas having an average occupant load factor of 20 or less (as established in Table applicability. Only single systems serving 4 or more Occupancy Areas 10-A) shall include a means to automatically reduce outside air intake below design classrooms and larger assembly spaces, such as gymnasiums 1203.2.13 rates when spaces are partially occupied. Controls shall be compliant with Chapter and conference rooms, would qualify. Actual average 12 or ASHRAE Standard 62-2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ventilation rate from demand ventilation is fairly uncertain Table 10-A lists classrooms and most assembly spaces as having an OLF <20, but as well. 1500 OA CFM requirement will exclude a large number of spaces. Zone Isolation A system serving multiple occupancies or floors in the same building shall be This is standard practice and so does not likely impact many Controls 1318.2.6 independently zoned and equipped with isolation devices capable of automatically spaces. shutting off the supply of conditioned air and outside air to and from each isolated area. Separate Air Zones with special process temperature requirements and/or humidity requirements This is standard practice and so does not likely impact many Distribution shall be served by separate air distribution systems from those serving zones spaces. Systems requiring only comfort conditions; or shall include supplementary control provisions Requirements so that the primary systems may be specifically controlled for comfort purposes only. 1318.2.7 Air Transport Maximum allowed fan power reduced significantly depending on where you fall in Removal of the unitary equipment exception is important in Energy – the old table. For 40000cfm VAV: 1996-75hp, 1998-75hp, 2003-60hp, 2004that a lot of equipment is now large unitary equipment. This Strengthened 58BHP. could have a significant impact, although constant volume Requirements For 33000cfm VAV: 1996-75hp, 1998-75hp, 2003-60hp, 2004-48BHP. package equipment is considered simple equipment and not 1318.4.2 & Table part of this path. Enforcement and calculation/submittal 13-U The maximum allowable horsepower for a given CFM flow rate was briefly lowered integrity remain the issue with this area of the code. This a lot (10%-20% less) and now the switch to brake horsepower has increased it much requirement is an improvement but it seems questionable nearer to old levels. Large VAV fan systems are allowed increased horsepower. whether it will like to improvement except in engineered systems. Savings are dependent upon the distribution of fan The exception for “unitary equipment” is no longer exempt. Code specifies a system sizes and assumptions about the relationship of formula for when fan systems with filtration systems that have a combined efficiency nominal and brake horsepower. of 90 percent or greater and/or heat recovery are used.

Evaluation Method Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. See Hood requirements.

Evaluated. Modeled DOE2. Not Evaluated. Limited applicability.

Not evaluated.

Not evaluated.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 8

Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description 2-Speed or Fan systems over 15,000 CFM serving single zone areas (specified in this section) Variable are required to reduce airflow by using either a two-speed motor or variable Frequency Drive frequency drive that reduces airflow to a maximum 60% of peak airflow or minimum for Large Volume ventilation air requirement as required by Chapter 12, which ever is greater based on Fan Systems space thermostat heating and cooling demand. 1318.4.2.3 VAV Static System static pressure set point shall be reset to the lowest point possible while still Pressure Reset providing the required airflow to the zones with the greatest demand. Control Requirements 1318.2.3 Kitchen Hoods >5,000 CFM Make-up Air Requirements 1317.11 Exhaust Air Heat Recovery 1318.3 Each kitchen exhaust system with capacity greater than 5,000 CFM, 50 percent of the required makeup air shall be (a) unheated or heated to no more than 60° F; and (b) un-cooled or evaporatively cooled. For each HVAC fan system that has a) design supply air capacity of 10,000 cfm or greater, and b) minimum outside air supply of 70 percent or greater, and c) at least one exhaust fan rated at 75 percent of the minimum outside air supply, shall install an exhaust air heat recovery system.

Comment This is a great measure but it is only in the complex system path. Anybody using a unitary piece of equipment for this system will not have to comply. This probably limits this but it still will impact some atrium and auditorium systems. Also, large VVT systems should be required to do this but single zone requirement excludes them. This is a very complex measure that will improve VAV controls. Controls included with package equipment will have to be upgraded or replaced with site control. Savings are highly variable based upon system design and control details. It does conflict a bit with temperature reset so some of the savings will be lost due to less temperature reset. Current saturation of compensating hoods is significant.

