NIST Special Publication 1148-1 

Benefits and Costs of Energy 

Standard Adoption in New 

Commercial Buildings: Northeast 

Census Region 

Joshua Kneifel 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST Special Publication 1148-1 

Benefits and Costs of Energy 

Standard Adoption in New 

Commercial Buildings: Northeast 

Census Region 

Joshua Kneifel 

Applied Economics Office 

Engineering Laboratory 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-1 

February 2013 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 1148-1
 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 1148-1, 144 pages (February 2013)
 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-1
 

CODEN: NSPUE2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 

Energy efficiency requirements in energy codes for commercial buildings vary across 

states, and many states have not yet adopted the latest energy efficiency standard edition. 

As of December 2011, states had adopted energy codes ranging across editions of 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE) 90.1 

(-2001, -2004, and -2007). Some states do not have a code requirement for energy 

efficiency, leaving it up to the locality or jurisdiction to set its own requirements. This 

study considers the impacts that the adoption of newer, more stringent energy codes for 

commercial buildings would have on building energy use, operational energy costs, 

building life-cycle costs, and cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions. 

The results of this report are based on analysis of the Building Industry Reporting and 

Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) database, which includes 12 540 whole building 

energy simulations covering 11 building types in 228 cities across all U.S. states for 9 

study period lengths. The performance of buildings designed to meet current state energy 

codes is compared to their performance when meeting alternative building energy 

standard editions to determine whether more stringent energy standard editions are costeffective in reducing energy consumption and energy-related carbon emissions. Each 

state energy code is also compared to a “Low Energy Case” (LEC) building design that 

increases energy efficiency beyond the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The estimated 

savings for each of the building types are aggregated using new commercial building 

construction data to calculate the magnitude of the available savings that each state in the 

Northeast Census Region may realize if it were to adopt a more energy efficient standard 

as its state energy code. 

Keywords 

Building economics; economic analysis; life-cycle costing; life-cycle assessment; energy 

efficiency; commercial buildings 

ii
 
iii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preface 

This study was conducted by the Applied Economics Office in the Engineering 

Laboratory (EL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The 

study is designed to assess the energy consumption, life-cycle cost, and energy-related 

carbon emissions impacts from the adoption of new state energy codes based on more 

stringent building energy standard editions. The intended audience is researchers and 

policy makers in the commercial building sector, and others interested in building energy 

efficiency. 

Disclaimer 

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units in 

all of its published materials. Because this report is intended for the U.S. construction 

industry that uses U.S. customary units, it is more practical and less confusing to include 

U.S. customary units as well as metric units. Measurement values in this report are 

therefore stated in metric units first, followed by the corresponding values in U.S. 

customary units within parentheses. 

iv
 
v
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements 

The author wishes to thank all those who contributed ideas and suggestions for this 

report. They include Ms. Barbara Lippiatt and Dr. Robert Chapman of EL’s Applied 

Economics Office, Dr. Harrison Skye of EL’s Energy and Environment Division, and Dr. 

Nicos S. Martys of EL’s Materials and Structural Systems Division. A special thanks to 

Mr. Nicholas Long and the EnergyPlus Team for generating the initial energy simulations 

for this project. Thanks to Mr. Brian Presser for adapting the energy simulations to meet 

the study requirements and generating the final simulations used in the Building Industry 

Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) database. Thanks to Mr. Nathaniel 

Soares for developing the initial version of the database, and to Ms. Priya Lavappa for 

enhancing the database for the current analysis. The author would like to thank the NIST 

Engineering Laboratory for its support of the project. 

Author Information 

Joshua D. Kneifel 

Economist 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Engineering Laboratory 

100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8603 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8603 

Tel.: 301-975-6857 

Email: joshua.kneifel@nist.gov 

vi
 
vii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents
 

Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
 

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. xx
 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... xxii
 

Preface............................................................................................................................... iv
 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vi
 

Author Information ......................................................................................................... vi
 

List of Figures.................................................................................................................. xii
 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiv
 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
 

1.1 Background and Purpose...................................................................................... 1
 

1.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................. 1
 

1.3 Approach .............................................................................................................. 3
 

2 Study Design .............................................................................................................. 5
 

2.1 Building Types ..................................................................................................... 5
 

2.2 Building Designs .................................................................................................. 6
 

2.3 Study Period Lengths ........................................................................................... 7
 

3 Cost Data.................................................................................................................... 9
 

3.1 First Costs............................................................................................................. 9
 

3.2 Future Costs........................................................................................................ 11
 

4 Building Stock Data ................................................................................................ 15
 

4.1 Databases............................................................................................................ 15
 

4.2 Weighting Factors .............................................................................................. 15
 

5 Analysis Approach .................................................................................................. 17
 

5.1 Energy Use ......................................................................................................... 17
 

5.2 Life-Cycle Costing ............................................................................................. 17
 

5.3 Carbon Assessment ............................................................................................ 18
 

5.4 Analysis Metrics................................................................................................. 19
 

6 Connecticut .............................................................................................................. 21
 

6.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 21
 

6.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ............................................................... 21
 

6.1.2 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 23
 

6.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 23
 

6.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 24
 

6.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 25
 

6.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 27
 

6.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 28
 

6.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 29
 

7 Massachusetts .......................................................................................................... 31
 

7.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 31
 

7.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ............................................................... 31
 

7.1.2 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 33
 

7.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 34
 

viii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 34
 

7.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 35
 

7.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 37
 

7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 38
 

7.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 39
 

8 Maine........................................................................................................................ 41
 

8.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 41
 

8.1.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 42
 

8.1.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 43
 

8.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 43
 

8.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 44
 

8.1.5 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 45
 

8.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 47
 

8.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 47
 

8.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 48
 

8.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 50
 

8.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 51
 

8.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 53
 

9 New Hampshire ....................................................................................................... 55
 

9.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 55
 

9.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 57
 

9.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 57
 

9.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 59
 

9.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 60
 

9.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 61
 

9.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 63
 

10 New Jersey ............................................................................................................... 65
 

10.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 65
 

10.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 65
 

10.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 67
 

10.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 68
 

10.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 68
 

10.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 69
 

10.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 71
 

10.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 72
 

10.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 73
 

11 New York ................................................................................................................. 75
 

11.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 75
 

11.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 75
 

11.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 77
 

11.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 78
 

ix
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 78
 

11.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 80
 

11.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 81
 

11.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 82
 

11.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 84
 

12 Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................ 85
 

12.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 85
 

12.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 85
 

12.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 87
 

12.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 88
 

12.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 88
 

12.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 90
 

12.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 91
 

12.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 92
 

12.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 94
 

13 Rhode Island............................................................................................................ 95
 

13.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 95
 

13.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 97
 

13.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 97
 

13.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 99
 

13.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 100
 

13.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 101
 

13.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 103
 

14 Vermont ................................................................................................................. 105
 

14.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 105
 

14.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 107
 

14.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 107
 

14.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 109
 

14.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 110
 

14.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 111
 

14.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 113
 

15 State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design ............ 115
 

15.1 Total Savings Comparison ............................................................................... 115
 

15.2 Percentage Savings Comparison ...................................................................... 120
 

15.2.1 3-Story Office Building ..................................................................... 120
 

15.2.2 Region-wide Results by Study Period Length................................... 122
 

15.2.3 Region-wide Results by Building Type............................................. 125
 

15.2.4 Region-wide Results by Climate Zone .............................................. 126
 

16 Discussion............................................................................................................... 129
 

16.1 Key Findings .................................................................................................... 129
 

16.2 Limitations and Future Research...................................................................... 130
 

References ...................................................................................................................... 133
 

x
 
 

 

A Building and Energy Characteristics .................................................................. 137
 

B Additional BIRDS Database Results ................................................................... 141
 

xi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1 Cities and Climate Zones ................................................................................. 7
 

Figure 15-1 Average Energy Use Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 10-year 121
 

Figure 15-2 Average Energy Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 121
 

Figure 15-3 Average Energy-related Carbon Emissions Reduction by State, 3-Story
 

Office Building, 10-year ........................................................................... 122
 

Figure 15-4 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 122
 

Figure 15-5 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by Building Type and Study Period
 

Length........................................................................................................ 125
 

xii
 
xiii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Building Characteristics .................................................................................... 5
 

Table 2-2 Energy Code by State/City for the Northeast Census Region ........................... 6
 

Table 3-1 Energy Efficiency Component Requirements for Alternative Building
 

Designs ........................................................................................................ 10
 

Table 3-2 HVAC Energy Efficiency Requirements for Alternative Building Designs ... 11
 

Table 4-1 New Commercial Building Construction (Northeast, 2003 through 2007) ..... 16
 

Table 5-1 Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potentials .................................................. 19
 

Table 6-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Connecticut.................................................................................................. 21
 

Table 6-2 Average Percentage Changes in Energy Use from Adoption of the LEC
 

Design, 10-Year, Connecticut ..................................................................... 22
 

Table 6-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City,
 

10-Year, Connecticut .................................................................................. 23
 

Table 6-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Connecticut ...................... 24
 

Table 6-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Connecticut.................................................................................................. 25
 

Table 6-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Connecticut ................. 26
 

Table 6-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Connecticut .................................................................................. 26
 

Table 6-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Connecticut ......... 27
 

Table 6-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Connecticut – Metric Tons .................................... 28
 

Table 6-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Connecticut ......... 28
 

Table 6-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Connecticut .................................................................................. 29
 

Table 7-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Massachusetts .............................................................................................. 31
 

Table 7-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10-Year,
 

Massachusetts .............................................................................................. 32
 

Table 7-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City,
 

10-Year, Massachusetts............................................................................... 33
 

Table 7-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Massachusetts .................. 34
 

Table 7-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Massachusetts .............................................................................................. 35
 

Table 7-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Massachusetts ............. 36
 

Table 7-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Massachusetts............................................................................... 36
 

Table 7-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Massachusetts ..... 37
 

Table 7-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Massachusetts – Metric Tons ................................ 38
 

Table 7-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Massachusetts ..... 38
 

Table 7-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Massachusetts............................................................................... 39
 

Table 8-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Maine........................................................................................................... 41
 

xiv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Maine ............................................................................ 42
 

Table 8-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maine ...................... 43
 

Table 8-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Maine ................................................................................................. 44
 

Table 8-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maine ................ 45
 

Table 8-6 Average Percentage Changes in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, Maine, 10-Year ................................................ 45
 

Table 8-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Maine ......... 46
 

Table 8-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year,
 

Maine........................................................................................................... 46
 

Table 8-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, Maine ... 46
 

Table 8-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Maine ............................. 47
 

Table 8-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Maine........................................................................................................... 48
 

Table 8-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maine ........................ 49
 

Table 8-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Maine............................................................................................ 50
 

Table 8-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Maine ................ 50
 

Table 8-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Maine – Metric Tons ............................................. 51
 

Table 8-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maine .................. 52
 

Table 8-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Maine............................................................................................ 53
 

Table 9-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

New Hampshire ........................................................................................... 55
 

Table 9-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of a Newer of the LEC
 

Design, 10 Year, New Hampshire............................................................... 56
 

Table 9-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use New Hampshire ................ 58
 

Table 9-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

New Hampshire ........................................................................................... 58
 

Table 9-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New Hampshire .......... 59
 

Table 9-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New Hampshire............................................................................ 60
 

Table 9-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New Hampshire .. 60
 

Table 9-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, New Hampshire – Metric Tons ............................. 61
 

Table 9-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New Hampshire .... 62
 

Table 9-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New Hampshire............................................................................ 62
 

Table 10-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

New Jersey .................................................................................................. 65
 

Table 10-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, New Jersey......................................................................................... 66
 

Table 10-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City,
 

10-Year, New Jersey ................................................................................... 67
 

xv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, New Jersey..................... 68
 

Table 10-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

New Jersey .................................................................................................. 69
 

Table 10-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New Jersey................ 70
 

Table 10-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New Jersey ................................................................................... 70
 

Table 10-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New Jersey ........ 71
 

Table 10-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, New Jersey – Metric Tons ..................................... 72
 

Table 10-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New Jersey ........ 72
 

Table 10-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New Jersey ................................................................................... 73
 

Table 11-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

New York .................................................................................................... 75
 

Table 11-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, New York .......................................................................................... 76
 

Table 11-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City,
 

10-Year, New York ..................................................................................... 78
 

Table 11-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, New York ...................... 79
 

Table 11-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

New York .................................................................................................... 80
 

Table 11-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New York ................. 80
 

Table 11-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New York ..................................................................................... 81
 

Table 11-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New York.......... 81
 

Table 11-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, New York – Metric Tons....................................... 82
 

Table 11-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New York.......... 83
 

Table 11-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, New York ..................................................................................... 84
 

Table 12-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Pennsylvania................................................................................................ 85
 

Table 12-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 86
 

Table 12-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City,
 

10-Year, Pennsylvania ................................................................................ 87
 

Table 12-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Pennsylvania .................. 89
 

Table 12-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Pennsylvania................................................................................................ 90
 

Table 12-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Pennsylvania ............. 90
 

Table 12-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Pennsylvania ................................................................................ 91
 

Table 12-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Pennsylvania ..... 91
 

Table 12-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Pennsylvania – Metric Tons .................................. 92
 

Table 12-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Pennsylvania ..... 93
 

xvi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Pennsylvania ................................................................................ 94
 

Table 13-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Rhode Island................................................................................................ 95
 

Table 13-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10
 

Year, Rhode Island ...................................................................................... 96
 

Table 13-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Rhode Island .................. 98
 

Table 13-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Rhode Island................................................................................................ 98
 

Table 13-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Rhode Island ............. 99
 

Table 13-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Rhode Island............................................................................... 100
 

Table 13-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Rhode Island ... 100
 

Table 13-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Rhode Island – Metric Tons ................................ 101
 

Table 13-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Rhode Island ..... 102
 

Table 13-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Rhode Island............................................................................... 102
 

Table 14-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Vermont..................................................................................................... 105
 

Table 14-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10
 

Year, Vermont ........................................................................................... 106
 

Table 14-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Vermont ....................... 108
 

Table 14-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Vermont..................................................................................................... 108
 

Table 14-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Vermont .................. 109
 

Table 14-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Vermont...................................................................................... 110
 

Table 14-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Vermont .......... 110
 

Table 14-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Vermont – Metric Tons ....................................... 111
 

Table 14-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Vermont ............ 112
 

Table 14-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Vermont...................................................................................... 112
 

Table 15-1 Total Reductions by State for Adoption of the LEC Design, 10-Year........ 116
 

Table 15-2 Energy Use Reduction per Unit of Floor Area for Adoption of the LEC
 

Design by State, 10-Year .......................................................................... 117
 

Table 15-3 Energy Cost Reduction per kWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption
 

of the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ........................................................ 118
 

Table 15-4 Carbon Reduction per GWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption of
 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ............................................................ 119
 

Table 15-5 Life-Cycle Cost Reductions per Unit of New Floor Area for Adoption of
 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ............................................................ 119
 

Table 15-6 Average Percentage Change by State, 3-Story Office Building, 10-Year .. 120
 

Table 15-7 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Use by
 

Building Type............................................................................................ 123
 

xvii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15-8 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by 

Building Type and Study Period Length ................................................... 123
 

Table 15-9 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by
 

Building Type............................................................................................ 124
 

Table 15-10 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by
 

Building Type and Study Period Length ................................................... 124
 

Table 15-11 Northeast Region Percentage Change for LEC by Building Type,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 126
 

Table 15-12 Average Percentage Change for LEC by Climate Zone............................ 127
 

Table 15-13 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use for LEC by Climate Zone
 

and State Energy Code .............................................................................. 127
 

Table 15-14 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs for LEC by Climate Zone
 

and State Energy Code .............................................................................. 128
 

Table 15-15 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions for LEC by Climate
 

Zone and State Energy Code ..................................................................... 128
 

Table 15-16 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs for LEC by Climate
 

Zone and State Energy Code ..................................................................... 128
 

Table A-1 CBECS Categories and Subcategories .......................................................... 137
 

Table A-2 New Commercial Building Construction Floor Area for 2003 through
 

2007 by State and Building Type .............................................................. 138
 

Table A-3 New Commercial Building Construction Share by State and Building
 

Type ........................................................................................................... 138
 

Table A-4 Electricity Generation CO2, CH4, and N2O Emissions Rates by State ......... 139
 

Table B-1 4-Story Apartment Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period ........................................................................................................ 141
 

Table B-2 6-Story Apartment Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period ........................................................................................................ 141
 

Table B-3 4-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period ..... 141
 

Table B-4 6-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period ..... 142
 

Table B-5 15-Story Hotel Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period ........................................................................................................ 142
 

Table B-6 2-Story High School Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period 142
 

Table B-7 8-Story Office Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period ........................................................................................................ 143
 

Table B-8 16-Story Office Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period ........................................................................................................ 143
 

Table B-9 1-Story Retail Store Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period . 143
 

Table B-10 1-Story Restaurant Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period . 144
 

xviii
 
xix
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Acronyms
 

Acronym Definition 

AEO Applied Economics Office 

AIRR Adjusted Internal Rate of Return 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

BIRDS Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability 

CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 

CH4 Methane 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

DOE Department of Energy 

EEFG EnergyPlus Example File Generator 

eGRID Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EL Engineering Laboaratory 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning 

I-P Inch-Pounds (Customary Units) 

IECC International Energy Code Council 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

LCA Life-Cycle Assessment 

LCC Life-Cycle Cost 

LEC Low Energy Case 

MRR Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

ROI Return On Investment 

S-I System International (Metric Units) 

SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 

SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient 

SPV Single Present Value 

xx
 
 

Acronym De finition 

UPV* Uniform Present Value Modified for Fuel Price Escalation 

xxi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Executive Summary 

Energy efficiency requirements in energy codes for commercial buildings vary across 

states, and many states have not yet adopted the latest energy standard edition. As of 

December 2011, state energy code adoptions range across editions of the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, 

and -2007). Some states in the United States do not have a code requirement for energy 

efficiency, leaving it up to the locality or jurisdiction to set its own requirement. There 

may be significant energy and cost savings to be realized by states, particularly those 

states that have not yet adopted an energy code, if they were to adopt more energy 

efficient commercial building energy standard editions. 

