# Presentation: 516754

## State Technical Assistance:Commercial Codes Economic Evaluation

- Currently developing an approach (template) to respond efficiently and consistently to state requests to assess the benefits and costs of implementing commercial building codes and standards
- Factors Guiding the Approach:
- What type of analysis will the States want?
- To what extent can  we efficiently provide the requested analysis?
- Availability of data
- Building simulation capabilities and time requirements
- LCC capabilities
- Baseline scenarios
- State Requests from:  Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, (NM)

## Illinois Study Outline

**PART I:  Building Prototype Study**
**	****Background****	**
**	****Energy Analysis**
**	****Economic Analysis****	**
**	****Quantitative Results****	**
**	****Qualitative Considerations**
**PART II:  Aggregate Impacts**
**	****Key Assumptions (baseline, building types, etc) **
**	****LCC Savings**
**	****Primary Energy Savings **
**   ****Pollution Emissions Reductions **

## Key Issues for Application of Economic Template

- Appropriate baseline
- Distributional impacts
- How to characterize percentage of buildings not meeting proposed standard
- Recognition that impact of standard varies by building geometry
- State-specific data
- Timeline for analysis
- Develop better interface between simulation model and template
- Improve cost data

## Generic Building Prototype

- Three story, 15-zone
- Major parameters/characteristics differ by building type
- Loads from the generic building can be scaled to different building (sizes/stories) using a “scaling” algorithm

## Economic Analysis Building Prototype

- Energy Simulation (BLAST) Building Prototype (“Gumby”)

**Notes:**
Gumby to Actual Prototype

## Template Process

## Envelope Analysis

- Opaque Envelope
- Walls (mass or frame)
- Roofs (built-up or attic)
- Floor (slab, or floor over unconditioned space)
- ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Cost data
- Cost varies by u-value
- Discrete costs for various assembly types
- Template uses look-up function to find costs associated with assumed envelope criteria
- Costs for large number of glazings developed by Charles Eley Associates

## U-Factor vs. Shading Coefficient

## Slide 9

## Lighting Analysis

- Use framework for ASHRAE 90.1-1999 to establish
- Lumens/sq. ft. for specific types of spaces
- Distributions of typical lighting equipment and efficiencies
- Lighting power densities
- Develop distributions of lighting equipment for building types
- Small sample of actual buildings for each building type
- Weight buildings to yield average for building type
- Compute lighting equipment first cost
- NEMS, LBNL and Grainger Catalog as sources
- Convert to dollars/sq. ft.

## Some Key Results

- Slight changes in window requirements can significantly impact LCC results
- Electricity savings are key (Although 90.1-1999 relaxes many of the envelope requirements and uses more gas relative to 90.1-1989, it yields specific electricity savings such that overall energy cost savings is often positive)
- LCC Savings not necessarily correlated with energy savings (First costs reductions often drive LCC savings for envelope requirements)
- Reduction in lighting intensity have greatest influence on energy and cost savings

## Results Table – Illinois Study

## Results Table (continued)

## LCC Savings per SF by Building Type

## Energy Savings vs. LCC Savings

## Envelope Comparisons between Standards

## Envelope Comparisons between Standards (WWR 38%)

## Statewide Impacts – Primary Energy

## Statewide Impacts – LCC Savings

## Statewide Impacts -- Emissions

*Estimation of Carbon Emissions Reduction (using marginal and average coefficients) from Adopting Energy Codes in Illinois*

## Concluding Thoughts/Future Activity

- Determination Pending
- Impact of Current Studies
- Illinois, Michigan, Iowa
- Template Improvements
- Develop interface between template and simulation model
- Change building simulation method
- Baseline Research