Evaluation Method Not evaluated. Small applicability.

Not evaluated. Current saturation and typical implemented logic unknown. Not evaluated. Limited applicability and high current saturation. Not evaluated.

Requirements for New requirement specifying either VAV hood exhaust, or specific requirements for Fume Hoods direct makeup air supply, or heat recovery. Limited to systems over 15,000CFM. Larger than 15,000 cfm 1317.2.1 TP 1 Electricity Distribution Transformer Requirements 1316 Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs and Spas 1315.5 All distribution transformers shall meet the minimum efficiency levels specified in Table 13-J and Table 13-K – 1316.1 Testing required per NEMA TP 2-1998 – 1316.1.2 Labeling required per NEMA TP 3-2000 – 1316.1.3 These requirements apply to replacing distribution transformers in existing buildings – 1316.1.4. New requirement for swimming pools, hot tubs and spas regarding control requirements – 1315.5.1. New requirement for heated swimming pools, hot tubs and spas requiring a cover – 1315.5.2 New “heat recovery” requirements for heated swimming pools, hot tubs and spas – 1315.5.3

Where applicable there will be high savings. Applicability and current saturation limit this measure. The high minimum flow limits this measure in applicability and to situations owners may already consider the approach. Hospitals have a lot of systems and each one is not always so large. This is a good measure only limited by the number of labs being built and by the tendency for some to already be VAV. The 15000 cfm minimum limits this to larger systems, which are also more likely to be VAV. We do not have good information on the current saturation of hoods much less VAV hoods. This should save 1% of all electricity in large buildings (ones with high voltage service), typically large office, hospital, and lab.

Not evaluated.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation.

New Gravity Vent Controls Requirements 1317.4.5 New Heat Rejection Equipment Performance Standards 1317.5.4

Controls to automatically close dampers when building is not occupied are now required for “stair and shaft vents” (1317.4.5.1) and “gravity hoods, vents and ventilators” (1317.4.5.2). Open cooling towers, closed-circuit cooling towers, and air-cooled and evaporative condensers now have minimum efficiency performance standards.

Covers: Current saturation is probably zero, but many pools Not evaluated. have had a cover installed in the past only to have it removed because it took two staff people to install and they only had 1 at night or early in the morning. This is good measure if it takes but degree of acceptance is pure speculation. Newer automated covers have a higher chance of success. Heat Recovery. This measure is This is a good measure but overall savings and current Not evaluated. saturation are uncertain. Base case performance is uncertain. Applicable floor area is Not evaluated. getting smaller as package equipment gets larger.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 9

Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description Duct Insulation Duct insulation R-value requirements are increased and are applicable to “all” Rqrmnts ( newHVAC systems – not different for Simple and Complex as in previous code. Simple Systems) 1317.7 & Table 13-S Variable Speed Fan and pump motors of “10 horsepower” (formerly 25 hp) and greater which serve Drive Requirement variable flow air or liquid systems shall be controlled by a variable speed drive. Code Strengthened is now explicit about custom and packaged air handlers serving variable air volume 1317.10.3.1 fan systems being included in this requirement. Use of Hot Gas Cooling systems shall not use hot gas bypass or other evaporative pressure control Bypass is Limited systems unless the system is designed with multiple steps of unloading or continuous 1317.5 capacity modulation (see chart in code). Cooling Tower Cooling tower fans shall have control devices that vary flow by controlling leaving Variable Flow fluid temperature or condenser temperature/pressure of the device. Controls 1317.5.4.2 Lighting Lighting Power The ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Lighting Procedure is no longer an alternative specified in Allowance code. Code specifies either compliance with Tenant Space (simplest – possibly the “Methods” most used alternative) or Space-by-Space (more complicated than Tenant Space – 1313.4.1 & Only use that easily benefits from Space-by-Space is “retail” use) Methods. 1313.4.2 Lighting Power Lighting power density values are lower. The allowed lighting levels were reduced Density Values substantially (~20% in most cases office 1.2 (1.5 over 15 feet) to 1.0, retail>6000sqft Table 13-G 1.7 to 1.5, retail <6000 ~3.0 to 1.5, warehouse 1.0 to 0.8). Daylight controls can no longer used to increase the lighting budget. Lighting Power This table corresponds with Space-by-Space compliance method (new provision) Density Values specified in code. This approach is more complicated than Occupancy Method. See Table 13-H tables 13-G and 13-H in OSScch13Highlight.pdf, and tables 13-Q and 13-R in 96code.doc. Lighting Control 1998 code had LPD credit of 10%-30% if daylight controls are installed. Daylight Credit. controls are no longer given extra credit and in some cases are required. Canopy and all Control can be either photoelectric switches, clock switches, or both – see code for Building Exterior specific clock switch requirements. Lighting intended for 24-hour use is no longer Lighting Controls exempt. 1313.3.2 New Automatic All building larger than 5,000 ft2 in area or 2,000 ft2 of contiguous office shall have Shutoff Control an occupancy sensor or time switch as specified in code – also see exceptions. Requirements Previous and current codes require office occupancies of over 2000 sqft to have 1313.3.1.2 automated shutoff controls. In addition, the new code requires all buildings, with a few exceptions, over 5000 sqft to have automatic shut off controls. The controls are extensive defined in the new document. New Occupancy All offices less than 300 ft2 in area, meeting and conference rooms, and classrooms Sensor shall have an occupancy sensor. Specifies requirements of an occupancy sensor. Requirements This is an important measure and will have substantial impact. 1313.3.1.2.1

Comment Poor baseline information make this difficult to quantify.

Evaluation Method Not evaluated.

Some question of baseline and small applicable population but good measure Limited applicability

Evaluated. Modeled DOE2. Not evaluated.

Not very specific. Would on/off control meet this? It seems Not evaluated. like standard practice in larger equipment is two speed motors. How many people used the ASHRAE alternative? ASHRAE was considerably weaker than the 2003 Oregon code so this seals up what could have become a big loop hole . This is a huge measure. Not Evaluated. Since it's current not such a big loop hole. DOE2 on average of code modified characteristics.

The only place this method appears to be “more” lenient is DOE2 on average of code with Retail spaces. The allowed lighting levels were reduced modified characteristics. substantially everywhere else. This is a huge measure. Daylighting is very rare so overall this is tiny, but in buildings with daylighting this is large change. Good measure to making sure controls are installed in case intent changes, but likely a small application unless we see lots of grocery stores returning to 18 hours days. Large expansion of applicability but many of the building types have very set schedules that lend themselves to efficient manual control. What are the savings of this in retail stores? Or schools? This has applicability to many situations and very low current saturation except in classrooms. DOE2 on average of code modified characteristics. Not evaluated.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation.

Doe2. Base applicability on SCL data and model.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 10

Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description 1313.3.1.2 Added exemptions to automatic switching "Hospitals and laboratory spaces, Areas in which medical or dental tasks are performed, Mechanical and electrical equipment rooms. Other “Designed” A registered architect or engineer is allowed to design a natural ventilation system Natural Ventilation and document compliance on a form approved by Building Codes Division 1203.2.4 Administrator. Enclosed Group S A new automatic carbon monoxide sensing device is required for enclosed parking Parking Garage garages with a designed ventilation rate of 30,000 CFM or more. Ventilation 1203.2.11 Existing Building Expands insulation requirement for alterations where cavity is opened from walls to Envelope wall, roofs and floors. Via new exception 3, roof insulation will now be required Alterations when existing roofs are either torn-down to roof sheathing or insulation – unless 1312.3.2 there is existing insulation on the underside of roof. Daylighting Requires classrooms and atriums with a window-to-wall area exceeding 50 percent Controls or with skylights to install daylighting controls. 1 313.3.1.3.1 defines the day lit 1313.3.1.3 zone where control is required. 1313.3.1.3.2 specifies those luminaries to be controlled from daylighting through skylights. 1313.3.1.3.3 specifies daylightsensing control requirements. If daylighting is required then it must be continuous dimming in classrooms and in all cases light must be capable to being reduced at least 50%. Exterior Lighting No incandescent or mercury vapor lighting sources shall be used for exterior 1313.5 lighting. Exception for Lighting used in or around swimming pools, water features, or other locations subject to the requirements of Article 680 of the 2002 National Electrical Code. Lighting Exception was clarified regarding when code does not apply – less than 50 percent Requirements for of the luminaries in the permitted space and it does not increase existing total Additions and connect lighting power. Alterations 1313.6 Piping Insulation See Table 13-D for higher insulation values (thicker insulation requirements) for Requirements specific categories. Also, add formula to clarify how value calculated. 1314.1 Economizer Requirements 1317.3 Controls: VAV Terminal Units 1317.4.2.1 New Off-Hour Controls Exception 1317.4.3 New Automatic Shutdown Requirements 1317.4.3.1 These requirements used to be contained with “Simple System and “Complex System” section requirements. All requirements are now contained in this section. VAV terminal units shall be programmed to operate at the minimum airflow setting without addition of reheat when the zone temperature is within the set dead band.