The results of this report are based on analysis of the nine states in the Northeast Census 

Region using the Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) 

database. BIRDS includes 12 540 whole-building energy simulation estimates covering 

11 building types in 228 cities across all U.S. states for 9 study period lengths. The 

performance of buildings designed to meet current state energy codes is compared to 

their performance when meeting alternative building energy standard editions to 

determine whether more stringent energy standard editions are cost-effective in reducing 

energy consumption and energy-related carbon emissions. Each state energy code is also 

compared to a “Low Energy Case” (LEC) building design that increases energy 

efficiency beyond the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. 

Maine is the only state in the Northeast Census Region that has not yet adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings. Maine would benefit from 

adopting either ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code. 

Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs than adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999. 

The adoption of the LEC design is analyzed for all nine states. The LEC design goes 

beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007 by setting stricter building envelope requirements, lower 

lighting densities, and requiring daylighting controls as well as requiring overhangs for 

warmer climate zones. There are several factors that impact the percentage savings from 

adopting the LEC design for all states in the Northeast Census Region, including the 

current state energy code, selected study period length, building type, and climate zone of 

the location. 

The region-wide adoption of the LEC design as the commercial building energy code for 

all building types significantly decreases energy use (13.8 %), energy costs (20.1 %), and 

carbon emissions (19.0 %) while reducing life-cycle costs (1.2 %), on average, for a 

xxii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

10-year study period. Although the LEC design leads to reductions for all states, the 

magnitude of the reductions varies according to each state’s adopted energy code. The 

state with no energy code, Maine, realizes the greatest percentage savings in energy use, 

energy costs, and carbon emissions. 

The study period length impacts the resulting reductions in life-cycle costs. As the study 

period length increases from 1 year to 10 years, the number of building types that are 

cost-effective increases from 7 to all 11. The study period length is an important 

determinant of cost-effectiveness and size of the percentage changes in life-cycle cost. 

The climate zone of a location impacts the percentage reduction in energy use, energy 

costs, and carbon emissions. After controlling for each state’s energy code, cities located 

in warmer climates realize greater average percentage reductions in these measures. 

However, these same cities realize smaller percentage reductions in life-cycle costs 

because additional construction costs are required to obtain future energy cost savings. 

Different building types realize different regional average percentage reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions. High schools realize the smallest 

reductions while restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings realize the greatest 

reductions. The greatest percentage reductions in life-cycle costs also are realized by 

restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings while the smallest percentage reductions 

are realized by 4 and 6-story apartment buildings and 16-story office buildings. 

The magnitude of a building type’s average percentage change is not necessarily 

correlated with its changes in total energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions relative to other building types. For example, high schools tend to realize some 

of the smallest percentage reductions, but some of the greatest total reductions in energy 

use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions. Total reductions are driven 

largely by total new floor area constructed for the building type in a state. The adoption 

of the LEC design would lead to greater aggregate reductions in energy use in New York 

than in Vermont because the amount of newly constructed floor area for 2003 to 2007 

was about 30 times greater in New York. 

A number of other factors impact total reductions in energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions: state energy codes, energy prices, and carbon emissions rates. Maine realizes 

over twice the energy use reductions per unit of floor area than any other state in the 

Northeast because it has no state energy code, while the other eight states have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007. States with the highest electricity rates tend to realize the largest 

reductions in energy costs per unit of energy consumption reduced. Similarly, states with 

higher CO2e emission rates per unit of electricity generated realize greater reductions in 

emissions per unit of energy consumption reduced. 

xxiii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

This study is limited in scope and would be strengthened by including sensitivity 

analysis, expanding the BIRDS database, and enabling public access to all the results. 

Combining these results with detailed analysis of the states in the other three census 

regions would make possible an estimate of the nationwide impact of adopting more 

stringent building energy codes. Expansion of the environmental assessment beyond 

energy-related carbon emissions to include building materials and a full range of both 

life-cycle environmental impacts and life-cycle stages, from cradle to grave, would 

enable comprehensive sustainability assessment. Additional energy efficiency measures, 

fuel types, discount rates, and building types would also expand the scope of the 

database. Also, given that new buildings account for a small fraction of the entire 

building stock, incorporating analysis of energy retrofits to these same prototype 

buildings would increase the coverage of the database. 

The extensive BIRDS database can be used to answer many more questions than posed in 

this report, and will be made available to the public through a simple-to-use software tool 

that allows others access to the database for their own research on building energy 

efficiency and sustainability. These improvements are underway, with more detailed 

reporting and release of the BIRDS software scheduled for 2013. 

xxiv
 
Executive Summary 

xxv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

1	 Introduction 

1.1 Background and Purpose 

Energy efficiency requirements in current energy codes for commercial buildings vary 

across states, and many states have not yet adopted the latest energy efficiency standard 

editions. As of December 2011, state energy code adoptions range across editions of the 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 

90.1-2001, -2004, and -2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is the industry consensus standard 

to establish the minimum energy-efficient requirements of buildings, other than low-rise 

residential buildings. Some states do not have a code requirement for energy efficiency, 

leaving it up to the locality or jurisdiction to set its own requirement. There may be 

significant energy and cost savings to be realized by states if they were to adopt more 

energy efficient commercial building energy standard editions. 

The purpose of this study is to estimate the impacts that the adoption of more stringent 

energy codes for commercial buildings would have on building energy use, operational 

energy costs, building life-cycle costs, and energy-related carbon emissions for states 

located in the Northeast Census Region. The results are analyzed for each state and 

across all states in the region to answer the following questions: 

•	 How much does each more stringent energy standard edition decrease building 

energy consumption, energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions, in 

percentage terms, relative to the state’s current energy code? 

•	 Is adopting a more stringent energy standard edition life-cycle cost-effective? 

•	 Based on new construction in each state, how much can a state save in total energy 

consumption, energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions over time? Are these 

savings obtained life-cycle cost-effectively? 

•	 Which states would realize the most significant savings from adopting newer energy 

standard editions, and what factors drive the relative savings across states? 

1.2 Literature Review 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2009) estimates the impacts for each state of 

adopting the most recent edition of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard as of 2009, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, as the commercial building energy code relative to the state’s current energy 

code. For states without a state commercial building energy code, the baseline is 

assumed to be ASHRAE 90.1-1999 because it is considered to represent common practice 

in the industry. The annual energy use savings and energy cost savings are estimated for 

three Department of Energy (DOE) benchmark buildings -- a medium-sized office 

building, a non-refrigerated warehouse, and a mid-rise apartment building -- to represent 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

non-residential, semi-heated, and residential uses, respectively. The buildings are 

simulated in the EnergyPlus whole building energy software (DOE, 2009a) for 97 cities 

located across the U.S., ensuring that each climate zone in each state is represented. The 

study reports annual electricity and natural gas consumption per square foot of floor area 

for the buildings, assuming they are built to meet both the state’s current code and 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Based on these results, the percentage savings in energy and energy 

costs are calculated for the three building types for each state. The study does not 

compare energy use and energy costs across states. Life-cycle costs and carbon emissions 

are not considered in the study. 

Kneifel (2010) creates a framework to simultaneously analyze the impacts of improving 

energy efficiency on energy use, energy costs, life-cycle costs, and carbon emissions 

through an integrated design context for new commercial buildings. The paper compares 

the savings of constructing 11 prototype commercial buildings to meet the building 

envelope requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and a “Low Energy Case,” relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, for 16 cities in different climate zones across the contiguous United 

States. The paper finds minimal improvements in energy efficiency from building to meet 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 while significant savings is found by 

building to meet the “Low Energy Case.” The “Low Energy Case” is often cost-effective 

on a first cost basis and is always cost-effective over the longer study period lengths. 

Kneifel (2011a) expands on the framework and analysis in Kneifel (2010) by analyzing 

the impact of adopting the building envelope requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and a 

“Low Energy Case” relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 in terms of energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for 228 cities across the U.S. with at 

least one city in each state. Analysis includes 4 study period lengths (1, 10, 25, and 40 

years). The paper finds that, on average, the more energy efficient building designs are 

cost-effective. However, there is significant variation across states in terms of energy use 

savings and life-cycle cost-effectiveness driven by both climate and construction costs. 

There is also significant variation across cities within a state, even cities located within 

the same climate zone. These variations are a result of differences in local material and 

labor costs as well as energy costs. 

Kneifel (2013) analyzes 12 540 whole-building energy simulations in the Building 

Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) database covering 11 building 

types in 228 cities across all U.S. states for 9 study period lengths (1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 

30, 35, and 40 years). Current state energy code performance is compared to the 

performance of alternative ASHRAE 90.1 Standard editions to determine whether more 

stringent energy standard editions are cost-effective in reducing energy consumption and 

energy-related carbon emissions. This analysis includes a “Low Energy Case” (LEC) 

building design that increases energy efficiency beyond the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. 

Results are analyzed in detail for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs. Results are 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

aggregated at the state level for seven states, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, 

Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, to estimate the magnitude of total energy use 

savings, energy cost savings, life-cycle cost savings and energy-related carbon emissions 

reductions that could be attained by adoption of a more stringent state energy code for 

commercial buildings. 

1.3 Approach 

This study uses the BIRDS database to analyze the benefits and costs of increasing 

building energy efficiency for 26 cities located in the 9 states of the Northeast Census 

Region. BIRDS is a compilation of whole building energy simulations, building 

construction cost data, maintenance, repair, and replacement rates and costs, and energyrelated carbon emissions data for 11 building types in 228 cities across all U.S. states. 

The present analysis compares energy performance of buildings designed to each state’s 

current energy code for commercial buildings to the performance of more energy 

efficient building designs to determine the energy use savings, energy cost savings, and 

energy-related carbon emissions reductions, and the associated life-cycle costs, resulting 

from adopting stricter standards as the state’s energy code. 

Results are analyzed both in percentage and total value terms. The percentage savings 

results allow for direct comparisons across energy standard editions, building types, study 

period lengths, climate zones, and cities both within each state and across states in the 

Northeast Census Region. Results are aggregated to the state level to estimate the 

magnitude of total energy use savings, energy cost savings, and energy-related carbon 

emissions reductions that could be attained by adoption of a more stringent state energy 

code, and the associated total life-cycle costs. 

Results are summarized using both tables and figures. In cases where the material being 

discussed is of secondary importance, the associated table or figure is placed in the 

Appendices. The order in which tables and figures appear in the Appendices corresponds 

to the order in which they are cited in the text. 

3
 
Introduction 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

2 Study Design 

The BIRDS database used in this study was built following the framework developed in 

Kneifel (2010) and further expanded in Kneifel (2011a) and Kneifel (2013). This study 

analyzes whole building energy simulations, life-cycle costs, and life-cycle carbon 

emissions for 5 energy efficiency designs for 11 building types, 26 cities across the nine 

states in the Northeast Census Region of the United States, and 9 study period lengths.1 

2.1 Building Types 

The building characteristics in Table 2-1 describe the 11 building types used in this study, 

which include 2 dormitories, 2 apartment buildings, a hotel, 3 office buildings, a school, a 

retail store, and a restaurant. The building types were selected based on a combination of 

factors, including fraction of building stock represented, variation in building 

characteristics, and ease of simulation design. These building types represent 46 % of the 

existing U.S. commercial building stock floor space.2 The prototype buildings range in 

size from 465 m2 (5000 ft2) to 41 806 m2 (450 000 ft2). The building abbreviations 

defined in Table 2-1 are used to represent the building types in tables throughout this 

study. 

Table 2-1 Building Characteristics 

Building Type Bldg. Abbr. Floors 

Floor 

Height 

m (ft) 

Wall Roof† Pct. 

Glazing 

Building Size 

m 2 (ft2

) 

Occupancy 

Type 

U.S. Floor 

Space (%) 

Dormitory DORMI04 4 3.66 (12) Mass IEAD 20 % 3097 (33 333) Lodging 7.1 % 

Dormitory DORMI06 6 3.66 (12) Steel IEAD 20 % 7897 (85 000) 

Hotel HOTEL15 15 3.05 (10) Steel IEAD 100 % 41 806 (450 000) 

Apartment APART04 4 3.05 (10) Mass IEAD 12 % 2787 (30 000) 

Apartment APART06 6 3.15 (10) Steel IEAD 14 % 5574 (60 000) 

School, High HIGHS02 2 4.57 (15) Mass IEAD 25 % 12 077 (130 000) Education 13.8 % 

Office OFFIC03 3 3.66 (12) Mass IEAD 20 % 1858 (20 000) Office 17.0 % 

Office OFFIC08 8 3.66 (12) Mass IEAD 20 % 7432 (80 000) 

Office OFFIC16 16 3.05 (10) Steel IEAD 100 % 24 155 (260 000) 

Retail Store RETAIL1 1 4.27 (14) Mass IEAD 10 % 743 (8000) Mercantile* 6.0 % 

Restaurant RSTRNT1 1 3.66 (12) Wood IEAD 30 % 465 (5000) Food Service 2.3 % 

*Only includes non-mall floor area. 

†IEAD = Insulation Entirely Above Deck 

1 See Kneifel (2011b) for additional details on the whole building energy simulations used in the BIRDS 

database. 

2 Based on the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

2.2 Building Designs 

Current state energy codes are based on different editions of the International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) or ASHRAE 90.1 Standard, which have requirements that 

vary based on a building’s characteristics and the climate zone of the building location. 

For this study, the prescriptive requirements of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard-equivalent 

design are used to meet current state energy codes and to define the alternative building 

designs. States that have not yet adopted a state energy code are assumed to meet 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999 building energy efficiency requirements. A “Low Energy Case” 

design based on ASHRAE 189.1-2009, which goes beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007, is 

included as an additional building design alternative. 

Table 2-2 shows that commercial building energy codes as of December 2011 are the 

same for 8 of 9 states in the Northeast Census Region. 3 Maine currently does not have a 

statewide energy code while the other 8 states have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

Table 2-2 Energy Code by State/City for the Northeast Census Region4 

State City Zone Code State City Zone Code State City Zone Code 

CT Bridgeport 5A 2007 NY Albany 5A 2007 PA Allentown 5A 2007 

Hartford 5A Binghamton 6A Bradford 5A 

MA Boston 5A 2007 Buffalo 6A Erie 5A 

Worcester 5A Massena 6A Harrisburg 5A 

ME Caribou 7 None New York 4A Philadelphia 4A 

Portland 6A Rochester 5A Pittsburgh 5A 

NH Concord 6A 2007 Syracuse 5A Wilkes-Barre 5A 

NJ Atlantic City 4A 2007 Williamsport 5A 

Newark 5A RI Providence 5A 2007 

VT Burlington 6A 2007 

The 9 states, 26 cities, and ASHRAE climate zones listed in Table 2-2 are shown in Figure 

2-1. States with more significant population centers have more cities included in the 

BIRDS database. For example, New York and Pennsylvania have 7 and 8 cities, 

respectively, while New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont each have one city. The 

climate zone(s) for each state vary across the Northeast Census Region from ASHRAE 

Climate Zone 4 in Atlantic City, New Jersey to Climate Zone 7 in Caribou, Maine. 

3 Since the publication of Kneifel (2011b) and Kneifel (2012), the BIRDS database has been updated to
 

include subsequent changes in state energy codes through December 2011.
 

