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, non-
residential 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

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

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

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.

In November 2004, the State Building Code Council recommended a significant package of
proposals, which will become law in July 20052.
Washington Code Chronology

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.

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 Baseline System/Fuel
Office – Large from BPA 89 vintage VAV – Series boxes, Electric reheat
Office – Medium from WSEO VAV – non-fan powered boxes. Gas boiler
Office – Small from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Retail – Large from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Retail – Small from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Grocery from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
School from BPA 89 vintage Unit ventilators & Package single zone, gas boiler
School – Elementary from WSEO Two pipe fan coil, gas boiler
Warehouse from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat & gas unit heaters
Hospital from BPA 89 vintage VAV and CV reheat. HW reheat, gas boiler.
Restaurant - Sit Down from BPA 89 vintage Package single zone, gas heat
Key traits of the prototypes such as heat loss rate and lighting level were altered to represent
baseline 1996 construction standards. Baseline characteristics for each prototype were derived
from averages of regional audit data (see Data Sources). For example, the prototype office

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.

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.

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: 1995-
2000”, and “Compliance with the 1994 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code (NREC)”.
Each contained much greater detail than is included in CBSA. Therefore, this work leaned
heavily upon these source data sets. In this work these studies are referred to as the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Seattle City Light (SCL), and Utility Code Group (UCG)
data sets respectively. They were used to determine HVAC equipment type, performance, and
associated minimum code performance, building lighting power densities (LPD) and associated
code maximum LPD, and building envelope characteristics and geometry. These studies
represent buildings that are built to the standards current during the 1997 code year. As such they
are or should be in compliance with the code in place at that time and the beginning of the period
of analysis for this report.
Floor area projections for years 2005-2025 were taken from the Northwest Power Planning
Council medium growth forecast. Constructed floor area for years 2001-2004 was determined
from FW Dodge data (Appendix E).
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

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) Ending Delta
Actual 1996 Code 2004 Code 2004 Code LPD LPD
LPD (building value) (building value) (space by space) (w/sqft) (w/sqft)
ID 37 1.17 1.46 1.11 1.13 1.03 -0.14
MT 27 1.28 1.35 1.05 1.05 1.09 -0.19
OR 50 1.11 1.27 1.01 1.15 1.05 -0.07
WA 108 1.03 1.27 1.27 ----- 1.03 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 2004 Code 2004 Code LPD LPD
LPD (building value) (building value) (space by space) (w/sqft) (w/sqft)
Assembly 10 1.35 1.42 1.19 1.25 1.23 -0.11
Education 21 1.18 1.41 1.17 1.23 1.10 -0.08
Grocery 6 1.53 1.89 1.50 1.81 1.53 -0.01
Health Services 11 1.29 1.40 1.11 1.14 1.13 -0.16
Institution 3 1.14 1.12 1.20 0.98 1.03 -0.11
Office 24 1.21 1.35 1.00 1.08 1.03 -0.18
Other 15 1.17 1.27 1.03 1.15 1.05 -0.12
Lodging 9 0.88 1.27 0.80 0.74 0.70 -0.18
Restaurant / Bar 1 0.94 1.50 1.40 1.25 0.94 0.00
Retail 15 1.39 1.97 1.29 1.36 1.20 -0.21
Warehouse 14 0.97 1.18 0.80 0.96 0.92 -0.06
The retail lighting change in Washington eliminated the separate Retail “A” and Retail “B” paths
and implemented a single retail lighting budget. Retail “A” allowed 1.0 w/sqft for “non-
display” lighting, and unlimited “ceiling mounted adjustable tungsten halogen and HID”
luminaries. Retail “B” allowed 1.5w/sqft for both types of lighting. The current code allows
1.5w/sqft for “non-display” lighting, and up to 1.5w/sqft of display lighting. In all cases building
showcase, free-standing case, and display window illumination were exempt in both paths. The
result of the new code is that buildings previously capped at 1.5w/sqft can now install up to an
extra 1.5w/sqft of display lighting, and buildings with previously unlimited display lighting are
now capped at a total LPD of 3.0 w/sqft. With the somewhat flexible concepts of building
showcase and free-standing case being exempt it is easy to imagine boutique retail managing to
get significant amounts of lighting above and beyond the official budget. Even so, using City of
Seattle data we estimate that retail display lighting would be reduced 0.77w/sqft in boutique retail
establishments. We estimated boutique retail be comprise 8% of the total retail floor area.

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.

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 Building Area Office Area All Office (%) Small Office (%)
sqft sqft
Education 235,474 15,043 6.4 2.1
Grocery 148,040 3,720 2.5 0.8
Institution 419,868 83,309 19.8 6.4
Office-Large 1,616,926 1,099,974 68.0 21.8
Office-Small 121,403 44,818 36.9 11.9
Retail 503,404 1,294 0.3 0.1
Warehouse 21,241 1,021 4.8 1.5
Laboratory 48,421 4,716 9.7 3.1
Classrooms are assumed to comprise 50% of education floor area and occupancy sensors are
assumed to save 10% in these spaces (from CEC).
Based upon the SCL study, the current saturation of occupancy sensors is low/none in offices.
School classrooms however have a significant current saturation. This can be attributed to the
fact that the Seattle school district has occupancy sensors connected to lighting and HVAC as part
of their standard design. How applicable this is to Oregon is debatable but it can be assumed that
some school districts are installing occupancy sensors. Twenty-five percent of the classrooms are
assumed to have occupancy sensors.
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

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.

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.

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 non-
integrated, single sensor, 65°F changeover, 80% maximum air fraction economizer was modeled.
The average percent reduction in cooling energy use for these buildings was used to extend
savings to other building types.
Applicability was formulated as a percent of total cooling capacity. The current fraction of
equipment capacity with economizers was calculated from NEEA baseline equipment data. The
new code provisions for each state were applied to the equipment data and a new fraction
calculated that reflects the equipment capacity that would have economizers if all equipment
complied with the new code. The difference between these fractions is the percentage of floor
area that will be impacted by the provision.
Three percent of Oregon cooling capacity would have been impacted by the new provision based
upon the NEEA data set. Primary impacted building types were schools, small retail, and
lodging. The Oregon code provision exempts lodging rooms otherwise applicability would be
much larger. The percent increase in cooling capacity with economizer was assumed to reflect
the percent of additional floor area with economizers.
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.