Comment Evaluation Method Reduces coverage of new automatic switching requirements. Not evaluated

Should be equivalent except for fan energy. Most Not evaluated. implementations are natural cooling rather then natural vent systems. A good measure but current saturation is unclear. Not evaluated.

Roof requirement is significant particularly in combination with built up roof language. Current saturation is likely significant. Low applicability due to the high window to wall ratio. Most classrooms with this high fraction were probably designed with daylighting. Atriums will be the impacted area.

Not evaluated.

Not evaluated.

Small applicability so unless easy it should be dropped.

Not evaluated.

No real change.

Not evaluated.

Very small change in insulation requirements for high temperature pipe are inconsequential. Formula for insulation calculation might have impact but probably everyone using manufacturers rating. Format change only This strategy is generally current practice.

Not evaluated

Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Exempts off-hour control requirements for systems intended to operate continuously. Seems contrary to new requirement in lighting to require controls even when intention is 24 hour operation. This section provides specific requirements for HVAC controls shutdown. It also provides three different methods/options for complying with this requirement. Wording change.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 11

Oregon Code Provision Changes Section Description Optimum Start HVAC systems with a design supply air capacity exceeding 10,000 CFM, shall have Controls (new) controls that are capable of varying start-up time of system to just meet temperature 1317.4.3.2 set point at time of occupancy. Shutoff Damper Outdoor air supply and exhaust systems shall be equipped with motorized dampers Controls (new) that will automatically shut when the systems or spaces served are not in use or 1317.4.3.3 during building warm-up, cool down, and setback (see Exceptions).

Comment Most controls current have this ability. Damper requirement is pretty much standard practice. Typically these dampers can be powered any way but are generally wired to the fan circuit so the damper opens any time the unit is on. If this requirement is interpreted to mean that the thermostat/controls have to send an occupied/unoccupied signal to control the damper, then this is a very large measure. This could be significant measure but also is very hard to quantify. This might change loading dock systems but in general this seems to have very limited scope. Small applicability except possibly industrial and hospital. If designers were not specifying reset before they are now! This likely is new to chilled water systems and less so to heating loops. Savings are limited and applicability is also limited particularly in new construction. Code exempts all systems with variable flow and also requires all loops with motors >10hp to be variable flow. If designers were not specifying reset before they are now!

Evaluation Method Not evaluated. Evaluated. Modeled DOE2.

Duct Sealant Rqrmnts 1317.8 Heating Requirements “Outside” a Building 1317.12 Humidity Control Requirements 1318.2.2 Chilled and Hot Water Temperature Reset Controls 1318.2.4

All joints, connections and seams in ductwork shall be sealed with the appropriate UL 181 standard, tape or mastic. Cloth backed, rubber adhesive tape shall not be used. Previous codes did not require sealing. Heating systems installed outside a building shall be radiant, gas-fired systems and controlled by an occupancy sensing device or a timer switch, so that the system is automatically de-energized when no occupants are present. Humidifiers with preheating devices mounted in the air stream shall be provided with an automatic valve to shut off preheat when humidification is not required. Chilled and hot water systems with a design capacity exceeding 300,000 Btu/hr supplying chilled or heated water (or both) to comfort conditioning systems shall include controls that automatically reset supply water temperatures by representative building loads (including return water temperature) or by outside air temperature.