4 State energy codes as of December 2011.
 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

Figure 2-1 Cities and Climate Zones 

2.3 Study Period Lengths 

Nine study period lengths are chosen for this analysis: 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 

20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years. The wide variation in investment 

time horizons allows this report to analyze the impact the study period length has on the 

benefits and costs of more stringent state energy code adoption. A 1-year study period is 

more representative of a developer that intends to sell a property soon after it is 

constructed. A 5-year to 15-year study period more closely represents a building owner’s 

time horizon because few owners are concerned about costs realized beyond a decade 

into the future. The 20-year to 40-year study periods better represents institutions, such as 

colleges or government agencies, because these entities will own or lease buildings for 

20 or more years. Most of the analysis in this study uses a 10-year study period. 

7
 
Study Design 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

3 Cost Data 

The cost data collected to estimate life-cycle costs for the BIRDS database originates 

from multiple sources, including RS Means databases (RS Means, 2009), Whitestone 

(2008), and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (EIA, 2010).5 Costs are 

grouped into two categories, first costs that include initial building construction costs and 

future costs that include operational costs, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, 

and building residual value. Both of these cost categories are described below. 

3.1 First Costs 

Building construction costs are obtained from the RS Means CostWorks online databases 

(RS Means, 2009). The costs of a prototypical building are estimated by the RS Means 

CostWorks Square Foot Estimator to obtain the default costs for each building type for 

each component. The RS Means default building is the baseline used to create a building 

that is compliant with each of the five energy efficiency design alternatives: ASHRAE 

90.1-1999, ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the higher 

efficiency “Low Energy Case" (LEC) design. The RS Means default buildings are 

adapted to match the five prototype building designs by using the RS Means CostWorks 

Cost Books databases. 

Five components -- roof insulation, wall insulation, windows, lighting, and HVAC 

efficiency -- are changed to make the prototypical designs ASHRAE 

90.1-1999, -2001, -2004, and -2007 compliant. A summary of the minimum requirement 

ranges, excluding HVAC efficiency, for each building design are shown in Table 3-1. 

The windows are selected to meet the minimum window characteristics (U-factor, solar 

heat gain coefficient (SHGC), and visible transmittance (VT)) required by the building 

design at the lowest possible cost. The lighting density in watts per unit of conditioned 

floor area is adjusted to meet each standard edition’s requirements. 

5 See Kneifel (2012) for additional details of the cost data used in the BIRDS database. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

Table 3-1 Energy Efficiency Component Requirements for Alternative Building 

Designs 

Design ASHRAE ASHRAE ASHRAE ASHRAE Low Energy 

Component Parameter Units 90.1-1999 90.1-2001 90.1-2004 90.1-2007 Case* 

Roof 

Insulation R-Value m 2

∙K/W 

(ft2

∙°F∙h/Btu) 

1.7 to 4.4 

(10.0 to 25.0) 

1.7 to 4.4 

(10.0 to 25.0) 

2.6 to 3.5 

(15.0 to 20.0) 

2.6 to 3.5 

(15.0 to 20.0) 

4.4 to 6.2 

(25.0 to 35.0) 

Wall 

Insulation R-Value m 2

*K/W 

(ft2

∙°F∙h/Btu) 

0.0 to 3.8 

(0.0 to 21.6) 

0.0 to 3.8 

(0.0 to 21.6) 

0.0 to 2.7 

(0.0 to 15.2) 

0.0 to 2.7 

(0.0 to 15.2) 

0.7 to 5.5 

(3.8 to 31.3) 

Windows U-Factor W/(m2∙K) 

(Btu/(h∙ft2

∙°F)) 

1.42 to 7.21 

(0.25 to 1.27) 

1.42 to 7.21 

(0.25 to 1.27) 

1.99 to 6.47 

(0.35 to 1.14) 

2.50 to 6.47 

(0.44 to 1.14) 

1.97 to 6.42 

(0.35 to 1.13) 

SHGC Fraction 0.14 to NR† 0.14 to NR† 0.17 to NR† 0.25 to NR 0.25 to 0.47 

Lighting Power 

Density W/m2 (W/ft2

) 14.0 to 20.5 

(1.3 to 1.9) 

14.0 to 20.5 

(1.3 to 1.9) 

10.8 to 16.1 

(1.0 to 1.5) 

10.8 to 16.1 

(1.0 to 1.5) 

8.6 to 16.1 

(0.8 to 1.5) 

Overhangs None None None None Zones 1 to 5 

Daylighting None None None None Zones 1 to 8 

†North facing SHGC requirements are less restrictive than the requirements for the other 3 orientations. 

* Low Energy Case design requirements are taken from the EnergyPlus simulations. 

NR = No Requirement for one or more climate zones. The value of SHGC cannot exceed 1.0. 

The LEC design increases the thermal efficiency of insulation and windows beyond 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, further reduces the lighting power density, and adds daylighting and 

window overhangs. The lighting density of the lighting system is decreased by first 

increasing the efficiency of the lighting system and then decreasing the number of 

fixtures in the lighting system.6 Daylighting is included for all building types and climate 

zones. Overhangs are placed on the east, west, and south sides of the building for each 

floor in Climate Zone 1 through Climate Zone 5 because these warmer climates are the 

zones that benefit from blocking solar radiation.7 

Table 3-2 summarizes the HVAC efficiency requirements for each building design option 

across the different types of HVAC equipment.8 Note that the LEC design assumes the 

same equipment efficiencies as ASHRAE 90.1-2007. This study assumes that cooling 

equipment is run on electricity while heating equipment is run on natural gas. The most 

significant increases in HVAC efficiency requirements occur between ASHRAE 90.1­

1999 and ASHRAE 90.1-2001 except for rooftop packaged units, which have consistently 

increasing requirements across the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard editions. 

6 First, incandescent lighting is replaced with compact fluorescent lighting while typical T-12 fluorescent 

tube lighting is replaced with more efficient T-8 fluorescent tube lighting to decrease the lighting density of 

the lighting system. Second, the number of fixtures is reduced to meet the remainder of the required 

reduction in watts per unit of floor area. Increasing the efficiency of the lighting increases the costs of 

construction. The first approach increases first costs while the second approach decreases first costs for the 

lighting system. This approach is based on Belzer et al. (2005) and Halverson et al. (2006). 

7 Overhang cost source is Winiarski et al. (2003) 

8 This study does not account for new HVAC efficiency requirements set by federal regulations. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

Table 3-2 HVAC Energy Efficiency Requirements for Alternative Building Designs
 

HVAC Equipment Type Unit ASHRAE ASHRAE ASHRAE ASHRAE Low Energy 

Type 90.1-1999 90.1-2001 90.1-2004 90.1-2007 Case 

Cooling Rooftop Packaged Unit EER 8.2 to 9.0 9.0 to 9.9 9.2 to 10.1 9.5 to 13.0 9.5 to 13.0 

Air-Cooled Chiller COP 2.5 to 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 

Water-Cooled Chiller COP 3.80 to 5.20 4.45 to 5.50 4.45 to 5.50 4.45 to 5.50 4.45 to 5.50 

Split System with EER 8.7 to 9.9 9.9 to 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 

Condensing Unit 

Heating Hot Water Boiler Et 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 

Furnace Et 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 75 % to 80 % 

Assume that Ec = 75% Et and AFUE = Et, where Ec = combustion efficiency; Et = thermal efficiency; AFUE = Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency 

EER = Energy Efficiency Ratio 

COP = Coefficient of Performance 

Note: Efficiency requirement ranges are based only on the system sizes calculated in the whole building energy simulations. 

The HVAC system size varies across the five building designs because changing the 

thermal characteristics of the building envelope alters the heating and cooling loads of the 

building. The EnergyPlus whole building energy simulations “autosize” the HVAC 

system to determine the appropriate system size to efficiently maintain the thermal 

comfort while dealing with ventilation requirements. For each building design, the 

HVAC cost for the default HVAC system is replaced with the cost of the “autosized” 

HVAC system. An HVAC efficiency cost multiplier is used to adjust the HVAC 

equipment costs in accordance with the standard efficiency requirements shown in Table 

3-2. 

Construction costs for a building in each location are estimated by summing the baseline 

costs for the RS Means default building and the changes in costs required to meet the 

alternative prototype designs. National average construction costs are adjusted with the 

2009 RS Means CostWorks City Indexes to control for local material and labor price 

variations. The “weighted average” city construction cost index is used to adjust the costs 

for the baseline default building while “component” city indexes are used to adjust the 

costs for the design changes. Once the indexed construction cost of the building is 

calculated, it is multiplied by the contractor “mark-up” rate, 25 %, and architectural fees 

rate, 7 %, to estimate the building's “first costs” of construction for the prototype 

buildings. These rates are the default values used by the RSMeans Square Foot 

Estimator. 

3.2 Future Costs 

Component and building lifetimes and component repair requirements are based on data 

from Whitestone (2008). Building service lifetimes are assumed constant across climate 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

zones: apartment buildings lasting for 65 years; dormitories for 44 years; and hotels, 

schools, office buildings, retail stores, and restaurants for 41 years. 

Building component maintenance, repair, and replacement (MRR) rates are from Kneifel 

(2010) and Kneifel (2011a). Insulation and windows are assumed to have a lifespan 

greater than 40 years and have no maintenance requirements. Insulation is assumed to 

have no repair costs. Windows have an assumed annual repair cost equal to replacing 1 % 

of all window panes, with costs that vary depending on the required window 

specifications (RS Means, 2009). The heating and cooling units have different lifespans 

and repair rates based on climate, ranging from 4 to 33 years for repairs and 13 to 50 

years for replacements. 

MRR cost data are collected from two sources. The total maintenance and repair costs per 

square foot of conditioned floor area (minus the HVAC maintenance and repair costs) 

represent the baseline MRR costs per unit of floor area, which occur for a building type 

regardless of the energy efficiency measures incorporated into the design. These data are 

collected from Whitestone (2008), which reports average maintenance and repair costs 

per unit of floor area by building component for each year of service life for each 

building type. The building types in Whitestone do not match exactly to the 11 building 

types selected for this study, and the most comparable profile is selected. 

RS Means CostWorks is the source of MRR costs for the individual components for 

which MRR costs change across alternative building designs, which in this analysis are 

the HVAC system, lighting system, and windows. Lighting systems, including 

daylighting controls for the LEC design, are assumed to be replaced every 20 years. The 

HVAC system size varies based on the thermal performance of the alternative building 

design, which results in varying MRR costs because smaller systems are relatively 

cheaper to maintain, repair, and replace. 

Future MRR costs are discounted to equivalent present values using the Single Present 

Value (SPV) factors for future non-fuel costs reported in Rushing and Lippiatt (2008), 

which are calculated using the U.S. Department of Energy's 2008 real discount rate for 

energy conservation projects (3 %). 

A building's residual value is its value at the end of the study period. It is estimated in 

three parts, for the building (excluding components replaced during the study period), the 

HVAC system, and the lighting system based on the approach defined in Fuller et al. 

(1996). The building's residual value is assumed to be equal to the building's first cost 

(minus any components replaced over the study period) multiplied by the ratio of the 

study period to the service life of the building, and discounted from the end of the study 

period. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

Two components may be replaced during the study period, the lighting and HVAC 

systems. Residual values for these components are computed for each location in a 

similar manner to the building residual value. The remaining “life” of the component is 

determined by taking its service life minus the number of years since its last installation, 

whether it occurred during building construction or replacement. The ratio of remaining 

life to service life is multiplied by the installed cost of the lighting and HVAC systems, 

and discounted from the end of the study period. The lighting system service life is 20 

years while the HVAC system service life varies by location based on Towers et al. 

(2008). 

Annual energy costs are estimated by multiplying annual electricity and natural gas use 

predicted by the whole building energy simulation by the average state retail commercial 

electricity and natural gas prices, respectively. Average state commercial electricity and 

natural gas prices for 2009 are collected from the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) Electric Power Annual State Data Tables (EIA, 2010a) and Natural Gas Navigator 

(EIA, 2010b), respectively. The electricity and natural gas prices are assumed to change 

over time according to EIA forecasts from 2009 to 2039. These forecasts are embodied in 

the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Uniform Present Value Discount 

Factors for energy price estimates (UPV*) reported in Rushing and Lippiatt (2009).9 The 

UPV* values are used to discount future energy costs to equivalent present values. The 

discount factors vary by Census region, building sector, and fuel type. 

9 The escalation rates for years 31-40 are assumed to be the same as for year 30. 

13
 
Study Design 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Stock Data 

4 Building Stock Data 

Aggregating the savings for individual newly constructed commercial buildings to the 

state level requires new construction data for each building type within each state. This 

study uses the commercial building weighting factors reported in Jarnagin and 

Bandyopadhyay (2010) to estimate the total energy use savings, energy cost savings, lifecycle cost savings, and carbon emissions reduction resulting from adopting newer energy 

standard editions for each state. Jarnagin and Bandyopadhyay (2010) use two databases 

to generate the commercial building weighting factors: the 2003 Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and a McGraw-Hill construction dataset. The 

databases and the resulting weighting factors are described below. 

4.1 Databases 

The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) is a sample survey 

that collects information on the existing stock of U.S. commercial buildings. The sample 

includes 5215 buildings across the U.S. and 14 building type categories: education, food 

sales, food service, health care, lodging, mercantile, office, public assembly, public order 

and safety, religious worship, service, warehouse and storage, other, and vacant. Each 

category includes up to 12 subcategories as shown in Table A-1 in Appendix A. The 

survey data do not report the age or specific location of the building to protect the 

confidentiality of the respondents. 

The McGraw-Hill dataset includes data for all new commercial buildings and additions, 

over 254 000 records and 761.8 million m2 (8.2 billion ft2

) of new construction, for 2003 

through 2007. The data are more detailed than the CBECS data, and include year of 

construction and location. 

4.2 Weighting Factors 

Jarnagin and Bandyopadhyay (2010) maps the more detailed McGraw-Hill dataset to the 

CBECS categories and subcategories shown in Table 4-1. The prototype commercial 

buildings analyzed in this study, shown in bold, represent 54.2 % of new commercial 

building stock floor area for 2003 through 2007 for the Northeast Census Region. The 

McGraw-Hill dataset is aggregated at the CBECS category-level. For this study, a 

prototype building is assumed to represent its entire CBECS category, which implies the 

prototypes together represent 64.0 % of the new commercial building stock. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Stock Data 

Table 4-1 New Commercial Building Construction (Northeast, 2003 through 2007) 

Category Subcategory 

Conditioned Floor 

Area 

1000 m2 (1000 ft2

) 

Percentage in 

Category 

Percentage 

of Total 

Office Large 2370 (25 514) 22.2 % 2.1% 

Office Medium 4314 (46 430) 40.4 % 3.9% 

Office Small 3993 (42 982) 37.4 % 3.6% 

Retail 11 833 (127 372) 72.9 % 10.6% 

Strip Mall 4399 (47 349) 27.1 % 3.9% 

School Primary 4387 (47 223) 32.5 % 3.9% 

School Secondary 9112 (98 078) 67.5 % 8.1% 

Hospital 2996 (32 251) 44.1 % 2.7% 

Other Health Care 3798 (40 880) 55.9 % 3.4% 

Restaurant Sit Down 511 (5503) 52.9 % 0.5% 

Restaurant Fast Food 455 (4899) 47.1 % 0.4% 

Hotel Large 5376 (57 863) 74.2 % 4.8% 

Hotel/Motel Small 1869 (20 120) 25.8 % 1.7% 

Warehouse 11 007 (118 479) 9.8 % 

Public Assembly 5418 (58 321) 4.8 % 

Apartment High-rise 12 709 (136 800) 55.1 % 11.4 % 

Apartment Mid-rise 10 356 (111 476) 44.9 % 9.2 % 

No Prototype 17 070 (183 742) 15.2 % 

Total (2003 to 2007) 111 974 (1 205 281) 100.0 % 

Note: Subcategory weighting is based on national construction data. 

The types and floor area of buildings being constructed vary across states. Table A-2 and 

Table A-3 in Appendix A report new building construction for 2003 through 2007 by 

building type and state, in total new floor area and percentage of new floor area, 

respectively. The data in Table A-2 are used to aggregate the total savings for the new 

construction in the CBECS categories represented by the prototype building analyzed in 

this study. Nine of the eleven prototype commercial buildings analyzed in this study are 

covered by data reported in Table 4-1. No data for dormitories are reported, which limites 

the ability to estimate statewide impacts for the two types of dormitories. 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis Approach 

5 Analysis Approach 

The analysis in this report compares benefits and costs of the current state energy codes 

to more stringent alternatives. The relative changes in energy use, energy costs, energyrelated carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs use the current energy code for a state as 

the baseline and uses each ASHRAE 90.1 Standard edition that is newer than that 

required by the current state energy code as an alternative design. The results are 

considered on both a percentage change and an aggregate change basis. 