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.

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

Electric Gas Floor Area Electric Gas
KWh/sqft kBtu/sqft Estimate mWh aMW mmBtu
(millions)
Idaho 1.59 1.37 5.52 8,794 1.00 7,588
Montana 1.16 0.16 1.93 2,239 0.26 305
Oregon 1.15 0.38 12.31 14,103 1.61 4,663
Washington 0.30 0.26 24.05 7,186 0.82 6,273
Washington-2005 0.38 0.61 24.051 9,124 1.04 14,708
Total 0.95 0.77 43.81 41,447 4.73 33,537
1- 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 Sector Savings
Electric Gas Electric Gas
kWh/sqft kBtu/sqft mWh avg MW mmBtu
Idaho
LPD Changes 0.72 (1.08) 3,985 0.45 (5,952)
Envelop Changes 0.21 2.05 1,141 0.13 11,386
EER Changes 0.15 - 842 0.10 -
HP Changes 0.05 - 272 0.03 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.19 (0.22) 1,061 0.12 (1,247)
Lighting Controls – Bilevel 0.17 (0.24) 913 0.10 (1,308)
IID, Power Vent Requirement - 0.34 - - 1,863
ASD on VAV AHU Motors>25hp 0.02 (0.02) 136 0.02 (83)
Economizer 0.01 - 31 0.00 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 414 0.05 2,929
Total 1.59 1.37 8,794 1.00 7,588
Montana
LPD Changes 0.39 (0.59) 743 0.08 (1,137)
Envelop Changes 0.13 0.42 258 0.03 812
EER Changes 0.11 - 209 0.02 -
HP Changes 0.06 - 121 0.01 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.20 (0.29) 379 0.04 (556)
Lighting Controls – Bilevel 0.17 (0.29) 319 0.04 (560)
IID, Power Vent Requirement - 0.40 - - 765
Economizer 0.01 - 19 0.00 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 145 0.02 1,023
Total 1.16 0.16 2,239 0.26 305
Oregon
LPD Changes 0.30 (0.46) 3,680 0.42 (5,678)
EER Changes 0.13 - 1,573 0.18 -
HP Changes 0.04 - 537 0.06 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.18 (0.23) 2,172 0.25 (2,866)
Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors 0.06 (0.09) 761 0.09 (1,133)
ASD all Variable Load Pumps >10hp 0.04 - 481 0.05 -
Air and Water Temperature Reset 0.07 0.13 832 0.09 1,565
Economizer 0.00 - 54 0.01 -
ATF 0.13 - 1,586 0.18 -
Duct Sealing 0.07 0.53 924 0.11 6,531

Shutdown Damper Controls 0.00 0.17 51 0.01 2,085
Transformers - TP-1 0.08 - 947 0.11 -
Curtain Wall Deemed to Comply 0.02 0.06 193 0.02 669
Total 1.15 0.38 14,103 1.61 4,663
Washington
LPD Changes 0.06 (0.05) 1,400 0.16 (1,313)
EER Changes 0.10 - 2,310 0.26 -
HP Changes 0.04 - 893 0.10 -
Lighting Controls – Sweep 0.01 (0.02) 348 0.04 (489)
Commissioning 0.09 0.06 2,235 0.26 1,564
Total 0.30 0.26 7,186 0.82 6,273
Washington-2005
Economizer 0.05 0.00 1,300 0.15 86
Envelope – Glazing 0.05 (0.04) 1,173 0.13 (892)
Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors 0.05 (0.01) 1,102 0.13 (348)
LPD Changes 0.08 (0.00) 1,923 0.22 (73)
Envelope – Opaque 0.10 0.66 2,409 0.27 15,934
Transformers - TP-1 0.05 - 1,217 0.14 -
Total 0.38 0.61 9,124 1.04 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

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 Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total

Per Year Cumulative
2001 - - - - - -
2002 - - - 0.98 0.98 1.0
2003 - - - 1.05 1.05 2.0
2004 - - 2.08 1.06 3.14 5.2
2005 1.16 0.30 1.86 1.55 4.87 10.1
2006 1.00 0.26 1.61 1.86 4.73 14.8
2007 0.99 0.25 1.59 1.84 4.68 19.5
2008 1.02 0.26 1.64 1.90 4.83 24.3
2009 1.03 0.26 1.65 1.90 4.84 29.1
2010 1.05 0.27 1.68 1.94 4.94 34.1
2011 0.89 0.23 1.43 1.65 4.19 38.3
2012 0.90 0.23 1.44 1.66 4.23 42.5
2013 0.90 0.23 1.45 1.68 4.26 46.8
2014 0.92 0.23 1.47 1.70 4.31 51.1
2015 0.94 0.24 1.50 1.74 4.41 55.5
2016 0.95 0.24 1.52 1.75 4.46 59.9
2017 0.96 0.24 1.53 1.77 4.51 64.4
2018 0.97 0.25 1.55 1.79 4.56 69.0
2019 0.98 0.25 1.57 1.81 4.61 73.6
2020 0.99 0.25 1.58 1.83 4.66 78.3
2021 1.00 0.25 1.60 1.85 4.71 83.0
2022 1.01 0.26 1.62 1.87 4.76 87.7
2023 1.02 0.26 1.64 1.90 4.82 92.6
2024 1.03 0.26 1.66 1.92 4.88 97.4
2025 1.05 0.27 1.68 1.94 4.94 102.4
Total 20.8 5.3 35.4 41.0 102.4
Code Energy Savings - Average Therms per Year (1000000s)
Year Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total

Per Year Cumulative
2001 - - - - - -
2002 - - - 0.08 0.08 0.08
2003 - - - 0.08 0.08 0.16
2004 - - 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.30
2005 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.30 0.60
2006 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.34 0.94
2007 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.33 1.27
2008 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.34 1.61
2009 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.34 1.95
2010 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.22 0.35 2.30
2011 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.30 2.60

2012 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.30 2.90
2013 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.30 3.20
2014 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.31 3.51
2015 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.31 3.82
2016 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.32 4.14
2017 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.32 4.46
2018 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.32 4.78
2019 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.33 5.11
2020 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.33 5.44
2021 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.33 5.77
2022 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.34 6.11
2023 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.34 6.45
2024 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.22 0.35 6.79
2025 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.22 0.35 7.14
Total 1.57 0.06 1.02 4.49 7.14

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 Non-
Residential Energy Code. Ecotope, Seattle WA.
Kennedy, M. and D. Baylon. 2001. Survey of Energy Efficiency in Seattle’s New Non-Residential
Buildings: 1995-2000. Ecotope for Seattle City Light, Seattle WA.
Kennedy, M. 1998. Comparison of Proposed Idaho and ASHRAE 90.1 Non-Residential Codes. For
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, WA.
Kennedy, Mike, J. Hanford, A. Houseknecht and D. Baylon. 1995. Demand-Side Energy Savings in
WNG Firm Commercial Sector. For Washington Natural Gas, Seattle, WA.
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.