Evaluated. Percent of heating and cooling energy. Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Not Evaluated.

Supply Air Multiple zone HVAC systems must include controls that automatically reset the Temperature Reset supply-air temperature in response to representative building loads, or to outdoor air Controls 1318.2.5 temperature. The controls must be capable of resetting the supply air temperature at least 25 percent of the difference between the design supply-air temperature and the design room air temperature. Hydronic System The heating of fluids in hydronic systems that have been previously mechanically Controls 1318.2.8 cooled and the cooling of fluids that have been previously mechanically heated shall be limited – requirements vary based on a) three-pipe system (this system is prohibited), or b) two-pipe changeover system, or c) hydronic (water loop) heat pump system. Variable Flow Controls capable of varying pump flow shall be installed on hydronic pumping Controls systems with motors of 10 hp and greater. 1318.2.8.4 Increased Pipe Insulation for 4 cases was increased from 2.5 to 3 inches and the rating temperature Insulation Table was changed for the cooling insulation 13-D 2003-2004 ATF see 2003 ATF ATF Made alternate calculation for high efficiency filtration systems only available to systems with more than 1" of filtration.

Evaluated. Modeled DOE2.

Small applicability.

Not evaluated.

This would seem to require ASD on any 10HP pump loop. Significant savings within hydronic systems. These changes are minor.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation. Not evaluated.

see 2003 ATF Closes obvious loop hole for people installing standard filters.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation. Not evaluated.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 12

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 13

Appendix D. New Washington Code Provisions
Washington Code Provision Changes Section Description 1996 to 1998 10-5A Expanded Default Metal Stud Wall U-values 10-7A Added Default Metal Ceiling U-values 1301 1411.3 1414.1 14-5 1421.b 2000 10-5A 10-5B 10-6A Unoccupied cell facility exception to all envelop requirements Adds minimum Combined Annual Efficiency table for combination equipment. Duct tape disallowed as primary duct sealant Added R7 duct insulation requirement for air intake ducts maximum capacity of split systems qualifying for simple path increased from 54kbtuh to 84kbtuh Expanded Default Metal Frame, Metal building Wall U-values Comment Greatly expanded choices for metal stud wall configuration. Greatly expanded choices (from none to many) for metal truss ceiling configurations and metal buildings. Could increase energy use if economizer installed This should be equivalent to the combination of the standalone water and space heating equipment. Evaluation Method Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. In high-rise construction with vertically self contained units Not evaluated. or heat pump loops this could be a significant change. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

1416 1412.4.2 1435 1439

1512.1 1513 1513.3 1513.6 1513.7

Greatly expanded choices for metal buildings and metal frame construction. Added Default Concrete/Masonry Wall U-values Added default tables for masonry and concrete walls. 1997 added thermally improved Aluminum frame option and 2000 removed it. 1997 94/2000 table gives more credit for AL frames but less for U-values were typical rather than worst case, 1994 and 2000 values are worst case. thermally improved AL frames. It looks like windows will Small building table is added in 1997 and remains in the code. not be as good with the new table. This whole approach should be modified. The small business table is good. Completion and commissioning requirements added Great deal of uncertainty about what sort of commissioning this requirement yields. Adds optimum start requirement for systems over 10000cfm. This is standard in many systems, even standard thermostats. Low end EMS systems will have to change. Exceptions to simultaneous heating and cooling prohibition are expanded to include Building systems with small minimum air turn down will no a lot of situations. VAV systems are now required to have a maximum minimum air longer be allowed. Number of systems impacted by this flow of 0.4cfm/sqft and temperature reset to have reheat. change is likely small. Kitchen and Fume hood requirements. Exhaust air exemption is possible loop hole The fume hood requirements are significant but the for kitchen hoods. applicability is limited due to the 15000 CFM minimum size. Kitchen exhaust hoods are commonly compensating, not sure of the percentage. Church sanctuary rooms added to exempt space list Not sure how much extra light will be installed as a result of this, but it is definitely a weakening of code. Lighting controls now applied to exempt lighting as well A good clarification but probably not a change Daylight zones defined to minimize lumping of zones on individual controls Closes what possibly could have been a loop hole. Not sure of impact. Automatic shutoff requirement extended to office buildings >5000sqft instead of Likely impacts spaces in this size range. Small applicability. previous 25000sqft. Adds requirement for lighting control commissioning