5.1 Energy Use 

The analysis uses each state’s current energy code as the baseline energy efficiency 

design. For any state without a state energy code, ASHRAE 90.1-1999 is assumed to be 

the baseline because it represents minimum energy-related industry practices. The 

baseline for each state is compared to the higher energy efficiency building designs to 

determine the relative annual energy use savings resulting from adopting a more recent 

standard edition as the state’s energy code. For example, if a state’s energy code has 

adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as its energy standard requirement, this baseline energy use 

is compared to the energy use of all newer energy standard editions, ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

and ASHRAE 90.1-2007, as well as a “Low Energy Case” that increases building energy 

efficiency beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

It is assumed that the building maintains its energy efficiency performance throughout the 

study period, resulting in energy consumption remaining constant over the entire study 

period. This assumption is justified by the maintenance, repair, and replacement costs 

included in the analysis to ensure the building and its equipment performs as expected. 

5.2 Life-Cycle Costing 

Life-cycle costing (LCC) takes into account all relevant costs throughout the chosen 

study period, including construction costs, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, 

energy costs, and residual values. A cost’s present value (PV) is calculated by 

discounting its nominal value into today’s dollars based on the year the cost occurs and 

the assumed discount rate. LCC of buildings typically compares the costs for a baseline 

building design to the costs for alternative, more energy-efficient building designs to 

determine if future operational savings justify higher initial investments.10 For this study, 

the design based on any ASHRAE 90.1 Standard edition that is newer than the standard 

edition required by the current state energy code is compared to the baseline state energy 

code compliant design to determine the changes in life-cycle costs. 

10 All life-cycle cost calculations are based on ASTM Standards of Building Economics (2012). 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis Approach 

Two metrics are used to analyze changes in life-cycle costs: net LCC savings and net 

LCC savings as a percentage of base case LCC. Net LCC savings is the difference 

between the base case and alternative design's LCCs. 

5.3 Carbon Assessment 

The BIRDS database expands on Kneifel (2011a) by conducting a life-cycle assessment 

(LCA) of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, following guidance in the 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 series of standards for LCA. 

The analysis quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity and natural gas use 

on a cradle-to-grave basis, including emissions from raw materials acquisition, materials 

processing, generation, transmission, distribution, use, and end-of-life. 

The assessment of cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions considers a number of 

greenhouse gases for two types of energy consumption, electricity and natural gas. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the most prevalent. 

While carbon emissions from natural gas use can be assessed on a national average basis, 

those from electricity use are highly dependent upon the fuel mixes of regional electricity 

grids. For this reason, electricity emissions are assessed at the state-level using North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) sub-region level data.11 The life-cycle 

data sets for natural gas production and combustion as well as for all fuel sources in the 

electricity grid come from the U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) database (LCI, 2012). The 

state-level average emissions rates per GWh (MBtu) of electricity generated are obtained 

from the 2007 Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID2007), 

which is a collection of data from the EIA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 12 Table A-4 in Appendix A 

shows variation in the emissions rates for the top three greenhouse gases by state, which 

results from differing fuel mixes used for electricity generation in a state.13 

These greenhouse gas emissions are converted into a common unit of measure called 

carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) using equivalency factors reported in Table 5-1, which 

represent the global warming potential (GWP) of one unit of greenhouse gas relative to 

that of the same amount of carbon dioxide. For example, one unit of methane has 25 

times the GWP as the same amount of carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide has 298 times 

the GWP as carbon dioxide. The aggregated CO2e is calculated by taking the amount of 

11 For states located in more than one NERC sub-region, a weighted average of emissions rates for the
 

multiple sub-regions is implemented.
 

12 Emissions rates are held constant over all study periods.
 13 While carbon assessment of building construction, maintenance, repair, and replacement is currently
 

excluded from the analysis, it is currently under development and will be included in future analysis of this
 

work.
 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis Approach 

each flow multiplied by its CO2e factor, and summing the resulting CO2 equivalencies. 

The results are analyzed in metric tons of CO2e emissions, and will be referred to as 

“carbon emissions” for the remainder of the report. 

Table 5-1 Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potentials 

Environmental Flow GWP (CO2e) 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 

Methane (CH4) 25 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 

Ethane, 1,1-difluoro-, HFC-152a 124 

Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-, HCFC-140 146 

Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, HFC-134a 1430 

Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro-, CFC-113 6130 

Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, CFC-114 10 000 

Ethane, hexafluoro-, HFC-116 12 200 

Methane, bromo-, Halon 1001 5 

Methane, bromochlorodifluoro-, Halon 1211 1890 

Methane, bromotrifluoro-, Halon 1301 7140 

Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22 1810 

Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 9 

Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12 10 900 

Methane, monochloro-, R-40 13 

Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 1400 

Methane, tetrafluoro-, CFC-14 7390 

Methane, trichlorofluoro-, CFC-11 4750 

Methane, trifluoro-, HFC-23 14 800 

5.4 Analysis Metrics 

The average percentage energy use savings, energy cost savings, energy-related carbon 

emissions reductions, and life-cycle cost savings are calculated by taking the simple 

average of the percentage savings for each location-building type combination in the state 

or nation. The average of the percentage change is used instead of using the average 

change in total values for the state or nation because the latter approach would in effect 

give greater weight to buildings or locations with greater total changes. The simple 

average approach used in this study weights each location-building type equally. 

The estimated change in total energy use, energy costs, energy-related carbon emissions, 

and life-cycle costs for each of the building types is combined with new commercial 

building construction data to calculate the magnitude of the available total savings a state 

may realize if it were to adopt a more energy efficient standard as its state energy code. 

The total change per unit of floor area is multiplied by the average annual floor area of 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis Approach 

new construction for 2003 to 2007, discussed in Section 4.2, which results in the total 

savings over the study period for a single year’s worth of new construction in a state. 

In order to compare total savings across states for a 10-year study period, the aggregate 

savings in energy use and life-cycle costs are divided by the annual new floor area. 

Aggregate savings in energy costs and energy-related carbon emissions are divided by 

aggregate savings in energy use for a 10-year study period to create a comparable metric 

to determine the factors that impact the relative savings across states. 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

Connecticut 

Connecticut 

Connecticut has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the New England Census Division and Climate Zone 5A. 

Table 6-1 provides an overview of Connecticut’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building type and energy 

standard edition. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 82 

kWh/m2 to 101 kWh/m2 (26 kBtu/ft2 to 32 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the 

greatest amount of energy at 223 kWh/m2 to 236 kWh/m2 (71 kBtu/ ft2 to 75 kBtu/ ft2) 

annually. 

Table 6-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Connecticut 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

159 50 

157 50 

144 46 

141 45 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

122 39 

173 55 

109 34 

155 49 

HOTEL15 165 52 144 46 

HIGHS02 236 75 223 71 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

109 35 

101 32 

156 49 

89 28 

82 26 

132 42 

RETAIL1 119 38 105 33 

RSTRNT1 162 51 123 39 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings on a statewide and cityby-city basis and as total savings on a statewide basis. 

6.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in the LEC design in the state of Connecticut. 

6.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 6-2 shows the percentage changes in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -5.3 % to -24.1 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -13.4 %. High schools realize the lowest reductions in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reductions in energy use. 

Table 6-2 Average Percentage Changes in Energy Use from Adoption of the LEC 

Design, 10-Year, Connecticut 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.5 -18.5 -15.1 -0.1 

APART06 -10.6 -21.8 -17.7 -0.4 

DORMI04 -11.2 -18.9 -16.1 -1.6 

DORMI06 -10.4 -21.2 -17.2 -0.7 

HOTEL15 -12.7 -21.6 -18.3 -0.5 

HIGHS02 -5.3 -17.9 -12.8 -1.9 

OFFIC03 -17.9 -23.4 -21.8 -3.1 

OFFIC08 -18.3 -21.3 -20.5 -2.7 

OFFIC16 -15.2 -21.6 -19.6 -0.9 

RETAIL1 -12.3 -16.9 -15.5 -1.7 

RSTRNT1 -24.1 -33.6 -30.6 -4.4 

Average -13.4 -21.5 -18.7 -1.6 

There is a significant variation in the average percentage change in energy costs for the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -16.9 % to -33.6 % depending 

on the building type, with an average of -21.5 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. In fact, the energy efficiency measures increase natural gas 

consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for all building types. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

47.6 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is nearly three times greater than the percentage reduction in energy 

use. The LEC design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for 

cities in Zone 5, which decreases the building’s internal and external heat gains, 

respectively. The shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas consumption to meet 

the greater heating loads decreases energy costs because natural gas is cheaper on a per 

unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

There is significant variation in the average change in energy-related carbon emissions 

across building types for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging 

from -12.8 % to -30.6 % with an average of -18.7 %. As mentioned above, the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas 

consumption for all 11 building types. The combination of the reduction in total energy 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

use and the shift in energy use from electricity consumption to natural gas consumption 

leads to greater reductions in carbon emissions than reductions in energy use. 

The percentage change in life-cycle costs varies across building types, ranging 

from -4.4 % to -0.1 % for a 10-year study period. All 11 building types realize reductions 

in life-cycle costs. Therefore, the LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its 

state energy code for commercial buildings. 

6.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for 2 cities located in Connecticut, both located in Zone 5A: 

Bridgeport and Hartford. While the two cities are located in the same climate zone, the 

results may still vary for two reasons. First, cities within the same climate zone may have 

some variation in the local climate, which can lead to variation in energy consumption. 

Second, construction material and labor costs may vary significantly by locality. 

Table 6-3 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for adoption of the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for each city in the state. The average percentage changes in energy 

use for all building types from adopting the LEC design do not vary significantly across 

cities, ranging from -12.9 % to -13.9 % with an overall average of -13.4 %. Any variation 

in local climate appears to have minimal effects on energy consumption. 

Table 6-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City, 

10-Year, Connecticut 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Bridgeport 5A -13.9 -21.8 -16.3 -1.6 

Hartford 5A -12.9 -21.3 -15.6 -1.6 

Average -13.4 -21.5 -15.9 -1.6 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -21.3 % to -21.8 % for 10 years of operation. For 

both cities, reductions in energy costs are greater than energy use reductions because the 

percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural 

gas consumption. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon 

emissions for all building types also varies minimally across cities, ranging from -15.6 % 

to -16.3 %. Reductions in life-cycle costs for all building types are constant across both 

cities, with a percentage change of -1.6 %. There is minimal variation in local 

construction costs throughout Connecticut. 

6.2 Total Savings 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

How much can Connecticut save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

6.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 6-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.14 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 6-5 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.15 

Table 6-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Connecticut 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -15.1 -4.8 

APART06 -16.7 -5.3 

DORMI04 -13.7 -4.3 

DORMI06 -18.0 -5.7 

HOTEL15 -20.9 -6.6 

HIGHS02 -19.5 -6.2 

OFFIC03 -12.4 -3.9 

OFFIC08 -18.4 -5.8 

OFFIC16 -23.6 -7.5 

RETAIL1 -14.7 -4.7 

RSTRNT1 -39.0 -12.4 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 13.6 GWh (46.3 GBtu) of total energy use 

annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study, which represent 58.5 % of all new commercial 

floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate statewide savings to 

be 23.2 GWh (79.2 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 232.0 GWh (792.2 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

14 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

15 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

The change in energy use varies across the 9 building types with reported floor area data. 

The building types that have the greatest percentage reductions in energy use are not 

always the same buildings that lead to the greatest total reductions for the state. Instead, 

the building types that represent a greater amount of new floor area realize the largest 

changes in energy use. For example, the building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reduction in energy use for the LEC design -- retail stores and high schools -- only rank 

6th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as 

reported in Table 6-2. 

Table 6-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Connecticut 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 55.0 592 -829 089 -2 830 866 

APART06 55.1 % 67.4 725 -1 121 166 -3 828 142 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97.7 1052 -2 047 501 -6 991 047 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 238.9 2571 -2 952 006 -10 079 417 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 46.3 498 -903 013 -3 083 275 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 49.9 537 -916 556 -3 129 516 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 27.4 295 -647 018 -2 209 198 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 249.1 2681 -3 651 265 -12 466 988 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 13.0 140 -505 672 -1 726 582 

Total 844.5 9090 -13 573 285 -46 345 032 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

6.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 6-6 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type for the 

LEC design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

Table 6-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Connecticut
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$21.74 -$2.02 

APART06 -$25.86 -$2.40 

DORMI04 -$17.93 -$1.67 

DORMI06 -$27.52 -$2.56 

HOTEL15 -$27.38 -$2.54 

HIGHS02 -$27.31 -$2.54 

OFFIC03 -$27.62 -$2.57 

OFFIC08 -$24.76 -$2.30 

OFFIC16 -$33.18 -$3.08 

RETAIL1 -$19.63 -$1.82 

RSTRNT1 -$52.35 -$4.86 

Table 6-7 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with a 

statewide reduction in energy costs of $21.2 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 58.5 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $35.1 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

Table 6-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Connecticut 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 55.0 592 -$1 195 290 

APART06 55.1 % 67.4 725 -$1 741 254 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97.7 1052 -$2 676 789 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 238.9 2571 -$6 596 069 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 46.3 498 -$1 263 340
 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 49.9 537 -$1 234 909
 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 27.4 295 -$910 648 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 249.1 2681 -$4 887 982 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 13.0 140 -$678 970 

Total 844.5 9090 -$21 185 251 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

6.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 6-8 reports the average energy-related carbon emissions reduction over 10 years, 

per m 2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined in 

Section 5.3. 

Table 6-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Connecticut 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -98.2 -20.1 

APART06 -114.8 -23.5 

DORMI04 -82.9 -17.0 

DORMI06 -122.6 -25.1 

HOTEL15 -126.6 -25.9 

HIGHS02 -114.3 -23.4 

OFFIC03 -124.2 -25.4 

OFFIC08 -113.6 -23.3 

OFFIC16 -150.7 -30.9 

RETAIL1 -90.2 -18.5 

RSTRNT1 -240.4 -49.2 

Table 6-9 applies the Table 6-8 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from adoption of the 

LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across building 

designs and is highly correlated with the total reduction in energy use. The adoption of 

the LEC design decreases carbon emissions for all building types and results in total 

savings of 93 939 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one year’s worth of new 

commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the buildings considered 

in this study are generally representative of the entire new commercial building stock in 

the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the statewide 

reductions in carbon emissions of 160 579 metric tons over the 10-year study period. 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

Table 6-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Connecticut – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 55.0 592 -5,399 

APART06 55.1 % 67.4 725 -7,731 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97.7 1052 -12,374 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 238.9 2571 -27,297 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 46.3 498 -5,746 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 49.9 537 -5,668 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 27.4 295 -4,129 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 249.1 2681 -22,469 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 13.0 140 -3,127 

Total 844.5 9090 -93 939 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

6.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 6-10 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

Table 6-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Connecticut 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$1.60 -$0.15 

APART06 -$4.59 -$0.43 

DORMI04 -$17.08 -$1.59 

DORMI06 -$8.54 -$0.79 

HOTEL15 -$5.41 -$0.50 

HIGHS02 -$18.91 -$1.76 

OFFIC03 -$29.46 -$2.74 

OFFIC08 -$26.72 -$2.48 

OFFIC16 -$8.04 -$0.75 

RETAIL1 -$13.36 -$1.24 

RSTRNT1 -$65.93 -$6.12 

Table 6-11 applies the Table 6-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the change in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption 

of the LEC design. Total changes in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary 

across building type, with all 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $12.5 million in statewide life-cycle 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools and retail stores realize the greatest 

statewide decrease in life-cycle costs ($4.5 million and $3.3 million, respectively). 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be 

extrapolated to estimate a statewide decrease in life-cycle costs of $19.7 million over the 

10-year study period. 

Table 6-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Connecticut 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 55.0 592 -$87 885 

APART06 55.1 % 67.4 725 -$309 268 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97.7 1052 -$529 147 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 238.9 2571 -$4 516 248 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 46.3 498 -$1 362 519 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 49.9 537 -$1 332 949 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 27.4 295 -$220 541 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 249.1 2681 -$3 326 708 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 13.0 140 -$855 019 

Total 844.5 9090 -$12 540 284 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

6.3 State Summary 

Connecticut has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state commercial building energy 

code. On average, adopting the LEC design reduces energy use, energy costs and energyrelated carbon emissions, and does so in a cost-effective manner. Based on the average 

annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study period, 

adopting the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings would lead 

to statewide energy use savings of 232.0 GWh (792.2 GBtu), energy cost savings of 

$35.1 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 160 579 metric tons while decreasing 

life-cycle costs by $19.7 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

29
 
Connecticut 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code, and is located in 

the New England Census Division and Climate Zone 5A. Table 7-1 provides an overview 

of Massachusetts’s simulated energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. 

Average energy use varies across building type and energy standard edition. The 8-story 

office building uses the least amount of energy at 80 kWh/m2 to 98 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 

to 31 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 232 

kWh/m2 to 244 kWh/m2 (74 kBtu/ft2 to 77 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

Table 7-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Massachusetts 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

161 51 

159 51 

147 46 

144 46 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

122 39 

175 56 

109 34 

159 50 

HOTEL15 168 53 149 47 

HIGHS02 244 77 232 74 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

107 34 

98 31 

156 49 

88 28 

80 25 

134 42 

RETAIL1 119 38 105 33 

RSTRNT1 160 51 122 39 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings on a statewide and 

city-by-city basis and as total savings on a statewide basis. 