Appendix A. New Idaho Code Provisions
Idaho Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC
Section Description Comment Evaluation Method
Envelope Component Opaque U-values Evaluate values for Boise climate. DOE2 on average
Performance characteristics.
Envelope Component Glazing values Evaluate values for Boise climate. DOE2 on average
Equipment Minimum Minimum Equipment cooling and heating efficiency tables Evaluate values for Boise climate. DOE2 on average
Efficiency characteristics.
Maximum Lighting LPD Requirements Evaluate values for Boise climate. DOE2 on average
Power Density characteristics.
Lighting Controls
Sweep/automated required in all buildings >5000sqft Definitely an energy saver in office buildings. Evaluate – Engineering.
Max Sweep Zone <25000 or 1 floor Part of sweep control
size
Max Sweep Override 5000sqft Larger than other codes but still smaller than maximum Part of sweep control
Zone size sweep zone.
Max Override Time 2 Part of sweep control
Holiday Scheduling requires "automatic holiday scheduling feature that turns off all loads for at least 24 Unclear what impact this has. Would seem to outlaw Not evaluated.
hours" standard programmable thermostats, in other situations with
EMS it is probably standard practice.
Bi-level switching Required Savings function of feature usage and base condition. Evaluated. Engineering.
Providing the capability will allow those interested to use it.
Miscellaneous Lighting
Treatment of line 30 watts/lineal foot Part of lighting LPD calculation. Not evaluated.
voltage track lighting
Airtight Can Lights Required Not evaluated.
Economizer
Maximum DX 65kBtu or 135kBtu CZ14(ID counties: Benewah, cassia, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Kootenai, Latah, Shoshone, Twin falls) Evaluated. DOE2 on
Capacity Without average of code
Economizer modified baseline
characteristics.
Important Exceptions if EER meets table 703.2.6 (EER better by 10-20%) but only in SE WA (Benton, This seems interesting in terms of flexibility but presumably Not evaluated.
to Economizer Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties) these are generally equivalent so there would be no energy Equivalent path.
requirement. savings.
DX-Economizer Required where economizer required. Integration is nearly meaningless unless the compressor can Not evaluated
Integration modulate.
Waterside 100% at 50Fdb/45Fwb Not directly evaluated.
Economizer All prototypes assume
air systems so waterside
economizer savings are
assumed.
Ducts
Idaho Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC
Duct sealing – All ALL joints, seams, and connections Very simple but stringent requirement that will likely not be Evaluated. Percent of
locations. implemented fully. Most exterior duct work is currently heating and cooling
sealed and even some interior. Uncertainty about current energy.
practice and the results code will obtain make this difficult to
quantify.
Duct Insulation - Exterior - R8, Vented Space – R5, Unconditioned Space – R5, Conditioned R0 Duct insulation requirements are hard to evaluate, as there is Not evaluated.
Exterior little or no information on current practice. Mostly exterior
duct use insulated sound board.
Equipment - Minimum Efficiency
Boiler control modulating or staged if cap>500kbtu 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.
VSD
VSD - fan motors Required on motors>=25hp with variable loads. High threshold, and generally small population of sites that Evaluated. Modeled.
don't currently have ASD.
VSD or Two speed yes Not evaluated. Two
on cooling tower speed fans have a high
saturation.
Controls
Small Building Controls
Basic Thermostat 7 day programmable, battery backed, manual override Not evaluated/
Capabilities
Heat pumps Thermostat must minimize auxiliary on startup Unclear what the commercial baseline is. Most likely high Not evaluated.
current saturation. Only applicable to heat pumps.
Sup H2O Temp Reset required if cap>300kBtu Savings relatively small unless system uses massive Not evaluated.
radiators. High saturation in larger systems.
min dead band 5F Most systems are capable of this currently. How they are set Not evaluated.
is another matter.
Heat Rejection
Condenser HR. Required if 24hr facility and rejection capacity is >6mmbtu, and service hot water Very small applicability. Hospitals are often on a central Not evaluated.
heating capacity is >1mmbtu. plant so might typically be unaffected. Nursing homes are a
possibility. The DHW capacity in grocery is probably too
small on average.
Cooling Tower Establishes efficiency requirements for heat rejection devices. Codes standardized on ASHRAE. Not clear what the Not evaluated.
Efficiency existing baseline is.
Miscellaneous
Air inlet, outlet, and requires "automatic" method (barometric or motorized) for systems >3000 CFM This is pretty much standard practice. Not evaluated.
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.

Appendix B. New Montana Code Provisions
Montana Code Provision Changes 2000 and 2003 IECC from ASHRAE 90.1-89
Envelope Component Opaque U-values Evaluate values for Missoula climate. DOE2 on average
Envelope Component Glazing values Evaluate values for Missoula climate. DOE2 on average
Equipment Minimum Minimum equipment heating and cooling efficiency tables Evaluate values for Missoula climate. DOE2 on average
Efficiency characteristics.
Maximum Lighting LPD Requirements Evaluate values for Missoula climate. DOE2 on average
Power Density characteristics.
Lighting
Sweep/automated IECC requires in all buildings >5000sqft. 90.1-1989 allows 15% extra lighting Definitely an energy saver in office buildings. It's unclear Evaluate but disregard
power if sweep is implemented. whether 15% is a good "savings" number for this measure. 90.1 baseline credit.
ASHRAE 90.1-89 has very liberal lighting allowance so
credit probably never used.
Bi-level switching Required Savings function of feature usage and base condition. Evaluated. Engineering.
Providing the capability will allow those interested to use it.
Treatment of line 30 watts/lineal foot Part of lighting LPD calculation. Not evaluated.
Treatment of low Transformer Part of lighting LPD calculation. Not evaluated.
Tandem Wiring (min 90.1-89 requires tandem wiring and IECC requires it if an electronic ballast is not This is a step backwards since IECC exempts electronically Not evaluated.
2 lamps/ballast) used. ballasted fixtures, which is just about everything. This is
hopefully a small item.
Airtight Can Lights IECC required Not evaluated.
Mechanical – Economizer
Maximum DX 65kBtu 90.1-89 required economizer on all equipment > 90 kBtuh Evaluated. Modeled
Capacity Without with a total non-economizer cap of 600 kBtuh. So new code DOE2.
Economizer is tighter in some ways and looser in others
Important Exceptions if EER meets table 703.2.6 (EER better by 10-20%) but only in SE WA (Benton, Interesting in terms of flexibility but presumably these are Not evaluated.
to Economizer Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties) generally equivalent so there would be no energy savings.
requirement.
DX-Economizer 90.1-89 requires integration in equipment with >180kbtuh cooling. IECC requires Integration is nearly meaningless unless the compressor can Not evaluated.
Integration where economizer required so increases cases with integration. 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.
Mechanical – Ducts