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Evaluated. Engineering Calculation. Not evaluated.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 14

Washington Code Provision Changes Section Description 1521 Lensed fixtures now allowed in food prep and serving and patient care areas in the prescriptive section of the code. Exit light no longer count in fixture count if they are led or fluorescent. 1530 low voltage track is now calculated as 25w/lf or transformer rather than 50w/lf 1532 Covered Parking LPD changed from 0.2w/sqft to 0.3 w/sqft (only if walls painted light color). LPD requirements unchanged except for retail where old codes Retail A and B are combined into a single retail requirement. Non-display lighting is allowed to 1.5wsqft rather than retail A's 1.0wsqft, and up to 1.5 w/sqft of display lighting is allowed rather than Retail A's unlimited amount or Retail B's 0.0w/sqft. Also, main floor common area lighting allowance is increased from 0.8 to 1.2, and hotel/motel rooms are added with a 1.5w/sqft requirement.

Comment Small change to infrequently used section of the code. As maximum LPD requirements are cranked down this area of the code is likely to see more action unless it also is tightened. This is significantly more lenient than 1994 code. Actual value is between these numbers. Small sample in Seattle found 46w/lf. Definitely a weakening of the code with a modest impact.

Evaluation Method Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

15-1

Mostly a wash, depending upon mix of box versus high end Evaluated. Modeled retail building this could be weakening or strengthening of DOE2. code. Likely a slight strengthening overall. The retail sector excels at finding creative ways to get the lighting they want. Simplifying is good. Not evaluated.

2001 1413

Waterside economizer design point reduced from 50db/45wb to 45db/40wb specified Designer comments in the Seattle code process indicated this in detail. Also, integration requirement extended to equipment >65kbtuh from is pretty close to the standard design practice. All equipment >75kbtuh. has "integrated" control but without modulating DX it counts for little. 1401 Mech. Scope Deleted exception that allowed code officials to exempt certain buildings from the see 1433 discussion mechanical code. This was mostly targeted at server farms, one of which purportedly used this to avoid economizers. Not clear how much of a change this really is. Language: EXCEPTION: Special applications, including but not limited to hospitals, laboratories, thermally sensitive equipment, and rooms designed to comply with the special construction and fire protection requirements of NFPA 75, "Standard for the Protection of Electronic Computer/Data Processing Equipment" may be exempt from the requirements of this section when approved by the building official. Exemptions shall be specific on a case-by-case basis and allowed only to the extent necessary to accommodate the special applications.)) 1411.1 Equipment Requires large furnaces to have intermittent ignition device, mechanical draft or flue The requirement of IID and power draft on large furnaces efficiency. damper, and limited jacket losses – same as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001. forces some common technologies that greatly improve Language: Gas-fired and oil-fired forced air furnaces with input ratings ≥ 225,000 seasonal performance. This is important since commercial Btu/h (65 kW) shall also have an intermittent ignition or interrupted device (IID), and combustion ratings (and most other commercial ratings) are have either mechanical draft (including power venting) or a flue damper. A vent steady state rather than seasonal which allows some pretty damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for furnaces where combustion bad equipment when looked at on a seasonal basis. Limit to air is drawn from the conditioned space. All furnaces with input ratings ≥ 225,000 large furnaces greatly limits scope. Btu/h (65 kW), including electric furnaces, that are not located within the conditioned space shall have jacket losses not exceeding 0.75% of the input rating. 1412.4.1 Dampers Requires motorized dampers for air intake, exhaust and relief openings in buildings Hard to quantify and poor data. Gravity damper exception is over 3 stories. Excludes the first story of all buildings. Also specifies leakage rates likely current practice so doesn't reflect a weakening of the for dampers. – similar to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001. code. The proliferation of damper leakage requirements on a national scale is apparently getting manufacturers to make changes.