7.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in the LEC design in the state of Connecticut. 

7.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 7-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -4.6 % to -23.8 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -12.9 %. High schools realize the lowest reductions in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reductions in energy use. 

Table 7-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10-Year, 

Massachusetts 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.1 -16.8 -14.8 0.1 

APART06 -9.8 -19.5 -17.0 0.0 

DORMI04 -11.1 -17.8 -16.1 -1.3 

DORMI06 -9.5 -18.7 -16.4 -0.3 

HOTEL15 -11.8 -19.3 -17.4 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -4.6 -15.2 -12.3 -1.1 

OFFIC03 -17.6 -22.8 -21.8 -2.6 

OFFIC08 -18.3 -21.1 -20.6 -2.5 

OFFIC16 -14.4 -20.2 -19.0 -0.3 

RETAIL1 -11.8 -16.1 -15.2 0.1 

RSTRNT1 -23.8 -32.5 -30.7 -3.7 

Average -12.9 -20.0 -18.3 -1.1 

There is a significant variation in the average percentage change in energy costs for the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -15.2 % to -32.5 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -20.0 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. In fact, the energy efficiency measures increase natural gas 

consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for all building types. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

53.0 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is three times greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. 

The LEC design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for 

cities in Zone 5, which decreases the building’s internal and external heat gains, 

respectively. The shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas consumption to meet 

the greater heating loads decreases energy costs because natural gas is cheaper on a per 

unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

There is significant variation in the average change in energy-related carbon emissions 

across building types for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging 

from -12.3 % to -30.7 % with an average of -18.3 %. As mentioned above, the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas 

consumption for all 11 building types. The combination of the reduction in total energy 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

use and the shift in energy use from electricity consumption to natural gas consumption 

leads to greater reductions in carbon emissions than reductions in energy use. 

The percentage change in life-cycle costs varies across building types, ranging 

from -3.7 % to 0.1 % for a 10-year study period. Eight of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Based on the overall average percentage change of -1.1 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design is likely to be cost-effective if the state adopt it as its 

state energy code for commercial buildings. 

7.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for 2 cities located in Massachusetts, both located in Zone 5A: 

Boston and Worcester. While the two cities are located in the same climate zone, the 

results may still vary for two reasons. First, cities within the same climate zone may have 

some variation in the local climate, which can lead to variation in energy consumption. 

Second, construction material and labor costs may vary significantly by locality. 

Table 7-3 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

for each city in the state. The average percentage changes in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design do not vary significantly across cities, ranging from 

-12.3 % to -13.5 % with an overall average of -12.9 %. Any variation in local climate 

appears to have minimal effects on energy consumption. 

Table 7-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City, 

10-Year, Massachusetts 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Boston 5A -13.5 -20.3 -18.8 -0.9 

Worcester 5A -12.3 -19.7 -18.0 -1.2 

Average -12.9 -20.0 18.3 -1.1 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -19.7 % to -20.3 % for 10 years of operation. For 

both cities, percentage reductions in energy costs are greater than percentage reductions 

in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than 

the reduction in natural gas consumption. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage 

change in carbon emissions for all building types also varies minimally across cities, 

ranging from -18.0 % to -18.8 %. Reductions in life-cycle costs for all building types 

vary across cities, with the percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -1.2 % in 

Worcester to -0.9 % in Boston. 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

7.2 Total Savings 

How much can Massachusetts save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

7.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 7-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.16 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 7-5 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.17 

Table 7-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Massachusetts 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -14.6 -4.6 

APART06 -15.6 -4.9 

DORMI04 -13.5 -4.3 

DORMI06 -16.7 -5.3 

HOTEL15 -19.9 -6.3 

HIGHS02 -18.8 -6.0 

OFFIC03 -11.2 -3.5 

OFFIC08 -18.0 -5.7 

OFFIC16 -22.5 -7.1 

RETAIL1 -14.1 -4.5 

RSTRNT1 -37.9 -12.0 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 25.7 GWh (87.7 GBtu) of total energy use 

annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study, which represent 63.6 % of all new commercial 

floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate statewide savings to 

16 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

17 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

be 40.4 GWh (137.9 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 403.8 GWh (1378.9 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

The total change in energy use varies across building types. The building types that have 

the greatest percentage reductions in energy use are not always the same buildings that 

lead to the greatest total reductions for the state. Instead the building types that represent 

a greater amount of new floor area realize the largest reductions in energy use. For 

example, the building types that lead to the greatest estimated reduction in energy use for 

the LEC design -- retail stores and 6-story apartments -- only rank 5th and 8th in 

percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 7-2. 

Table 7-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Massachusetts 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 266.0 2863 -3 877 165 -13 238 310 

APART06 55.1 % 325.8 3507 -5 074 968 -17 328 124 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 176.8 1903 -3 523 368 -12 030 293 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 271.3 2920 -3 027 719 -10 337 935 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 82.5 888 -1 554 979 -5 309 366 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 89.0 958 -1 601 388 -5 467 828 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 49.0 527 -1 101 807 -3 762 041 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 354.5 3816 -5 003 557 -17 084 295 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 24.2 261 -919 678 -3 140 176 

Total 1639.3 17645 -25 684 629 -87 698 368 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

7.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 7-6 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type for the 

LEC design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

Table 7-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Massachusetts
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$19.07 -$1.77 

APART06 -$22.12 -$2.06 

DORMI04 -$15.98 -$1.48 

DORMI06 -$23.31 -$2.17 

HOTEL15 -$23.71 -$2.20 

HIGHS02 -$24.12 -$2.24 

OFFIC03 -$23.84 -$2.22 

OFFIC08 -$22.08 -$2.05 

OFFIC16 -$29.02 -$2.70 

RETAIL1 -$17.32 -$1.61 

RSTRNT1 -$46.46 -$4.32 

Table 7-7 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with a 

statewide reduction in energy costs of $35.6 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 63.6 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $56.0 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

Table 7-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Massachusetts 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 266.0 2863 -$5 074 238 

APART06 55.1 % 325.8 3507 -$7 209 197 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 176.8 1903 -$4 191 768 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 271.3 2920 -$6 467 915 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 82.5 888 -$1 991 071
 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 89.0 958 -$1 965 257
 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 49.0 527 -$1 421 337 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 354.5 3816 -$6 138 432 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 24.2 261 -$1 127 430 

Total 1639.3 17645 -35 586 647 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

7.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 7-8 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 years, 

per m 2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined in 

Section 5.3. 

Table 7-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Massachusetts 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -95.4 -19.5 

APART06 -109.3 -22.4 

DORMI04 -81.2 -16.6 

DORMI06 -115.4 -23.6 

HOTEL15 -120.4 -24.7 

HIGHS02 -112.1 -23.0 

OFFIC03 -121.0 -24.8 

OFFIC08 -111.6 -22.8 

OFFIC16 -145.5 -29.8 

RETAIL1 -87.5 -17.9 

RSTRNT1 -234.8 -48.1 

Table 7-9 applies the Table 7-8 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from adoption of the 

LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across building 

designs and is highly correlated with the total reduction in energy use. The LEC design 

decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design results 

in savings of 176 424 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one year’s worth of 

new commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate 

statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 277 396 metric tons over the 10-year study 

period. 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

Table 7-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Massachusetts – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 266.0 2863 -25 374 

APART06 55.1 % 325.8 3507 -35 610 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 176.8 1903 -21 287 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 271.3 2920 -30 399 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 82.5 888 -9991 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 89.0 958 -9929 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 49.0 527 -7124 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 354.5 3816 -31 014 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 24.2 261 -5697 

Total 1639.3 17 645 -176 424 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 7-10 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

Table 7-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Massachusetts 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $1.58 $0.15 

APART06 -$0.28 -$0.03 

DORMI04 -$14.49 -$1.35 

DORMI06 -$3.80 -$0.35 

HOTEL15 -$1.10 -$0.10 

HIGHS02 -$10.87 -$1.01 

OFFIC03 -$24.44 -$2.27 

OFFIC08 -$24.28 -$2.26 

OFFIC16 -$2.94 -$0.27 

RETAIL1 $0.97 $0.09 

RSTRNT1 -$55.65 -$5.17 

Table 7-11 applies the Table 7-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate changes in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption of 

the LEC design. Total changes in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary 

across building type, with 7 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $8.1 million in statewide life-cycle costs 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools, 8-story office buildings, and 3-story office 

buildings realize the greatest statewide decreases in life-cycle costs ($2.9 million, 

$2.2 million, and $2.0 million, respectively) while 4-story apartment buildings and retail 

stores realize increases in life-cycle costs ($420 180 and $342 608, respectively). 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be 

extrapolated to estimate a statewide decrease in life-cycle costs of $12.8 million over the 

10-year study period. 

Table 7-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Massachusetts 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 266.0 2863 $420 180 

APART06 55.1 % 325.8 3507 -$91 074 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 176.8 1903 -$194 373 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 271.3 2920 -$2 947 480 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 82.5 888 -$2 016 837 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 89.0 958 -$2 161 502 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 49.0 527 -$143 838 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 354.5 3816 $342 608 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 24.2 261 -$1 350 337 

Total 1639.3 17 645 -$8 142 653 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

7.3 State Summary 

Massachusetts has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. On average, adopting the LEC design reduces energy use, energy costs, and 

energy-related carbon emissions, and does so in a cost-effective manner. Based on the 

average annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study 

period, adopting the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would lead to statewide energy use savings of 403.8 GWh (1378.9 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $56.0 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 277 396 metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $12.8 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

39
 
Massachusetts 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 

Maine 

Maine 

Maine is located in the coldest climate zones in the Northeast Census Region (Zone 6 and 

Zone 7). The state does not have a commercial building energy code, and is assumed to 

build to the current minimum industry practices represented by ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

requirements. Table 8-1 provides an overview of Maine’s simulated energy use keyed to 

building types and energy standard editions. Average energy use varies across building 

type and energy standard edition. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of 

energy at 87 kWh/m2 to 121 kWh/m2 (28 kBtu/ft2 to 38 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high 

school uses the greatest amount of energy at 286 kWh/m2 to 320 kWh/m2 (91 kBtu/ft2 to 

102 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

Table 8-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Maine 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

1999 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2001 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

208 66 

205 65 

208 66 

204 65 

194 61 

190 60 

184 59 

182 58 

167 53 

165 52 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

164 52 

224 71 

163 52 

223 71 

154 49 

208 66 

143 45 

200 63 

124 39 

183 58 

HOTEL15 203 64 202 64 189 60 193 61 174 55 

HIGHS02 320 102 319 101 316 100 304 97 286 91 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

136 43 

121 38 

178 56 

134 43 

119 38 

177 56 

127 40 

111 35 

169 54 

116 37 

106 34 

174 55 

93 30 

87 28 

153 49 

RETAIL1 167 53 166 53 157 50 139 44 114 36 

RSTRNT1 231 73 228 72 216 69 178 56 130 41 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of increasingly 

stringent energy standard editions. The results are reported in terms of average 

percentage savings on a statewide and city-by-city basis and as total savings on a 

statewide basis. 

8.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in more energy efficient designs for the state of Maine. 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

8.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 8-2 shows minimal change in energy use from adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 with all 11 building types having energy use reductions of 

1.6 % or less. There is a small decrease in energy use for all 11 building types for 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, with the percentage change in energy use ranging from -1.5 % 

to -8.4 % with an average of -6.2 %. The average change in energy use from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -2.2 % to -22.8 %, with an 

overall average of -11.4 %. 

Table 8-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.3 -7.1 -11.5 -19.9 

APART06 -0.3 -7.2 -11.2 -19.3 

DORMI04 -0.8 -6.0 -13.1 -24.4 

DORMI06 -0.4 -7.0 -10.7 -18.0 

HOTEL15 -0.6 -7.1 -5.0 -14.0 

HIGHS02 -0.3 -1.5 -4.9 -10.7 

OFFIC03 -1.1 -6.1 -14.2 -31.1 

OFFIC08 -1.6 -8.4 -12.8 -28.1 

OFFIC16 -0.7 -4.8 -2.2 -13.9 

RETAIL1 -0.6 -6.1 -16.7 -31.7 

RSTRNT1 -1.2 -6.4 -22.8 -43.6 

Average -0.7 -6.2 -11.4 -23.1 

For the high-rise, 100 % glazed buildings (16-story office building and 15-story hotel), 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 is actually more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 because 

the maximum window SHGC in Zone 7 and Zone 8 is decreased from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, making the requirement stricter. Buildings in colder 

climates benefit from additional solar heat gains. The 100 % glazing amplifies the lost 

heat gain from the lower SHGC, which increases natural gas consumption enough to 

overwhelm the energy efficiency gains obtained from other measures that decrease 

energy consumption, such as increased roof insulation R-values. 

The LEC design realizes the greatest reductions in energy use, with the change in energy 

use relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 ranging from -10.7 % to -43.6 % with an average 

of -23.1 %. Similar to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the lowest reduction in energy use 

for the LEC design occurs in the buildings with the greatest window-to-wall ratio due to 

the stricter window SHGC requirement. Additionally, the high school realizes smaller 

reductions in energy use because of its unique occupant activity, significant occupancy 

during the school year and minimal occupancy during the summer. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

8.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 8-3 shows a minimal percentage change in energy costs over 10 years from 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (-0.5 % to -1.8 %), which mirrors the energy use results 

described above. There is a significant variation in the percentage change in average 

energy costs for ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ranging from -5.8 % to -18.5 % depending on the 

building type with an average of -13.8 %. The average change in energy costs from 

constructing buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -4.2 % 

to -22.8 %, with an overall average of -16.4 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest 

change in energy costs, with the average change by building type ranging from -15.9 % 

to -45.6 % with an average of -29.9 % overall. 

Table 8-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.5 -18.4 -21.3 -32.9 

APART06 -0.5 -18.5 -21.0 -32.3 

DORMI04 -1.2 -18.5 -22.5 -35.6 

DORMI06 -0.5 -18.1 -20.4 -30.6 

HOTEL15 -0.8 -17.0 -13.6 -23.1 

HIGHS02 -0.6 -5.8 -8.4 -18.9 

OFFIC03 -1.4 -10.0 -13.8 -31.6 

OFFIC08 -1.8 -11.6 -13.4 -29.2 

OFFIC16 -0.9 -8.3 -4.2 -15.9 

RETAIL1 -0.8 -12.4 -18.5 -33.2 

RSTRNT1 -1.6 -13.4 -22.8 -45.6 

Average -1.0 -13.8 -16.4 -29.9 

For all building designs, the average reductions in energy costs are greater than the 

reductions in energy use because not only is there a decrease in total energy consumption, 

there is a shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas. The buildings use electricity 

for all energy consumption except for the heating component of the HVAC system, 

which uses natural gas. The energy efficiency measures adopted lead to a decrease in 

energy use for both lighting and cooling the building, but an increase in heating loads. 

Since electricity is more expensive than natural gas on a per unit of energy basis, the shift 

in energy use from cooling to heating magnifies the decrease in energy costs for the 

building. 

8.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Minimal change in energy use leads to small percentage reductions (less than 2 %) in 

cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design 

across all building types. Table 8-4 shows a significant change in average energy-related 

carbon emissions for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging from -5.4 % 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

to -17.7 % with an average of -13.3 %. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design leads to slightly 

greater reductions overall than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, with the average change in carbon 

emissions ranging from -4.1 % to -22.8 % with an overall average of -16.0 %. The LEC 

design leads to the greatest average changes in carbon emissions, ranging from -15.8 % 

to -45.5 %, depending on the building type, with an average of -29.4 % across all 

building types. 

Table 8-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.5 -17.6 -20.6 -31.9 

APART06 -0.5 -17.7 -20.3 -31.4 

DORMI04 -1.2 -17.7 -21.9 -34.9 

DORMI06 -0.5 -17.3 -19.7 -29.7 

HOTEL15 -0.8 -16.3 -13.0 -22.5 

HIGHS02 -0.5 -5.4 -8.2 -18.3 

OFFIC03 -1.3 -9.7 -13.8 -31.6 

OFFIC08 -1.8 -11.4 -13.3 -29.1 

OFFIC16 -0.9 -8.1 -4.1 -15.8 

RETAIL1 -0.8 -12.0 -18.4 -33.1 

RSTRNT1 -1.6 -13.0 -22.8 -45.5 

Average -0.9 -13.3 -16.0 -29.4 

As would be expected, a more energy efficient building design results in greater 

reductions in carbon emissions. Similar to energy costs, the percentage changes in carbon 

emissions are greater than the percentage changes in energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity use and increase natural gas use. This shift 

towards natural gas use further decreases carbon emissions because electricity has a 

higher carbon emissions rate per unit of energy than natural gas in Maine. 