Duct sealing – All ALL joints, seams, and connections Very simple but stringent requirement that will likely not be Evaluated. Percent of
Locations. implemented fully. Most exterior duct work is currently heating and cooling
sealed and even some interior. Uncertainty about current energy.
practice and what result code will obtain make this difficult
to quantify.
Duct Insulation – Exterior R8 (90.1 1989 >7500DD R8), Vented and Unconditioned Space R5 (90.1 90.1 1989 is very similar. IECC is marginal improvement Not evaluated.
Exterior 1989 depends upon DT. Either R3.3 or R5), Conditioned R0 (90.1 R0) 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.
Equipment - Minimum Efficiency
Boiler control modulating or staged if cap>500kbtu 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.
Mechanical – VSD
VSD - fan motors Required on motors>=25hp with variable loads. 90.1-1989 only required 50% reduction of fan energy at 50% Evaluated. Modeled
flow on motors over 75HP that serve variable loads. New DOE2.
language is great improvement, though high threshold, and
generally small population of sites that don't currently have
ASD limit actual savings.
VSD - pump motors not required 90.1-1989 does require hydronic balancing happen with Not evaluated.
VSD or impeller trimming rather than valve on systems with
>10hp. This is a set back wards.
VSD or Two speed yes Not covered in 90.1-1989. Not evaluated. High
on cooling tower saturation in current
practice.
Mechanical – Controls
Small Building Controls
Basic Thermostat 7 day programmable, battery backed, manual override Clear requirement not stated in 90.1-1989. 90.1-1989 did Not evaluated.
Capabilities specify automatic controls to shutdown systems during
periods of non-use.
Sup H2O Temp Reset required if cap>300kBtu 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

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 it's not clear that
this saves energy. It might increase energy use.
Fan Power IECC 2003 drops fan system power limits that are present in 90.1 1998. Examples Another weaken of the code though it is unclear that this Not evaluated.
are fan system power limits of 1.25 w/CFM for VAV and 0.8 for CV 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.

Appendix C. New Oregon Code Provisions
Oregon Code Provision Changes
1996 to 1998
1312 Exceptions – Criteria for unheated exemption changed from 8 to 15btuh in zone 1 and from 12 to If space is really controlled to 45F then this should be Not evaluated.
Unheated 20btuh in zone 2. Also, doors in unheated must now meet code, where as in 1996 neutral, but the overall capacity here is enough to fully heat
code only windows and roof needed to. 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.
1312.1.1 Air sealing requirements expanded. Plenums must be caulked and gasketed, and Plenum sealing is a good addition. Uncertain impact since Not evaluated. Better
corners and joints must be sealed in manner approved by building official. method of sealing left up to the building official. data needs to be
developed regarding
plenum leakage.
1313.2 Ground-couple heat pumps<54kBtuh are allowed to qualify as simple systems More administrative than anything Not evaluated.
1998 to 2002
13-E Maximum glazing fraction for paths changed for 30% to 40% for all wall types Actual impact depends upon assumed baseline windows and Not evaluated. Assume
allowing 30%. Windows for high glazing cases must be substantially better U0.37, amount of window above 30%. Assuming 0.04e coatings energy neutral.
SC0.35 (deemed TB, e-0.05, 0.5" gap, argon, tinted) compared with U0.54 and with TB as standard then this allows a lot of extra window
SC0.57 (deemed e-0.4, 0.5" gap, tinted). 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.
13-F Maximum glazing fraction for paths changed from 25% to 33% for all wall types See 13-E discussion. Not evaluated. Assume
allowing 25%. Windows for high glazing cases must be substantially better U0.37, energy neutral.
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).
1313.3.1.2 Added exemption to automatic switching "Switching for industrial or manufacturing Probably not installed in previous code, or installed and Not evaluated. Assume
process facilities as may be required for production." disabled if it was a problem. current practice.
ATF Changed ATF requirements to calculation. Does not appear to be change in level of fan energy. Not evaluated. Assume
energy neutral.
2002-2003
Building Envelope
Tables 13-E and Skylight shading coefficient (center-of-glass) requirement is improved to 0.47 for both Climate Zones. “Tinted outdoor pane” is no longer a Not Evaluated
13-F prescriptive alternative. Previous code had no shade coefficient requirement for skylights except requirement for tint if prescriptive path taken.
Prescriptive Window and skylight fractions (as a part of walls or roof/ceilings) shall be calculated This change may improve some “cheating” where Not evaluated.
Glazing and separately for conditioned spaces, semi-conditioned spaces, mechanical penthouses warehouse and storage walls were included with more
Skylight and parking garages. highly glazed areas. This was how the previous code was
“Fractions” generally but not always interpreted.
1312.2.1
1312.1 Demising elements (walls, floors, ceilings, windows, etc.) separating conditioned This was probably how the previous code was interpreted. Not evaluated.
from unconditioned or semi-heated spaces shall comply with code requirements.
1312 Semi-conditioned spaces are required to meet floor and skylight requirements in Increased energy use from higher capacity is offset to some Not evaluated.
addition to window, door, and roof. degree by including doors in 1998, and floors and skylights
in 2003 codes.