Not evaluated.

Evaluated. Engineering Calculation.

Not evaluated.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 15

Washington Code Provision Changes Section Description Comment 1413 Economizer Requires air economizer to be base case in RS-29 analysis. Specifies specific water Small change to standardize interpretation of RS29 economizer design criteria for systems using waterside economizers. And clarifies requirement for integrated economizer operation with for air and water systems (with exceptions). Adds humidification exception. 1423 Economizer Specifically requires simple systems to have economizer for HVAC serving Significant change except most system will likely switch to computer rooms, electronic equipment, radio equipment, and telephone switch gear. <54kBtuh equipment to stay avoid. 1433 Economizer Specifically requires complex systems to have economizer for HVAC serving Significant change except that probably all equipment in the computer rooms, electronic equipment, radio equipment, and telephone switch gear; complex path is unaffected by size threshold. economizer for units 20,000 Btu/h and larger on roof; water economizer limited to 500 tons per building. 1452 Pool heaters Minimum efficiencies established for heat pump pool heaters – same as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001. Language: Heat pump pool heaters shall have a minimum COP of 4.0 determined in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 146, Method of Testing for Rating Pool Heaters. Other pool heating equipment shall comply with the applicable efficiencies in Tables 14-1A through 14-1G. 1499 Tables 14-1A Update HVAC equipment efficiency tables to national standards – same as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001. to G 2005 Table 10.6 New column in default window table for thermally improved frames. Projects that were already using thermally improved frames will get more credit for the same window. Projects using rated windows will be unaffected. Anyone installing non-thermally broke frames has another avenue towards improvement. To some extent it negates improvements to the u-value requirements in table 13-1 in those projects already using thermally improved frames are given new credit roughly equivalent to the increased requirements. Table 10.6A All new default skylight table with new values plus new column for thermally improved frames. Large decreases in the u-values mostly coincide with changes in the requirements in table 13-1 and so will lead to no real change. The addition of values for thermally improved frames will allow more credit for people already using thermally improved frames, and allow an additional path to improvement for those not. 1132.3 “Where the use in a space changes from one use in Table 15-1 to another use in Table 15-1, the installed lighting wattage shall comply with Section 1521 or 1531. “ This requires lighting to comply when use changes, even without alteration. This would impact a number of spaces but enforcement is a major concern. Also the number of spaces changing uses which have different lighting requirements is likely small. 1132.3 “where 60 percent or more of the fixtures ((in a use)) in a space enclosed by walls or ceiling-height partitions (as defined in Table 15-1) within a tenant space or in an entire floor (((whichever is smaller))) are new shall comply with Sections 1531 and 1532.” Applicable to retrofits and renovation. Language tries to keep 60% threshold for lighting code compliance from being gamed by including adjacent uninvolved spaces. 1132.3 “Where new wiring is being installed to serve added fixtures and/or fixtures are being relocated to a new circuit, controls shall comply with Sections 1513.1 through 1513.5 and, as applicable, 1513.7. In addition, office areas less than 300 ft2 enclosed by walls or ceiling-height partitions, and all meeting and conference rooms, and all school classrooms, shall be equipped with occupancy sensors that comply with Sections 1513.6 and 1513.7. Where a new lighting panel (or a moved lighting panel) with all new raceway and conductor wiring from the panel to the fixtures is being installed, controls ((shall comply with)) also comply with the other requirements in Sections 1513.6 and 1513.7.”

Evaluation Method Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Evaluated. Modeled DOE2. Not evaluated.

Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated. Not evaluated.