8.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 8-5. 

Life-cycle costs increase for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999 for 10 of 11 building types over a 10-year study period. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 are the lowest cost building designs for two and three building 

types, respectively. The change in life-cycle costs for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 

ranges from -3.1 % to 4.2 % depending on building type. The LEC design is the lowest 

cost building design for 6 building types and realizes a reduction in life-cycle costs for all 

11 building types, with the percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -0.0 % 

to -3.1 %. 

44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

Table 8-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 0.1 -2.2 -2.8 -2.6 

APART06 0.0 -2.3 -2.7 -2.4 

DORMI04 3.3 0.6 -0.2 -1.6 

DORMI06 0.0 -2.7 -3.1 -3.1 

HOTEL15 -0.1 -2.9 -2.4 -2.3 

HIGHS02 0.7 -0.3 -0.8 -1.9 

OFFIC03 4.8 2.2 1.6 -0.7 

OFFIC08 4.7 2.1 1.7 -0.0 

OFFIC16 0.0 -1.3 -0.7 -0.7 

RETAIL1 2.7 -0.2 -0.9 -1.2 

RSTRNT1 6.8 4.2 1.4 -2.6 

Average 2.1 -0.2 -0.8 -1.7 

8.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for two cities located in Maine: Portland in Climate Zone 6A and 

Caribou in Climate Zone 7. The results may vary across cities within Maine for two 

reasons. First, the state is covered by two climate zones. The ASHRAE 90.1 building 

design requirements vary across climate zones and will impact the relative energy 

efficiency of the building. Second, construction material and labor costs vary by locality. 

As can be seen in Table 8-6, average reductions in energy use for all building types from 

adopting newer energy standard editions varies minimally across climate zones. The 

adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2001 or -2004 leads to greater reductions for Zone 6 than for 

Zone 7. The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the LEC design leads to lower 

reductions for Zone 6 than for Zone 7. For the LEC design, Zone 7 realizes a change in 

average energy use of -24.2 % compared to -22.1 % for Zone 6. 

Table 8-6 Average Percentage Changes in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, Maine, 10-Year 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Caribou 7 -0.6 -5.2 -12.0 -24.2 

Portland 6A -0.8 -7.1 -10.8 -22.1 

Average -0.7 -6.2 -11.4 -23.1 

The variations in energy costs across cities are a result of two factors, the reductions in 

energy use and the fuel source of the reductions. Table 8-7 shows that the climate zone 

with the greatest reduction in energy use realizes the greatest reduction in energy costs 

for each of the building designs. Both climate zones realize larger percentage reductions 

45
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

in energy costs than percentage reductions in energy use because energy use is shifted 

from electricity to natural gas consumption. Since electricity is more expensive than 

natural gas on a per unit basis, the shift in energy use leads to additional reductions in 

energy costs. 

Table 8-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Maine 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Caribou 7 -0.8 -13.0 -16.5 -30.0 

Portland 6A -1.1 -14.7 -16.2 -29.8 

Average -1.0 -13.8 -16.4 -29.9 

Table 8-8 reports changes in energy-related carbon emissions by city for Maine. For both 

cities, the more stringent standard editions result in greater reductions in carbon 

emissions. For all building designs, the city that realizes the greatest reductions in energy 

use realizes the greatest reductions in carbon emissions. 

Table 8-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Maine 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Caribou 7 -0.7 -11.9 -15.9 -29.5 

Portland 6A -1.0 -13.6 -15.5 -29.1 

Average -0.9 -12.7 -15.7 -29.3 

The data reported in Table 8-9 show that, over a 10-year period, average life-cycle costs 

increase for all cities for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999. Adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 designs both 

result in average reductions in life-cycle costs for both cities relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999. Adoption of the LEC design realizes the greatest average percentage 

reductions in life-cycle costs for cities in both Zone 6 and Zone 7. For the LEC design, 

the city in Zone 6 realizes slightly greater reductions in life-cycle costs than the city in 

Zone 7 (2.0 % versus 1.5 %). 

Table 8-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, Maine 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Caribou 7 2.2 -0.2 -0.6 -1.5 

Portland 6A 1.9 -0.3 -1.1 -2.0 

Average 2.1 -0.2 -0.8 -1.7 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

8.2 Total Savings 

How much can Maine save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions, 

from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? What are the 

life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer these 

questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building type 

in the state. 

8.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 8-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.18 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 8-11 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual change in energy use 

for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and large 

office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.19 

Table 8-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-0.7 -0.2 

-0.7 -0.2 

-14.6 -4.6 

-14.6 -4.6 

-23.9 -7.6 

-22.8 -7.3 

-41.3 -13.1 

-39.4 -12.5 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-1.3 -0.4 

-0.8 -0.3 

-9.7 -3.1 

-15.5 -4.9 

-21.4 -6.8 

-24.1 -7.7 

-40.2 -12.7 

-40.3 -12.8 

HOTEL15 -1.1 -0.4 -14.2 -4.5 -10.3 -3.3 -28.6 -9.1 

HIGHS02 -1.0 -0.3 -8.2 -2.6 -19.4 -6.2 -42.3 -13.4 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-1.5 -0.5 

-1.9 -0.6 

-1.2 -0.4 

-4.6 -1.5 

-10.2 -3.2 

-8.4 -2.7 

-15.8 -5.0 

-15.5 -4.9 

-4.18 -1.3 

-34.4 -10.9 

-34.0 -10.8 

-24.9 -7.9 

RETAIL1 -1.0 -0.3 -10.0 -3.2 -27.9 -8.9 -53.3 -16.9 

RSTRNT1 -2.7 -0.8 -14.6 -4.6 -53.0 -16.8 -101.0 -32.1 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 8-11 ranges widely across building 

designs, but all building designs decrease overall energy use across the state relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 designs result in annual decreases of 310 470 kWh (1.1 GBtu), 2.6 

GWh (8.8 GBtu), and 5.8 GWh (19.8 GBtu), respectively. The adoption of the LEC 

design as the state’s energy code would save energy for all building types and 11.9 GWh 

18 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

19 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

(40.7 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one year’s worth of new construction for 

these building types. 

Table 8-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Maine 

Building 

Type 

Subcategory 

Weighting m 2 

(1000s) 

ft2 

(1000s) 

Standard Edition 

2001 

MWh MBtu 

2004 

MWh MBtu 

2007 

MWh MBtu 

LEC 

MWh MBtu 

APART04 

APART06 

44.9 % 

55.1 % 

5.8 

7.1 

62 

76 

-4 -13 

-5 -17 

-84 -287 

-103 -350 

-137 -469 

-161 -548 

-237 -810 

-277 -946 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 33.3 358 -37 -128 -473 -1616 -344 -1175 -952 -3250 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 62.7 675 -63 -214 -289 -985 -991 -3383 -2156 -7360 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

16.7 

18.1 

9.9 

180 

195 

107 

-25 -85 

-34 -117 

-12 -42 

-137 -467 

-185 -631 

-84 -287 

-325 -1111 

-280 -956 

-42 -142 

-709 -2419 

-615 -2099 

-248 -845 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 113.2 1218 -112 -383 -1 -3 860 -3158 -10 784 -6031 -20 594 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 6.9 74 -18 -62 -100 -341 -362 -1237 -691 -2359 

Total 273.5 2944 -310 -1 060 -2 584 -8 824 -5800 -19 805 -11 915 -40 683 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 55.0 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate the total 

statewide savings from LEC adoption in new commercial buildings to be 21.7 GWh (74.0 

GBtu) per year. These savings imply 216.6 GWh (740 GBtu) in energy use savings over 

the 10-year study period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would save 10.5 GWh 

(36.0 GBtu) annually or 105.5 GWh (360.1 GBtu) over the 10-year study period. 

The statewide change in energy use across the 9 building types with reported floor area 

data are consistent across building designs and vary within a building design. Building 

types that represent the greatest amount of new floor area realize the largest changes in 

aggregate energy use. The greatest reductions across all building designs are realized by 

retail stores followed by high schools and hotels. The smallest reductions are realized by 

the 4- and 6-story apartments and 16-story office buildings. The building types that have 

the greatest percentage reduction in energy use are not always the same buildings that 

lead to the greatest total reductions for the state. For example, the building types that lead 

to the greatest estimated reduction in energy use for the LEC design -- retail stores and 

high schools -- rank 2nd and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 

building types, as reported in Table 8-2. 

8.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 8-12 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type and 

building design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

Table 8-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maine
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$0.65 

-$0.67 

-$0.06 

-$0.06 

-$24.43 

-$24.42 

-$2.27 

-$2.27 

-$28.29 

-$27.79 

-$2.63 

-$2.58 

-$43.70 

-$42.77 

-$4.06 

-$3.97 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$1.28 

-$0.75 

-$0.12 

-$0.07 

-$20.10 

-$26.05 

-$1.87 

-$2.42 

-$24.49 

-$29.39 

-$2.28 

-$2.73 

-$38.77 

-$44.07 

-$3.60 

-$4.09 

HOTEL15 -$1.08 -$0.10 -$22.60 -$2.10 -$18.08 -$1.68 -$30.82 -$2.86 

HIGHS02 -$1.42 -$0.13 -$10.44 -$0.97 -$14.48 -$1.35 -$33.11 -$3.08 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$0.96 

-$1.82 

-$1.18 

-$0.09 

-$0.17 

-$0.11 

-$10.17 

-$11.77 

-$10.97 

-$0.94 

-$1.09 

-$1.02 

-$14.90 

-$13.57 

-$5.69 

-$1.38 

-$1.26 

-$0.53 

-$33.41 

-$29.57 

-$21.12 

-$3.10 

-$2.75 

-$1.96 

RETAIL1 -$0.95 -$0.09 -$14.67 -$1.36 -$21.91 -$2.04 -$39.33 -$3.65 

RSTRNT1 -$2.55 -$0.24 -$21.65 -$2.01 -$36.83 -$3.42 -$73.71 -$6.85 

Table 8-13 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years of building operation. All building types realize reductions in energy costs for 

all building designs. The ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design realizes small reductions in energy 

costs ($298 613). ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the LEC design realize 

decreases in energy costs of $4.0 million, $5.2 million, and $9.9 million respectively. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 55.0 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate 

statewide reductions in energy costs of $542 933, $7.3 million, $9.4 million, and 

$18.0 million over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

Table 8-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Maine 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 5.8 62 -$3718 -$140 176 -$162 334 -$250 720 

APART06 55.1 % 7.1 76 -$4699 -$171 589 -$195 301 -$300 546 

HOTEL15 100 % 33.3 358 -$36 049 -$752 086 -$601 543 -$1 025 661 

HIGHS02 100 % 62.7 455 -$60 286 -$637 753 -$934 454 -$2 094 901 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 16.7 180 -$23 875 -$175 007 -$242 750 -$555 088 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18.1 195 -$32 924 -$212 763 -$245 286 -$534 617 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 9.9 107 -$11 711 -$109 175 -$56 561 -$210 098 

RETAIL1 100 % 113.2 1218 -$107 882 -$1 658 926 -$2 478 426 -$4 448 912 

RSTRNT1 100 % 6.9 74 -$17 468 -$148 017 -$251 822 -$503 982 

Total 273.5 2724 -$298 613 -$4 005 492 -$5 168 477 -$9 924 523 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

8.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 8-14 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type and building design. The carbon emissions estimation 

approach is defined in Section 5.3. 

Table 8-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Maine 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

2004 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

2007 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -4.0 -0.4 -149.1 -13.9 -174.7 -16.2 -271.1 -55.5 

APART06 -4.2 -0.4 -149.0 -13.8 -171.4 -15.9 -265.0 -54.3 

DORMI04 -8.0 -0.7 -122.0 -11.3 -151.4 -14.1 -241.5 -49.5 

DORMI06 -4.7 -0.4 -158.9 -14.8 -181.3 -16.8 -272.9 -55.9 

HOTEL15 -6.7 -0.6 -138.1 -12.8 -110.2 -10.2 -191.0 -39.1 

HIGHS02 -6.0 -0.6 -61.6 -5.7 -92.9 -8.6 -208.0 -42.6 

OFFIC03 -8.9 -0.8 -64.2 -6.0 -91.4 -8.5 -208.5 -42.7 

OFFIC08 -11.3 -1.1 -72.7 -6.8 -84.9 -7.9 -185.1 -37.9 

OFFIC16 -7.3 -0.7 -67.5 -6.3 -34.9 -3.2 -132.4 -27.1 

RETAIL1 -5.9 -0.6 -89.8 -8.3 -138.0 -12.8 -248.6 -50.9 

RSTRNT1 -15.9 -1.5 -132.6 -12.3 -233.7 -21.7 -466.2 -95.5 

Table 8-15 applies the Table 8-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions from 

adoption of more energy efficient codes. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2004, 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs decrease carbon emissions overall. The adoption 

of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 result in savings of 24 498 metric tons 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

and 32 322 metric tons over a 10-year study period, respectively. The adoption of the 

LEC design as the state’s energy code decreases carbon emissions by 62 289 metric tons 

over the 10-year study period for one year’s worth of new commercial construction for 

these building types. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate statewide 

reductions in carbon emissions of 44 541 metric tons, 58 767 metric tons, and 

113 253 metric tons over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

Table 8-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Maine – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 5.8 62 -23 -855 -1002 -1555 

APART06 55.1 % 7.1 76 -29 -1047 -1204 -1862 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 33.3 358 -225 -4596 -3666 -6357 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 62.7 455 -376 -3865 -5827 -13 045 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 16.7 180 -149 -1077 -1533 -3496 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18.1 195 -205 -1315 -1535 -3348 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 9.9 107 -73 -672 -347 -1317 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 113.2 1218 -672 -10 163 -15 608 -28 122 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 6.9 74 -109 -907 -1598 -3188 

Total 273.5 2724 -1860 -24 498 -32 322 -62 289 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

8.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 8-16 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type and building design. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include 

construction costs, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual 

values. 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

Table 8-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maine
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $0.57 $0.05 -$23.16 -$2.15 -$29.16 -$2.71 -$26.82 -$2.49 

APART06 $0.01 $0.00 -$23.46 -$2.18 -$28.19 -$2.62 -$24.87 -$2.31 

DORMI04 $31.77 $2.95 $6.16 $0.57 -$2.20 -$0.20 -$14.81 -$1.38 

DORMI06 -$0.33 -$0.03 -$29.54 -$2.74 -$33.78 -$3.14 -$33.23 -$3.09 

HOTEL15 -$0.64 -$0.06 -$29.47 -$2.74 -$24.96 -$2.32 -$23.69 -$2.20 

HIGHS02 $6.18 $0.57 -$2.54 -$0.24 -$7.57 -$0.70 -$17.62 -$1.64 

OFFIC03 $38.05 $3.53 $17.49 $1.63 $12.77 $1.19 -$5.23 -$0.49 

OFFIC08 $38.94 $3.62 $17.00 $1.58 $13.95 $1.30 -$0.34 -$0.03 

OFFIC16 -$0.30 -$0.03 -$10.23 -$0.95 -$5.33 -$0.50 -$5.90 -$0.55 

RETAIL1 $18.28 $1.70 -$1.33 -$0.12 -$5.84 -$0.54 -$7.99 -$0.74 

RSTRNT1 $86.19 $8.01 $53.80 $5.00 $18.24 $1.69 -$33.01 -$3.07 

Table 8-17 applies the Table 8-16 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs from adoption of 

more energy-efficient state energy codes for commercial buildings. Total changes in lifecycle costs over the 10-year study period vary across building designs. Adoption of the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design results in an increase in life-cycle costs for 7 of 9 building 

types. The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 designs result in a decrease in life-cycle costs 

for 6 of 9 building types, with total life-cycle costs decreasing by $721 188 and 

$1.8 million, respectively. The LEC design decreases life-cycle costs for all 9 building 

types, and decreases total life-cycle costs by $3.5 million. For a 10-year study period, it is 

cost-effective to adopt ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 as well as the LEC design. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the adoption of the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC design can be 

extrapolated to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs of 

$7.9 million, -$1.3 million, -$3.3 million, and -$6.4 million over the 10-year study 

period, respectively. 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine 

Table 8-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Maine 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 5.8 62 $3249 -$132 899 -$167 289 -$153 907 

APART06 55.1 % 7.1 76 $77 -$164 834 -$198 086 -$174 774 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 33.3 358 -$21 333 -$980 723 -$830 455 -$788 514 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 62.7 455 $387 645 -$159 483 -$474 430 -$1 104 770 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 16.7 180 $637 962 $293 338 $214 066 -$87 658 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18.1 195 $704 131 $307 311 $252 233 -$6218 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 9.9 107 -$2969 -$101 771 -$53 039 -$58 714 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 113.2 1,218 $2 067 570 -$150 012 -$660 100 -$903 540 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 6.9 74 $589 358 $367 884 $124 730 -$225 704 

Total 273.5 2724 $4 365 691 -$721 188 -$1 792 369 -$3 503 798 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

8.3 State Summary 

Maine is the only state in the Northeast Census Region that has not yet adopted a state 

energy code for commercial buildings, and is located in the coldest climates in the region. 