1312 Motor Vehicle service facilities with max 55F must meet floor, skylight, and window Applicable to a small floor area fraction. Poor information Not evaluated.
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. Not evaluated.
Mechanical
1317.1 Hospitals, laboratories, computer rooms and thermally sensitive equipment are no This is likely rather important though the applicable floor Not evaluated. See Hood
longer exempt from “all” HVAC requirements in code. There are now a few area is limited. Very few buildings of this type are requirements.
“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 Evaluated. Modeled
size. New requirements are based on system size no greater than 54,000 Btu/hr total would be impacted by this. DOE2.
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 Not Evaluated. Limited
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 applicability.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Evaluated. Engineering
Energy – the old table. For 40000cfm VAV: 1996-75hp, 1998-75hp, 2003-60hp, 2004- that a lot of equipment is now large unitary equipment. This Calculation.
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.

2-Speed or Fan systems over 15,000 CFM serving single zone areas (specified in this section) This is a great measure but it is only in the complex system Not evaluated. Small
Variable are required to reduce airflow by using either a two-speed motor or variable path. Anybody using a unitary piece of equipment for this applicability.
Frequency Drive frequency drive that reduces airflow to a maximum 60% of peak airflow or minimum system will not have to comply. This probably limits this
for Large Volume ventilation air requirement as required by Chapter 12, which ever is greater based on but it still will impact some atrium and auditorium systems.
Fan Systems space thermostat heating and cooling demand. Also, large VVT systems should be required to do this but
1318.4.2.3 single zone requirement excludes them.
VAV Static System static pressure set point shall be reset to the lowest point possible while still This is a very complex measure that will improve VAV Not evaluated. Current
Pressure Reset providing the required airflow to the zones with the greatest demand. controls. Controls included with package equipment will saturation and typical
Control have to be upgraded or replaced with site control. Savings implemented logic
Requirements are highly variable based upon system design and control unknown.
1318.2.3 details. It does conflict a bit with temperature reset so some
of the savings will be lost due to less temperature reset.
Kitchen Hoods Each kitchen exhaust system with capacity greater than 5,000 CFM, 50 percent of Current saturation of compensating hoods is significant. Not evaluated. Limited
>5,000 CFM the required makeup air shall be (a) unheated or heated to no more than 60° F; and applicability and high
Make-up Air (b) un-cooled or evaporatively cooled. current saturation.
Requirements
1317.11
Exhaust Air Heat For each HVAC fan system that has a) design supply air capacity of 10,000 cfm or Where applicable there will be high savings. Applicability Not evaluated.
Recovery 1318.3 greater, and b) minimum outside air supply of 70 percent or greater, and c) at least and current saturation limit this measure. The high
one exhaust fan rated at 75 percent of the minimum outside air supply, shall install minimum flow limits this measure in applicability and to
an exhaust air heat recovery system. situations owners may already consider the approach.
Hospitals have a lot of systems and each one is not always
so large.
Requirements for New requirement specifying either VAV hood exhaust, or specific requirements for This is a good measure only limited by the number of labs Not evaluated.
Fume Hoods direct makeup air supply, or heat recovery. Limited to systems over 15,000CFM. being built and by the tendency for some to already be
Larger than 15,000 VAV. The 15000 cfm minimum limits this to larger
cfm 1317.2.1 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.
TP 1 Electricity All distribution transformers shall meet the minimum efficiency levels specified in This should save 1% of all electricity in large buildings Evaluated. Engineering
Distribution Table 13-J and Table 13-K – 1316.1 Testing required per NEMA TP 2-1998 – (ones with high voltage service), typically large office, Calculation.
Transformer 1316.1.2 Labeling required per NEMA TP 3-2000 – 1316.1.3 These requirements hospital, and lab.
Requirements 1316 apply to replacing distribution transformers in existing buildings – 1316.1.4.
Swimming Pools, New requirement for swimming pools, hot tubs and spas regarding control Covers: Current saturation is probably zero, but many pools Not evaluated.
Hot Tubs and Spas requirements – 1315.5.1. New requirement for heated swimming pools, hot tubs and have had a cover installed in the past only to have it
1315.5 spas requiring a cover – 1315.5.2 New “heat recovery” requirements for heated removed because it took two staff people to install and they
swimming pools, hot tubs and spas – 1315.5.3 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
New Gravity Vent Controls to automatically close dampers when building is not occupied are now This is a good measure but overall savings and current Not evaluated.
Controls required for “stair and shaft vents” (1317.4.5.1) and “gravity hoods, vents and saturation are uncertain.
Requirements ventilators” (1317.4.5.2).
1317.4.5
New Heat Open cooling towers, closed-circuit cooling towers, and air-cooled and evaporative Base case performance is uncertain. Applicable floor area is Not evaluated.
Rejection condensers now have minimum efficiency performance standards. getting smaller as package equipment gets larger.
Equipment
Performance
Standards 1317.5.4
Duct Insulation Duct insulation R-value requirements are increased and are applicable to “all” Poor baseline information make this difficult to quantify. Not evaluated.
Rqrmnts ( new- HVAC 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 Some question of baseline and small applicable population Evaluated. Modeled
Drive Requirement variable flow air or liquid systems shall be controlled by a variable speed drive. Code but good measure DOE2.
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 Limited applicability Not evaluated.
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 Not very specific. Would on/off control meet this? It seems Not evaluated.
Variable Flow fluid temperature or condenser temperature/pressure of the device. like standard practice in larger equipment is two speed
Controls motors.
1317.5.4.2
Lighting
Lighting Power The ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Lighting Procedure is no longer an alternative specified in How many people used the ASHRAE alternative? Not Evaluated. Since it's
Allowance code. Code specifies either compliance with Tenant Space (simplest – possibly the ASHRAE was considerably weaker than the 2003 Oregon current not such a big
“Methods” most used alternative) or Space-by-Space (more complicated than Tenant Space – code so this seals up what could have become a big loop loop hole.
1313.4.1 & Only use that easily benefits from Space-by-Space is “retail” use) Methods. hole
1313.4.2 .
Lighting Power Lighting power density values are lower. The allowed lighting levels were reduced This is a huge measure. DOE2 on average of code
Density Values substantially (~20% in most cases office 1.2 (1.5 over 15 feet) to 1.0, retail>6000sqft modified characteristics.
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) The only place this method appears to be “more” lenient is DOE2 on average of code
Density Values specified in code. This approach is more complicated than Occupancy Method. See with Retail spaces. The allowed lighting levels were reduced modified characteristics.
Table 13-H tables 13-G and 13-H in OSScch13Highlight.pdf, and tables 13-Q and 13-R in substantially everywhere else. This is a huge measure.
96code.doc.
Lighting Control 1998 code had LPD credit of 10%-30% if daylight controls are installed. Daylight Daylighting is very rare so overall this is tiny, but in DOE2 on average of code
Credit. controls are no longer given extra credit and in some cases are required. buildings with daylighting this is large change. modified characteristics.
Canopy and all Control can be either photoelectric switches, clock switches, or both – see code for Good measure to making sure controls are installed in case Not evaluated.
Building Exterior specific clock switch requirements. Lighting intended for 24-hour use is no longer intent changes, but likely a small application unless we see
Lighting Controls exempt. lots of grocery stores returning to 18 hours days.
1313.3.2
New Automatic All building larger than 5,000 ft2 in area or 2,000 ft2 of contiguous office shall have Large expansion of applicability but many of the building Evaluated. Engineering
Shutoff Control an occupancy sensor or time switch as specified in code – also see exceptions. types have very set schedules that lend themselves to Calculation.
Requirements Previous and current codes require office occupancies of over 2000 sqft to have efficient manual control. What are the savings of this in
1313.3.1.2 automated shutoff controls. In addition, the new code requires all buildings, with a retail stores? Or schools?
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 This has applicability to many situations and very low Doe2. Base applicability
Sensor shall have an occupancy sensor. Specifies requirements of an occupancy sensor. current saturation except in classrooms. on SCL data and model.
Requirements This is an important measure and will have substantial impact.
1313.3.1.2.1