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.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 16

Washington Code Provision Changes Section Description Comment Evaluation Method Table 13-1 Opaque Moves non-electric wall requirement to R19 from R11. Makes adjustments to u-values used in trade-off calculations to allow for metal studs but Use State Evaluation. limit trade-off if wood used. Also, small reduction in other fuel roof u-value is made. Trade off limitation important but difficult to quantify and small rate of application. Wall improvement should have large impact particularly on large building facades. Table 13-1 Glazing U Vertical glazing u-values are unchanged for projects with electric heat. Vertical glazing u-value requirements are reduced for all previous Use State Evaluation -Values prescriptive glazing levels in projects with non-electric heat. Most changed are the u-values for buildings with very small amounts of glazing (U0.9 to U0.55), and least change are those for small amounts of glazing (U0.5 to U0.45). Top brackets are extended from 20% to 30% for electric heat and 40% to 45% for non-electric heat. Overhead glazing u-values are reduced. 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 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). 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 Walls 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. 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. Slightly decreases u-value and slightly increases the nominal insulation scheme for metal framing. Makes adjustments to u-values used in tradeUse 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. Changes inline with Zone One (table 13-1) discussion above. Only difference is that the top prescriptive bracket for non-electric heat is extended from 30% to 45% in zone 2. See zone one discussion. See zone 1 strategy see above

Table 13-2 Opaque

Table 13-2 Glazing U-Value

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 17

Washington Code Provision Changes Section Description Comment Evaluation Method Table 13-2 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 zone 1 strategy SHGC High glazing fraction buildings moved from 0.45 to 0.4. See zone one discussion. Table 13-2 Mass Same as zone 1 except u-factor requirement is for a u-value of 0.123 or R7.6 continuous insulation, and there is no CMU deemed wall. Again, See zone 1 strategy Walls good simplification. U-value requirement doubles. This probably eliminates un-insulated block walls. There is still the issue of increased glazing allowance so it is still likely a weakening of the code as buildings can now have full glazing with their poorly insulated mass walls. But the ufactor is much improved so it is better balanced than in zone 1. 1413.4 Language clarification that reiterates need to have waterside economizer on a water cooled water chiller or integrated operation on the air systems it serves. 1423 Reduces mandatory equipment capacity at which economizer is required to 20Kbtu when equipment is outside or adjacent to outdoors. Otherwise 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 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 exhaust air. Equivalent paths so no energy impact. Table 14-1A&B Added 2006 changes for AC and HP units <65Kbtu cooling 1513.6 Expands automatic shut off to all buildings >5000sqft from just offices and classrooms. Requires occupancy sensors in enclosed spaces < 300sqft 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 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. 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. Not Evaluated. Use State Evaluation. Not evaluated. XXX check to make sure this option taken Not Evaluated Use State Evaluation. Not Evaluated.

Table 15-1

Use State Evaluation.

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 18

Appendix E. FW Dodge New Construction Data

Northwest Construction Starts (square feet in thousands)
Building Type Amusement, Social and Recreational BldgsCapitols/Court Houses/City HallsDormitoriesHealth-OtherHospitalsHotels and MotelsHouses of WorshipK-12Laboratories (Manufacturer owned)Laboratories (excl. manufacturer owned)Libraries and MuseumsManufacturing and Processing PlantsMiscellaneous Nonresidential BuildingsOffice and Bank BuildingsOther Government Service BuildingsOther Religious BuildingsParking Garages and Automotive ServicesSchools-OtherServiceStores and RestaurantsTerminalsWarehouses (Manufacturer owned)Warehouses (excl. manufacturer owned)Total 2001 2737 797 509 3489 1396 1721 1771 5391 108 813 539 2658 261 10769 1403 51 8331 1869 653 10822 1312 754 9819 67972 Year 2002 2003 2477 2390 5 213 880 838 3185 2464 1144 1904 1083 1699 1412 1419 5900 6556 9 73 402 549 849 356 1911 1904 262 343 6726 5663 883 1379 189 135 6234 8236 1943 2490 939 570 9165 9146 205 163 790 884 5948 6911 52538 56284 Total 2004 3747 436 580 3600 910 1937 1357 4377 95 485 615 2928 497 7069 1075 20 7371 1177 627 9596 173 1818 6224 56709 11352 1450 2807 12737 5354 6439 5959 22223 285 2249 2358 9401 1363 30226 4739 394 30172 7479 2788 38729 1852 4246 28901 233503

Construction Starts –State Shares - Years 2001-2004
State Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total 2001 12% 4% 28% 56% 100% Year 2002 12% 5% 29% 54% 100% Total 2003 13% 5% 28% 54% 100% 2004 14% 4% 28% 55% 100% 13% 4% 28% 55% 100%

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004

Page 19