On average, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions at negative 

life-cycle costs. Based on the average annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 

2007 and a 10-year study period, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the state’s energy code 

for commercial buildings would lead to energy use savings of 105.5 GWh (360.1 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $9.4 million, and 58 767 metric tons of carbon emissions 

reductions while saving $3.3 million in life-cycle costs for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

The adoption of the LEC design leads to savings in total energy use, energy costs, and 

energy-related carbon emissions, and does so in a cost-effective manner. Based on the 

average annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study 

period, adopting the LEC design would lead to even greater impacts than adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, with savings of 216.6 GWh (739.7 GBtu), $18.0 million of energy 

costs, and 113 253 metric tons of carbon emissions while decreasing life-cycle cost by 

$6.4 million for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. 

53
 
Maine 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

New Jersey 

New Hampshire 

New Hampshire is located in the New England Census Division and has adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings. New Hampshire 

spans two climate zones with the southern portion of the state located in Zone 5A and the 

northern portion in Zone 6A. Only one city, Concord, is simulated for this study and is 

located in Zone 6A. Table 9-1 provides an overview of New Hampshire’s simulated 

energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across 

building types. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 87 kWh/m2 

to 105 kWh/m2 (28 kBtu/ft2 to 33 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest 

amount of energy at 268 kWh/m2 to 285 kWh/m2 (85 kBtu/ft2 to 90 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

Table 9-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

New Hampshire 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

177 56 

175 56 

160 51 

159 50 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

138 44 

196 62 

121 38 

180 57 

HOTEL15 188 60 171 54 

HIGHS02 285 90 268 85 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

115 37 

105 33 

171 54 

95 30 

87 28 

151 48 

RETAIL1 135 43 114 36 

RSTRNT1 178 57 135 43 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings and total savings on a 

statewide basis. There is no within-state variation to consider for this state since only one 

city is simulated for the state (Concord). 

9.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types within a 

state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from investing in the LEC 

design for the state of New Hampshire. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

Table 9-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

The LEC design realizes changes in energy use ranging from -5.7 % to -24.3 % with an 

average of -12.8 % relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The greatest reduction in 

energy use for the LEC design occurs in the restaurant followed by the small and midsized office buildings. The smallest reductions occur in the high school followed by the 

6-story dormitory and hotel. 

Table 9-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of a Newer of the LEC 

Design, 10 Year, New Hampshire 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.5 -15.8 -14.7 -0.3 

APART06 -9.3 -15.4 -14.4 -0.3 

DORMI04 -12.2 -17.0 -16.2 -1.7 

DORMI06 -8.4 -13.8 -12.9 -0.5 

HOTEL15 -8.9 -11.2 -10.8 -0.2 

HIGHS02 -5.7 -12.3 -11.1 -1.5 

OFFIC03 -18.1 -20.4 -20.1 -2.8 

OFFIC08 -16.9 -18.2 -18.1 -2.2 

OFFIC16 -11.3 -12.3 -12.2 -0.6 

RETAIL1 -15.9 -17.8 -17.5 -0.9 

RSTRNT1 -24.3 -29.0 -28.3 -4.6 

Average -12.8 -16.7 -16.0 -1.4 

The LEC design realizes average changes in energy costs from -11.2 % to -29.0 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -16.7 % overall over 10 years of 

operation. The energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because 

the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage 

than natural gas consumption. In the most extreme case, the energy efficiency measures 

increase natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for the high 

school. The increase in natural gas consumption offsets 19.2 % of the reduction in 

electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction in energy costs that is twice 

the percentage reduction in energy use. The LEC design incorporates daylighting, which 

decreases the building’s internal heat gains, respectively. The shift in energy use from 

electricity to natural gas consumption to meet the greater heating loads decreases energy 

costs because natural gas is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

The LEC design leads to average changes in carbon emissions ranging from -10.8 % 

to -28.3 % depending on the building type, with an average of -16.0 % across all building 

types. As would be expected, a more energy efficient building design results in greater 

reductions in carbon emissions. For the LEC design, the percentage reduction in carbon 

emissions is greater than the percentage reduction in energy use for all 11 building types 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater 

percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative reduction in electricity 

leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions because natural gas has a lower average 

carbon emissions rate than electricity. For the high school, the energy efficiency 

measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas consumption, 

which leads to even greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

The average change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design over a 10-year study period 

ranges from -0.3 % to -4.6 %. Four- and 6-story apartment buildings realize the smallest 

decrease in life-cycle costs while restaurants, 3-story office buildings, and 8-story office 

buildings are the building types that realize the greatest reductions in average life-cycle 

costs. Given that all 11 buildings types realize an average percentage decrease in lifecycle costs, the LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy code 

for commercial buildings. 

9.2 Total Savings 

How much can New Hampshire save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

9.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 9-3 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type for 

the LEC design in the state.20 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 9-4 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.21 

20 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

21 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

Table 9-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use New Hampshire
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -16.8 -5.3 

APART06 -16.3 -5.2 

DORMI04 -16.8 -5.3 

DORMI06 -16.4 -5.2 

HOTEL15 -16.8 -5.3 

HIGHS02 -20.9 -6.6 

OFFIC03 -16.4 -5.2 

OFFIC08 -17.7 -5.6 

OFFIC16 -19.4 -6.1 

RETAIL1 -21.5 -6.8 

RSTRNT1 -43.3 -13.8 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 9-4 ranges widely across building 

types with reported floor area data, but the LEC design decreases overall energy use 

across the state for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s 

energy code would save 6.9 GWh (23.4 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one year’s 

worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study, which represent 63.5 % of all new commercial floor space in the 

state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the 

state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide savings to be 10.8 

GWh (36.9 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 108.0 GWh (368.6 GBtu) in energy use 

savings over the 10-year study period. 

Table 9-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

New Hampshire 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 12.7 137 -214 170 -731 267 

APART06 55.1 % 15.6 168 -253 509 -865 590 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 45.2 487 -759 456 -2 593 108 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 82.1 884 -1 343 121 -4 585 993 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 20.7 223 -431 979 -1 474 962 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 22.3 240 -395 564 -1 350 627 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 12.3 132 -237 481 -810 862 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 129.5 1394 -2 778 392 -9 486 626 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 10.2 110 -441 331 -1 506 894 

Total 350.7 3775 -6 855 003 -23 405 928 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

The reduction in energy use for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 varies 

across the 9 building types with reported floor area data. The greatest reductions are 

realized by the retail store followed by the high school and hotel. The smallest reductions 

are realized by the apartment buildings and the 16-story office building. Building types 

that represent a greater amount of new floor area realize the largest changes in energy 

use. The building types that have the greatest percentage reduction in energy use are not 

always the same buildings that lead to the greatest total reductions for the state. The 

building types that lead to the greatest estimated reduction in energy use -- retail stores 

and high schools -- only rank 4th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among 

the 11 building types, as reported in Table 9-2. 

9.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 9-5 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type. Energy 

costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average energy cost rates, and 

regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 9-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New Hampshire 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$18.42 -$1.71 

APART06 -$17.99 -$1.67 

DORMI04 -$16.03 -$1.49 

DORMI06 -$17.80 -$1.65 

HOTEL15 -$14.30 -$1.33 

HIGHS02 -$21.23 -$1.97 

OFFIC03 -$21.13 -$1.96 

OFFIC08 -$18.54 -$1.72 

OFFIC16 -$17.46 -$1.62 

RETAIL1 -$19.50 -$1.81 

RSTRNT1 -$41.76 -$3.88 

Table 9-6 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type, which 

account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 10 years of building 

operation. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with the 

energy cost savings being highly correlated with energy use savings. Any variation is a 

result of the greater percentage reduction in electricity consumption relative to the 

reduction in natural gas consumption. Overall, reductions in energy costs total $6.9 

million for adopting the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 63.5 % of all new commercial floor 

space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total 

energy cost savings of $10.9 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 9-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New Hampshire 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 12.7 137 -$234 300 

APART06 55.1 % 15.6 168 -$280 211 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 45.2 487 -$647 483 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 82.1 884 -$1 735 354 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 20.7 223 -$438 997 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 22.3 240 -$413 514 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 12.3 132 -$214 308 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 129.5 1394 -$2 525 037 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 10.2 110 -$425 202 

Total 350.7 3775 -$6 914 405 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

9.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 9-7 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 years, 

per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined in 

Section 5.3. 

Table 9-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New Hampshire 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -99.2 -20.3 

APART06 -96.7 -19.8 

DORMI04 -87.7 -18.0 

DORMI06 -95.9 -19.6 

HOTEL15 -79.4 -16.3 

HIGHS02 -111.9 -22.9 

OFFIC03 -115.2 -23.6 

OFFIC08 -100.3 -20.5 

OFFIC16 -96.2 -19.7 

RETAIL1 -107.3 -22.0 

RSTRNT1 -228.2 -46.7 

Table 9-8 applies the Table 9-7 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions from adoption of the 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across building types, 

and is correlated with each building’s total reduction in energy use. However, there is not 

a perfect correlation because the magnitude of the offsetting natural gas increase varies 

across building types. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code 

decreases carbon emissions by 37 573 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one 

year’s worth of new commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 59 169 metric tons over the 10­

year study period. 

Table 9-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, New Hampshire – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 12.7 137 -1262 

APART06 55.1 % 15.6 168 -1507 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 45.2 487 -3594 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 82.1 884 -9189 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 20.7 223 -2383 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 22.3 240 -2238 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 12.3 132 -1181 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 129.5 1394 -13897 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 10.2 110 -2323 

Total 350.7 3775 -37 573 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

9.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 9-9 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

Table 9-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New Hampshire
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$3.55 -$0.33 

APART06 -$2.59 -$0.24 

DORMI04 -$16.35 -$1.52 

DORMI06 -$4.89 -$0.45 

HOTEL15 -$2.38 -$0.22 

HIGHS02 -$14.00 -$1.30 

OFFIC03 -$22.24 -$2.07 

OFFIC08 -$18.22 -$1.69 

OFFIC16 -$4.98 -$0.46 

RETAIL1 -$6.30 -$0.59 

RSTRNT1 -$59.95 -$5.57 

Table 9-10 applies the Table 9-9 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate the change in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC 

design. The change in life-cycle costs varies widely across building types, but all building 

types realize a reduction in life-cycle costs. High schools realize the greatest decrease in 

life-cycle costs ($1.1 million) while 6- and 4-story apartment buildings realize the 

smallest reductions ($40 338 and $45 160). The LEC design leads to reductions in 

statewide life-cycle costs of $3.7 million relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total decrease in statewide life-cycle costs of $5.8 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

Table 9-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New Hampshire 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 12.7 137 -$45 160 

APART06 55.1 % 15.6 168 -$40 338 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 45.2 487 -$107 572 

HIGHS02 67.5 % 82.1 884 -$1 149 857 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 20.7 223 -$459 942 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 22.3 240 -$406 478 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 12.3 132 -$61 090 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 129.5 1394 -$816 421 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 10.2 110 -$610 372 

Total 350.7 3775 -$3 697 228 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

9.3 State Summary 

New Hampshire has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its energy code for commercial 

buildings. The adoption of the LEC design, which goes beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007, 

leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions in a 

life-cycle cost-effective manner. Based on the average annual new construction in the 

state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study period, adopting the LEC design as the 

state’s energy code would lead to energy use savings of 108.0 GWh (368.6 GBtu), energy 

cost savings of $10.9 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 59 169 metric tons 

while decreasing life-cycle costs by $5.8 million for one year’s worth of commercial 

building construction. 

63
 
New Jersey 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

10 New Jersey 

New Jersey has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the Middle Atlantic Census Division and Climate Zone 4A. 

Table 10-1 provides an overview of New Jersey’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building type and energy 

standard edition. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 79 

kWh/m2 to 98 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 31 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the 

greatest amount of energy at 198 kWh/m2 to 212 kWh/m2 (63 kBtu/ ft2 to 67 kBtu/ ft2) 

annually. 

Table 10-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

New Jersey 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

151 48 

150 47 

135 43 

133 42 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

112 36 

164 52 

98 31 

145 46 

HOTEL15 154 49 134 42 

HIGHS02 212 67 198 63 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

105 33 

98 31 

148 47 

85 27 

79 25 

124 39 

RETAIL1 113 36 97 31 

RSTRNT1 158 50 115 37 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings on a statewide and cityby-city basis and as total savings on a statewide basis. 

10.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in the LEC design in the state of New Jersey. 

10.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 10-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

65
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -6.6 % to -27.3 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -14.7 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 10-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, New Jersey 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -10.3 -17.8 -16.0 0.4 

APART06 -11.4 -20.6 -18.5 0.2 

DORMI04 -12.3 -18.6 -17.2 -0.8 

DORMI06 -11.4 -20.4 -18.3 -0.2 

HOTEL15 -13.1 -20.2 -18.6 0.1 

HIGHS02 -6.6 -17.8 -15.0 -1.5 

OFFIC03 -19.6 -23.6 -22.9 -2.5 

OFFIC08 -19.5 -21.4 -21.1 -2.5 

OFFIC16 -16.0 -21.0 -20.1 -0.1 

RETAIL1 -13.9 -17.4 -16.7 0.1 

RSTRNT1 -27.3 -34.1 -32.8 -6.3 

Average -14.7 -21.2 -19.7 -1.2 

There is a significant variation in the average percentage change in energy costs for the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -17.4 % to -34.1 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -21.2 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. For 10 of the 11 building types, the energy efficiency measures 

increase natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity consumption. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

43.2 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 2.7 times greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. The 

LEC design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for cities in 

Zone 4, which decreases the building’s internal and external heat gains, respectively. The 

shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas consumption to meet the greater heating 

loads decreases energy costs because natural gas is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis 

relative to electricity. 

There is significant variation in the average change in energy-related carbon emissions 

across building types for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging 

from -15.0 % to -32.8 % with an average of -19.7 %. For the LEC design, the percentage 

reduction in carbon emissions is greater than the percentage reduction in energy use for 

all 11 building types because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity 

66
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative 

reduction in electricity leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions because natural 

gas has a lower average carbon emissions rate than electricity. As mentioned above, the 

energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas 

consumption for 10 of the 11 building types. The combination of the reduction in total 

energy use and the shift in energy use from electricity consumption to natural gas 

consumption leads to even greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

The percentage change in life-cycle costs varies across building types, ranging 

from -6.3 % to 0.4 % for a 10-year study period. Seven of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Based on the overall average percentage change of -1.2 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopt it as its state 

energy code for commercial buildings. 

10.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for two cities located in New Jersey, both located in Zone 4A: 

Atlantic City and Newark. While the two cities are located in the same climate zone, the 

results may still vary for two reasons. First, cities within the same climate zone may have 

some variation in the local climate, which can lead to variation in energy consumption. 

Second, construction material and labor costs may vary significantly by locality. 

Table 10-3 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

for each city in the state. The average percentage changes in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design do not vary significantly across cities, ranging from 

-14.5 % to -14.8 %. Any variation in local climate appears to have minimal effects on 

energy consumption. 

Table 10-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City, 

10-Year, New Jersey 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Atlantic City 4A -14.8 -21.4 -20.1 -1.2 

Newark 4A -14.5 -21.0 -19.7 -1.2 

Average -14.7 -21.2 -19.9 -1.2 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -21.0 % to -21.4 % for 10 years of operation. For 

all cities, reductions in energy costs are greater than reductions in energy use because the 

percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural 

gas consumption. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

emissions for all building types also varies minimally across cities, ranging from -19.7 % 

to -20.1 %. Percentage changes in life-cycle costs for all building types are constant 

across cities, with percentage changes in life-cycle costs of -1.2 %. 

10.2 Total Savings 

How much can New Jersey save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

10.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 10-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.22 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 10-5 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.23 

Table 10-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, New Jersey 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -15.6 -4.9 

APART06 -17.1 -5.4 

DORMI04 -13.8 -4.4 

DORMI06 -18.7 -5.9 

HOTEL15 -20.2 -6.4 

HIGHS02 -20.6 -6.5 

OFFIC03 -13.9 -4.4 

OFFIC08 -19.1 -6.1 

OFFIC16 -23.7 -7.5 

RETAIL1 -15.7 -5.0 

RSTRNT1 -43.2 -13.7 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 34.2 GWh (116.8 GBtu) of total energy use 

22 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

23 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study, which represent 58.8 % of all new commercial 

floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate statewide savings to 

be 58.2 GWh (198.6 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 581.6 GWh (1985.7 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

The change in energy use varies across building types. The building types that have the 

greatest percentage reductions are not always the same buildings that lead to the greatest 

total reductions for the state. Instead the building types that represent a greater amount of 

new floor area realize the largest changes in energy use. For example, the building types 

that lead to the greatest estimated energy use reductions for the LEC design -- retail 

stores and high schools -- only rank 5th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, 

among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 10-2. 