1313.3.1.2 Added exemptions to automatic switching "Hospitals and laboratory spaces, Areas in Reduces coverage of new automatic switching requirements. Not evaluated
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 Should be equivalent except for fan energy. Most Not evaluated.
Natural Ventilation and document compliance on a form approved by Building Codes Division implementations are natural cooling rather then natural vent
1203.2.4 Administrator. systems.
Enclosed Group S A new automatic carbon monoxide sensing device is required for enclosed parking A good measure but current saturation is unclear. Not evaluated.
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 Roof requirement is significant particularly in combination Not evaluated.
Envelope wall, roofs and floors. Via new exception 3, roof insulation will now be required with built up roof language. Current saturation is likely
Alterations when existing roofs are either torn-down to roof sheathing or insulation – unless significant.
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 Low applicability due to the high window to wall ratio. Not evaluated.
Controls or with skylights to install daylighting controls. 1 313.3.1.3.1 defines the day lit Most classrooms with this high fraction were probably
1313.3.1.3 zone where control is required. 1313.3.1.3.2 specifies those luminaries to be designed with daylighting. Atriums will be the impacted
controlled from daylighting through skylights. 1313.3.1.3.3 specifies daylight- area.
sensing 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 Small applicability so unless easy it should be dropped. Not evaluated.
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 No real change. Not evaluated.
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 Very small change in insulation requirements for high Not evaluated
Requirements specific categories. Also, add formula to clarify how value calculated. temperature pipe are inconsequential. Formula for
1314.1 insulation calculation might have impact but probably
everyone using manufacturers rating.
Economizer These requirements used to be contained with “Simple System and “Complex Format change only Not evaluated.
Requirements System” section requirements. All requirements are now contained in this section.
1317.3
Controls: VAV VAV terminal units shall be programmed to operate at the minimum airflow setting This strategy is generally current practice. Not evaluated.
Terminal Units without addition of reheat when the zone temperature is within the set dead band.
1317.4.2.1
New Off-Hour Exempts off-hour control requirements for systems intended to operate continuously. Seems contrary to new requirement in lighting to require Not evaluated.
Controls Exception controls even when intention is 24 hour operation.
1317.4.3
New Automatic This section provides specific requirements for HVAC controls shutdown. It also Wording change. Not evaluated.
Shutdown provides three different methods/options for complying with this requirement.
Requirements
1317.4.3.1

Optimum Start HVAC systems with a design supply air capacity exceeding 10,000 CFM, shall have Most controls current have this ability. Not evaluated.
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 Damper requirement is pretty much standard practice. Evaluated. Modeled
Controls (new) that will automatically shut when the systems or spaces served are not in use or Typically these dampers can be powered any way but are DOE2.
1317.4.3.3 during building warm-up, cool down, and setback (see Exceptions). 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.
Duct Sealant All joints, connections and seams in ductwork shall be sealed with the appropriate This could be significant measure but also is very hard to Evaluated. Percent of
Rqrmnts 1317.8 UL 181 standard, tape or mastic. Cloth backed, rubber adhesive tape shall not be quantify. heating and cooling
used. Previous codes did not require sealing. energy.
Heating Heating systems installed outside a building shall be radiant, gas-fired systems and This might change loading dock systems but in general this Not evaluated.
Requirements controlled by an occupancy sensing device or a timer switch, so that the system is seems to have very limited scope.
“Outside” a automatically de-energized when no occupants are present.
Building 1317.12
Humidity Control Humidifiers with preheating devices mounted in the air stream shall be provided Small applicability except possibly industrial and hospital. Not evaluated.
Requirements with an automatic valve to shut off preheat when humidification is not required.
1318.2.2
Chilled and Hot Chilled and hot water systems with a design capacity exceeding 300,000 Btu/hr If designers were not specifying reset before they are now! Not Evaluated.
Water Temperature supplying chilled or heated water (or both) to comfort conditioning systems shall This likely is new to chilled water systems and less so to
Reset Controls include controls that automatically reset supply water temperatures by representative heating loops. Savings are limited and applicability is also
1318.2.4 building loads (including return water temperature) or by outside air temperature. limited particularly in new construction. Code exempts all
systems with variable flow and also requires all loops with
motors >10hp to be variable flow.
Supply Air Multiple zone HVAC systems must include controls that automatically reset the If designers were not specifying reset before they are now! Evaluated. Modeled
Temperature Reset supply-air temperature in response to representative building loads, or to outdoor air DOE2.
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 Small applicability. Not evaluated.
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 This would seem to require ASD on any 10HP pump loop. Evaluated. Engineering
Controls systems with motors of 10 hp and greater. Significant savings within hydronic systems. Calculation.
1318.2.8.4
Increased Pipe Insulation for 4 cases was increased from 2.5 to 3 inches and the rating temperature These changes are minor. Not evaluated.
Insulation Table was changed for the cooling insulation
13-D
2003-2004
ATF see 2003 ATF see 2003 ATF Evaluated. Engineering
Calculation.
ATF Made alternate calculation for high efficiency filtration systems only available to Closes obvious loop hole for people installing standard Not evaluated.
systems with more than 1" of filtration. filters.

Appendix D. New Washington Code Provisions
Washington Code Provision Changes
1996 to 1998
10-5A Expanded Default Metal Stud Wall U-values Greatly expanded choices for metal stud wall configuration. Not evaluated.
10-7A Added Default Metal Ceiling U-values Greatly expanded choices (from none to many) for metal Not evaluated.
truss ceiling configurations and metal buildings.
1301 Unoccupied cell facility exception to all envelop requirements Could increase energy use if economizer installed Not evaluated.
1411.3 Adds minimum Combined Annual Efficiency table for combination equipment. This should be equivalent to the combination of the Not evaluated.
standalone water and space heating equipment.
1414.1 Duct tape disallowed as primary duct sealant Not evaluated.
14-5 Added R7 duct insulation requirement for air intake ducts In high-rise construction with vertically self contained units Not evaluated.
or heat pump loops this could be a significant change.
1421.b maximum capacity of split systems qualifying for simple path increased from Not evaluated.
54kbtuh to 84kbtuh
2000
10-5A Expanded Default Metal Frame, Metal building Wall U-values Greatly expanded choices for metal buildings and metal Not evaluated.
frame construction.
10-5B Added Default Concrete/Masonry Wall U-values Added default tables for masonry and concrete walls. Not evaluated.
10-6A 1997 added thermally improved Aluminum frame option and 2000 removed it. 1997 94/2000 table gives more credit for AL frames but less for Not evaluated.
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.
1416 Completion and commissioning requirements added Great deal of uncertainty about what sort of commissioning Evaluated. Engineering
this requirement yields. Calculation.
1412.4.2 Adds optimum start requirement for systems over 10000cfm. This is standard in many systems, even standard thermostats. Not evaluated.
Low end EMS systems will have to change.
1435 Exceptions to simultaneous heating and cooling prohibition are expanded to include Building systems with small minimum air turn down will no Not evaluated.
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.
1439 Kitchen and Fume hood requirements. Exhaust air exemption is possible loop hole The fume hood requirements are significant but the Not evaluated.
for kitchen hoods. applicability is limited due to the 15000 CFM minimum size.
Kitchen exhaust hoods are commonly compensating, not
sure of the percentage.
1512.1 Church sanctuary rooms added to exempt space list Not sure how much extra light will be installed as a result of Not evaluated.
this, but it is definitely a weakening of code.
1513 Lighting controls now applied to exempt lighting as well A good clarification but probably not a change Not evaluated.
1513.3 Daylight zones defined to minimize lumping of zones on individual controls Closes what possibly could have been a loop hole. Not sure Not evaluated.
of impact.
1513.6 Automatic shutoff requirement extended to office buildings >5000sqft instead of Likely impacts spaces in this size range. Small applicability. Evaluated. Engineering
previous 25000sqft. Calculation.
1513.7 Adds requirement for lighting control commissioning Not evaluated.

1521 Lensed fixtures now allowed in food prep and serving and patient care areas in the Small change to infrequently used section of the code. As Not evaluated.
prescriptive section of the code. Exit light no longer count in fixture count if they are maximum LPD requirements are cranked down this area of
led or fluorescent. the code is likely to see more action unless it also is
tightened.
1530 low voltage track is now calculated as 25w/lf or transformer rather than 50w/lf This is significantly more lenient than 1994 code. Actual Not evaluated.
value is between these numbers. Small sample in Seattle
found 46w/lf.
1532 Covered Parking LPD changed from 0.2w/sqft to 0.3 w/sqft (only if walls painted Definitely a weakening of the code with a modest impact. Not evaluated.
light color).
15-1 LPD requirements unchanged except for retail where old codes Retail A and B are Mostly a wash, depending upon mix of box versus high end Evaluated. Modeled
combined into a single retail requirement. Non-display lighting is allowed to retail building this could be weakening or strengthening of DOE2.
1.5wsqft rather than retail A's 1.0wsqft, and up to 1.5 w/sqft of display lighting is code. Likely a slight strengthening overall. The retail
allowed rather than Retail A's unlimited amount or Retail B's 0.0w/sqft. Also, main sector excels at finding creative ways to get the lighting they
floor common area lighting allowance is increased from 0.8 to 1.2, and hotel/motel want. Simplifying is good.
rooms are added with a 1.5w/sqft requirement.
2001
1413 Waterside economizer design point reduced from 50db/45wb to 45db/40wb specified Designer comments in the Seattle code process indicated this Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Evaluated. Engineering
efficiency. damper, and limited jacket losses – same as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001. forces some common technologies that greatly improve Calculation.
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 Not evaluated.
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.

1413 Economizer Requires air economizer to be base case in RS-29 analysis. Specifies specific water Small change to standardize interpretation of RS29 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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. Evaluated. Modeled
to G DOE2.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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 Not evaluated.
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.”
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.

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 is radically reduced for all glazing cases. Most changed are the values for buildings with small amounts of glass ( U-value 1.0 to 0.45). see above
SHGC High glazing fraction buildings moved from 0.45 to 0.4.
The new SHGC requirement forces a choice between heavy tinting and 0.04 emissivity low-e in many cases. The change is most significant in
building with less than a 20% glazing fraction. The impact of this depends to a significant degree upon the base case window assumed since
clearly all windows exceeded the previous code values.
Table 13-1 Mass Removes mass wall table and inserts exception to wall requirements of 13-1 for mass walls. This amplifies mass wall treatment by removing Assume no change.
Walls different requirements for windows. Wall requirement changed from “0.19 for interior insulation and 0.25 for integral and exterior insulation” to
“a. the U-factor may be increased to U-0.15 maximum, or minimum additional R-5.7 continuous insulation uninterrupted by framing; or b. the wall
may be ASTM C90 concrete block walls, un-grouted or partially grouted at 32 in. or less on center vertically and 48 in. or less on center
horizontally, with un-grouted cores filled with material having a maximum thermal conductivity of 0.44 Btu/ft2 • °F.”
Good simplification but likely a weakening of the code as buildings can now have full glazing with their poorly insulated mass walls. The u-factor
is a bit improved but for CMU walls it looks like the same perlite core wall will be used. They can just have more glass. Limited applicability.
Assume minor impact.
Table 13-2 Opaque Slightly decreases u-value and slightly increases the nominal insulation scheme for metal framing. Makes adjustments to u-values used in trade- Use State Evaluation
off/calculations to allow for metal studs but limit trade-off if wood used. Also, small reduction roof u-value is made.
Good change. Better wall when metal framing used. Trade off limitation important but difficult to quantify and small rate of application.
Table 13-2 Glazing Changes inline with Zone One (table 13-1) discussion above. Only difference is that the top prescriptive bracket for non-electric heat is extended See zone 1 strategy
U-Value from 30% to 45% in zone 2. See zone one discussion.

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 u-
factor 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 Not Evaluated.
it serves.
1423 Reduces mandatory equipment capacity at which economizer is required to 20Kbtu when equipment is outside or adjacent to outdoors. Otherwise Use State Evaluation.
it is the same except for explicit coverage of electronic equipment. Since exception to the mechanical systems scope (1401) was removed in 2001
it's not clear clarification is needed that this is applicable to equipment rooms but this makes interpretation easy.
1433 Gives back some of the economizer by letting units off the hook if they exceed EER by 10% (up to 480kBtu). For heat pump loops an unlimited Not evaluated. XXX
Exceptions 1 and 6. number of units are exempt if they are 15% better EER/COP (heating and cooling), 60% economizer, high efficiency boiler, and heat recovery on check to make sure this
exhaust air. Equivalent paths so no energy impact. option taken
Table 14-1A&B Added 2006 changes for AC and HP units <65Kbtu cooling Not Evaluated
1513.6 Expands automatic shut off to all buildings >5000sqft from just offices and classrooms. Requires occupancy sensors in enclosed spaces < 300sqft Use State Evaluation.
and in classrooms. Both the expansions of the sweep requirements and the occupancy sensor requirements seem like important changes.
1521 Change to require reflector or louver, and daylight zone dimming controls for unlimited prescriptive path. 5% exception tightened to exclude Not Evaluated.
incandescent but does let one get around dimming requirement. Prescriptive path extended to metal halide if reflector/louver and fitted with
ceramic metal halide lamp < 150watts, and electronic ballast. Also, track lighting is now excluded.
Much tougher. Old prescriptive was standard practice and was made for straight forward, easy, and fair compliance for small retrofits. This will
make retrofits do additional calculations. Retail stores using this path will probably still do so.
Table 15-1 Code LPD lower 0.2w/sqft in lab, police/fire, and office, and 0.1 in laundries. Big changes in requirements. Less so over current practice. Use State Evaluation.

Appendix E. FW Dodge New Construction Data
Northwest Construction Starts (square feet in thousands)

Building Type Year Total
2001 2002 2003 2004
Amusement, Social and Recreational Bldgs- 2737 2477 2390 3747 11352
Capitols/Court Houses/City Halls- 797 5 213 436 1450
Dormitories- 509 880 838 580 2807
Health-Other- 3489 3185 2464 3600 12737
Hospitals- 1396 1144 1904 910 5354
Hotels and Motels- 1721 1083 1699 1937 6439
Houses of Worship- 1771 1412 1419 1357 5959
K-12- 5391 5900 6556 4377 22223
Laboratories (Manufacturer owned)- 108 9 73 95 285
Laboratories (excl. manufacturer owned)- 813 402 549 485 2249
Libraries and Museums- 539 849 356 615 2358
Manufacturing and Processing Plants- 2658 1911 1904 2928 9401
Miscellaneous Nonresidential Buildings- 261 262 343 497 1363
Office and Bank Buildings- 10769 6726 5663 7069 30226
Other Government Service Buildings- 1403 883 1379 1075 4739
Other Religious Buildings- 51 189 135 20 394
Parking Garages and Automotive Services- 8331 6234 8236 7371 30172
Schools-Other- 1869 1943 2490 1177 7479
Service- 653 939 570 627 2788
Stores and Restaurants- 10822 9165 9146 9596 38729
Terminals- 1312 205 163 173 1852
Warehouses (Manufacturer owned)- 754 790 884 1818 4246
Warehouses (excl. manufacturer owned)- 9819 5948 6911 6224 28901
Total 67972 52538 56284 56709 233503
Construction Starts –State Shares - Years 2001-2004

State Year Total
2001 2002 2003 2004
Idaho 12% 12% 13% 14% 13%
Montana 4% 5% 5% 4% 4%
Oregon 28% 29% 28% 28% 28%
Washington 56% 54% 54% 55% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

NW Code Savings Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NW Code Savings Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Non-Residential Energy Savings

From Northwest Energy Code Changes

March 30, 2005

Mike Kennedy, Inc.

Introduction and Purpose of Report

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Background – Regional Code Adoptions 1996-2004

Idaho Code Chronology

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Montana Code Chronology

Oregon Code Chronology

Washington adopted a state-promulgated energy code for non-residential buildings in 1986. An

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Washington Code Chronology

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

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Defining the Savings Increment

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 2

Application of the Savings Scenarios

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Calculations and Assumptions

Lighting Power Density

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

Lighting Data Summary by State (w/sqft). NEEA Baseline

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

Heating and Cooling Equipment

Savings Methodology – Individual Measures

Lighting Controls - Office/Conference/Classroom Occupancy Sensors (Oregon only)

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Lighting Controls - Sweep

Lighting Controls – Bi-level (Idaho & Montana only)

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

Intermittent Ignition Devices, Power Vent, Standby Loss Requirements

Fan Motor Adjustable Speed Drive

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 2

Air Transport Factor (Oregon only)

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Off-Hour Controls (Oregon only)

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Transformers (Oregon only)

Commissioning (Washington only)

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Annual Energy Savings by State

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 2

Code Energy Savings - Average Megawatts per Year

Year Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total

Code Energy Savings - Average Therms per Year (1000000s)

Year Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 2

Mahone, D., C. Chappell, O. Howlett, D. Dohrmann, and F. Rubinstein. (to be published).

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 1

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

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 4

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 5

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 6

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 7

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 8

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 10

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 11

Energy Savings from Northwest Non-Residential Energy Codes 1996-2004 Page 12