Table 10-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

New Jersey 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 252.3 2716 -3 924 198 -13 398 900
 

APART06 55.1 % 309.0 3326 -5 272 009 -18 000 905
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 188.5 2029 -3 798 052 -12 968 181 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 525.5 5656 -7 312 848 -24 969 207 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 92.4 995 -1 905 016 -6 504 545 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 99.7 1073 -1 902 346 -6 495 426 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 54.9 591 -1 299 367 -4 436 598 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 498.7 5368 -7 810 630 -26 668 850 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22.5 242 -971 785 -3 318 092 

Total 2043.5 21 996 -34 196 250 -116 760 704 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

10.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 10-6 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type for the 

LEC design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

69
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

Table 10-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New Jersey
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$18.37 -$1.71 

APART06 -$21.46 -$1.99 

DORMI04 -$14.96 -$1.39 

DORMI06 -$23.25 -$2.16 

HOTEL15 -$21.96 -$2.04 

HIGHS02 -$23.05 -$2.14 

OFFIC03 -$23.22 -$2.16 

OFFIC08 -$20.81 -$1.93 

OFFIC16 -$27.23 -$2.53 

RETAIL1 -$16.88 -$1.57 

RSTRNT1 -$45.38 -$4.22 

Table 10-7 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with a 

statewide reduction in energy costs of $42.7 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 58.8 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $72.7 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

Table 10-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New Jersey 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 252.3 2716 -$4 634 161 

APART06 55.1 % 309.0 3326 -$6 630 982 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 188.5 2029 -$4 139 036 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 525.5 5656 -$12 199 834 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 92.4 995 -$2 130 809 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 99.7 1073 -$2 075 083 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 54.9 591 -$1 493 769 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 498.7 5368 -$8 417 123 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22.5 242 -$1 020 178 

Total 2043.5 21996 -42 740 975 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

70
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

10.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 10-8 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined 

in Section 5.3. 

Table 10-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New Jersey 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -111.3 -22.8 

APART06 -128.8 -26.4 

DORMI04 -91.8 -18.8 

DORMI06 -139.8 -28.6 

HOTEL15 -134.7 -27.6 

HIGHS02 -134.6 -27.6 

OFFIC03 -140.8 -28.8 

OFFIC08 -127.6 -26.1 

OFFIC16 -165.6 -33.9 

RETAIL1 -103.7 -21.2 

RSTRNT1 -280.0 -57.3 

Table 10-9 applies the Table 10-8 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building designs and is highly correlated with the total reduction in energy use. The LEC 

design decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design 

results in savings of 256 832 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one year’s 

worth of new commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions of 436 789 metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

Table 10-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, New Jersey – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 252.3 2716 -28 076 

APART06 55.1 % 309.0 3326 -39 811 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 188.5 2029 -25 386 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 525.5 5656 -70 721 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 92.4 995 -13 016 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 99.7 1073 -12 725 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 54.9 591 -9086 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 498.7 5368 -51 717 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22.5 242 -6295 

Total 2043.5 21 996 -256 832 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

10.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 10-10 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2

), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

Table 10-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New Jersey 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $5.05 $0.47 

APART06 $2.43 $0.23 

DORMI04 -$9.43 -$0.88 

DORMI06 -$2.46 -$0.23 

HOTEL15 $1.20 $0.11 

HIGHS02 -$14.69 -$1.36 

OFFIC03 -$24.88 -$2.31 

OFFIC08 -$25.80 -$2.40 

OFFIC16 -$1.04 -$0.10 

RETAIL1 $1.20 $0.11 

RSTRNT1 -$107.29 -$9.97 

Table 10-11 applies the Table 10-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs from adoption of 

the LEC design. Total changes in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary 

across building type, with 5 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $12.2 million in statewide life-cycle 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools realize the greatest statewide 

decreases in life-cycle costs ($7.7 million) followed by 8-story office buildings 

($2.6 million), restaurants ($2.4 million), and 3-story office buildings ($2.3 million). 

Four-story apartment buildings realize the greatest increase in life-cycle costs 

($1.3 million) followed by 6-story apartment buildings ($749 397) and retail stores 

($600 809). Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally 

representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the 

LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate a statewide decrease in life-cycle costs of 

$20.8 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 10-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New Jersey 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 252.3 2716 $1 273 611 

APART06 55.1 % 309.0 3326 $749 397 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 188.5 2029 $225 953 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 525.5 5656 -$7 718 061 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 92.4 995 -$2 300 821 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 99.7 1073 -$2 572 238 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 54.9 591 -$57 286 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 498.7 5368 $600 809 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22.5 242 -$2 412 045 

Total 2043.5 21 996 -$12 210 682 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

10.3 State Summary 

New Jersey has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. On average, adopting the LEC design reduces energy use, energy costs and 

energy-related carbon emissions, and does so in a life-cycle cost-effective manner. Based 

on the average annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year 

study period, adopting the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial 

buildings would lead to statewide energy use savings of 581.6 GWh (1985.7 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $72.7 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 436 789 metric 

tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $20.8 million for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

73
 
New Jersey 

74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

11 New York 

New York has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code, is located in the 

Middle Atlantic Census Division, and spans three climate zones (Zone 4A, Zone 5A, and 

Zone 6A). Table 11-1 provides an overview of New York’s simulated energy use keyed 

to building types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building type and 

energy standard edition. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 88 

kWh/m2 to 107 kWh/m2 (28 kBtu/ft2 to 34 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the 

greatest amount of energy at 244 kWh/m2 to 258 kWh/m2 (77 kBtu/ft2 to 82 kBtu/ft2) 

annually. 

Table 11-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

New York 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

172 55 

168 53 

156 50 

152 48 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

136 43 

185 59 

121 38 

169 54 

HOTEL15 181 57 161 51 

HIGHS02 258 82 244 77 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

119 38 

107 34 

167 53 

99 31 

88 28 

144 46 

RETAIL1 136 43 119 38 

RSTRNT1 190 60 150 47 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings on a statewide and cityby-city basis and as total savings on a statewide basis. 

11.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in the LEC design in the state of New York. 

11.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 11-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

75
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -6.2 % to -21.7 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -12.6 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 11-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, New York 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.2 -17.5 -13.8 0.0 

APART06 -9.6 -19.4 -15.1 -0.1 

DORMI04 -11.1 -18.2 -15.1 -1.5 

DORMI06 -9.1 -18.3 -14.3 -0.4 

HOTEL15 -11.2 -18.0 -15.0 -0.2 

HIGHS02 -6.2 -16.7 -11.8 -1.6 

OFFIC03 -16.9 -22.0 -20.2 -3.0 

OFFIC08 -17.0 -20.1 -19.0 -2.5 

OFFIC16 -13.9 -18.7 -16.9 -0.6 

RETAIL1 -12.4 -16.4 -14.9 -0.6 

RSTRNT1 -21.7 -31.5 -27.7 -4.3 

Average -12.6 -19.7 -16.7 -1.3 

There is a significant variation in the average percentage change in energy costs for the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -16.4 % to -31.5 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -19.7 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. For 10 of the 11 building types, the energy efficiency measures 

increase natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity consumption. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

37.2 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 2.7 times greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. The 

LEC design incorporates daylighting in all climate zones and overhangs into the building 

design for cities in Zone 4 and Zone 5, which decreases the building’s internal and 

external heat gains, respectively. The shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas 

consumption to meet the greater heating loads decreases energy costs because natural gas 

is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

There is significant variation in the average change in energy-related carbon emissions 

across building types for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging 

from -11.8 % to -27.7 % with an average of -16.7 %. For the LEC design, the percentage 

reduction in carbon emissions is greater than the percentage reduction in energy use for 

all 11 building types because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity 

76
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative 

reduction in electricity leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions because natural 

gas has a lower average carbon emissions rate than electricity. As mentioned above, the 

energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas 

consumption for 10 of the 11 building types. The combination of the reduction in total 

energy use and the shift in energy use from electricity consumption to natural gas 

consumption leads to even greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

The percentage change in life-cycle costs varies across building types, ranging 

from -4.3 % to 0.0 % for a 10-year study period. Ten of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs with restaurants realizing the greatest percentage reduction 

in life-cycle costs while 4-story apartment buildings realize a slight increase in life-cycle 

costs (0.004 %). Based on the overall average percentage change of -1.3 % in life-cycle 

costs, the LEC design is likely to be cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy 

code. 

11.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for 7 cities located in New York located across three climate zones: 

New York City in Zone 4A, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse in Zone 5A, and 

Binghamton and Massena in Zone 6A. The results may vary across cities within New 

York for several reasons. First, the state is covered by three climate zones. The ASHRAE 

90.1 building design requirements vary across climate zones and will impact the relative 

energy efficiency of the building. Second, cities within the same climate zone still have 

some variation in the local climate, which can lead to variation in energy consumption. 

Third, construction material and labor costs vary by locality. 

Table 11-3 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

for each city in the state. The average percentage changes in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design do not vary significantly across cities, ranging from 

-12.0 % to -13.9 % with an overall average of -12.6 %. The city in Zone 4 realizes 

slightly greater reductions in energy use than the cities in Zone 5 and Zone 6. 

77
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Table 11-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City, 

10-Year, New York 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

New York City 4A -13.9 -21.4 -18.6 -1.2 

Albany 5A -12.0 -20.1 -16.7 -1.5 

Buffalo 5A -12.4 -20.5 -17.1 -1.3 

Rochester 5A -12.5 -20.5 -17.2 -1.6 

Syracuse 5A -12.0 -20.3 -16.8 -1.5 

Binghamton 6A -13.1 -18.1 -16.0 -1.2 

Massena 6A -12.2 -17.2 -15.0 -1.2 

Average -12.6 -19.7 -16.8 -1.3 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types varies across cities, 

ranging from -17.2 % to -21.4 % for 10 years of operation. The warmer the climate zone 

in which a city is located, the greater the reduction in energy costs. For all cities, 

reductions in energy costs are greater than reductions in energy use because the 

percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural 

gas consumption. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon 

emissions for all building types also varies across cities, ranging from -15.0 % to -18.6 % 

with cities in warmer climate zones realizing greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

Changes in life-cycle costs for all building types vary minimally across cities, with the 

percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -1.2 % to -1.6 %. There are no distinct 

trends across cities within different climate zones. 

11.2 Total Savings 

How much can New York save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

11.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 11-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.24 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 11-5 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

24 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis. 

78
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.25 

Table 11-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, New York 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -15.7 -5.0 

APART06 -16.1 -5.1 

DORMI04 -15.1 -4.8 

DORMI06 -16.7 -5.3 

HOTEL15 -19.9 -6.3 

HIGHS02 -20.1 -6.4 

OFFIC03 -14.9 -4.7 

OFFIC08 -18.1 -5.7 

OFFIC16 -22.9 -7.3 

RETAIL1 -16.8 -5.3 

RSTRNT1 -40.4 -12.8 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 78.7 GWh (268.5 GBtu) of total energy use 

annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study, which represent 75.8 % of all new commercial 

floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate statewide savings to 

be 103.8 GWh (354.3 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 1.0 TWh (3.5 TBtu) in energy 

use savings over the 10-year study period. 

The change in energy use varies across building types. The building types that have the 

greatest percentage reductions are not always the same buildings that lead to the greatest 

total reductions for the state. Instead the building types that represent a greater amount of 

new floor area realize the largest changes in energy use. For example, the building types 

that lead to the greatest estimated total reductions in energy use for the LEC design – 

4- and 6-story apartments -- only rank 8th and 9th in percentage reduction, respectively, 

among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 11-2. 

25 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

79
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Table 11-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

New York 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 1044.7 11 245 -16 389 178 -55 959 701
 

APART06 55.1 % 1279.6 13 774 -20 572 024 -70 241 736
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 391.8 4217 -7 808 261 -26 660 760 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 449.4 4837 -6 703 561 -22 888 839 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 249.3 2683 -5 008 588 -17 101 472 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 268.8 2893 -4 859 177 -16 591 319 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 147.9 1592 -3 391 199 -11 579 010 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 726.6 7821 -12 222 052 -41 731 341 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 42.0 452 -1 697 056 -5 794 479 

Total 4600.0 49 514 -78 651 094 -268 548 656 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

11.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 11-6 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type for the 

LEC design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 11-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, New York 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$19.65 -$1.83 

APART06 -$21.78 -$2.02 

DORMI04 -$16.66 -$1.55 

DORMI06 -$22.50 -$2.09 

HOTEL15 -$22.42 -$2.08 

HIGHS02 -$24.55 -$2.28 

OFFIC03 -$25.79 -$2.40 

OFFIC08 -$22.00 -$2.04 

OFFIC16 -$27.30 -$2.54 

RETAIL1 -$18.64 -$1.73 

RSTRNT1 -$48.52 -$4.51 

Table 11-7 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with 

statewide reductions in energy costs of $100.4 million for 10 years of building operation. 

80
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 75.8 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $132.5 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

Table 11-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New York 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 1044.7 11 245 -$20 525 366 

APART06 55.1 % 1279.6 13 774 -$27 876 096 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 391.8 4217 -$8 784 147 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 449.4 4837 -$11 591 182 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 249.3 2683 -$6 120 208 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 268.8 2893 -$5 913 718 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 147.9 1592 -$4 038 014 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 726.6 7821 -$13 544 435 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 42.0 452 -$2 036 423 

Total 4600.0 49 514 -$100 429 589 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

11.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 11-8 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined 

in Section 5.3. 

Table 11-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, New York 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -83.6 -17.1 

APART06 -90.7 -18.6 

DORMI04 -73.7 -15.1 

DORMI06 -93.8 -19.2 

HOTEL15 -98.7 -20.2 

HIGHS02 -100.8 -20.6 

OFFIC03 -105.3 -21.6 

OFFIC08 -94.5 -19.3 

OFFIC16 -118.0 -24.2 

RETAIL1 -82.4 -16.9 

RSTRNT1 -209.2 -42.9 

81
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Table 11-9 applies the Table 11-8 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions from 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reductions in carbon emissions ranges widely 

across building designs and is highly correlated with total energy use reduction. The LEC 

design decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design 

results in savings of 425 099 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one year’s 

worth of new commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 560 817 metric tons over the 10­

year study period. 

Table 11-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, New York – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 1044.7 11 245 -87 376 

APART06 55.1 % 1279.6 13 774 -116 002 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 391.8 4217 -38 658 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 449.4 4837 -45 299 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 249.3 2683 -26 247 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 268.8 2893 -25 390 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 147.9 1592 -17 455 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 726.6 7821 -59 887 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 42.0 452 -8786 

Total 4600.0 49 514 -425 099 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

11.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 11-10 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2

), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

82
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Table 11-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, New York
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $0.32 $0.03 

APART06 -$0.99 -$0.09 

DORMI04 -$15.61 -$1.45 

DORMI06 -$4.35 -$0.40 

HOTEL15 -$2.64 -$0.25 

HIGHS02 -$15.10 -$1.40 

OFFIC03 -$26.86 -$2.50 

OFFIC08 -$23.55 -$2.19 

OFFIC16 -$4.94 -$0.46 

RETAIL1 -$4.16 -$0.39 

RSTRNT1 -$62.34 -$5.79 

Table 11-11 applies the Table 11-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate changes in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption of 

the LEC design. Total changes in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary 

across building type, with 8 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $28.1 million in statewide life-cycle 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools, 3-story office buildings, and 8-story 

office buildings realize the greatest statewide decrease in life-cycle costs ($6.8 million, 

$6.7 million and $6.3 million, respectively) while 4-story apartment buildings realize an 

increase in life-cycle costs of $330 672. Assuming that the buildings considered in this 

study are generally representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the 

state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate a statewide decrease 

in life-cycle costs of $37.1 million over the 10-year study period. 

83
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York 

Table 11-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, New York 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 1044.7 11 245 $330 672
 

APART06 55.1 % 1279.6 13 774 -$1 262 978
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 391.8 4217 -$1 034 590
 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 449.4 4837 -$6 784 657
 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 249.3 2683 -$6 694 703
 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 268.8 2893 -$6 330 184
 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 147.9 1592 -$730 229
 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 726.6 7821 -$3 024 418
 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 42.0 452 -$2 616 648
 

Total 4600.0 49 514 -$28 147 734
 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

11.3 State Summary 

New York has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. On average, adopting the LEC design reduces energy use, energy costs, and 

energy-related carbon emissions in a cost-effective manner. Based on the average annual 

new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study period, adopting the 

LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings would lead to statewide 

energy use savings of 1.0 TWh (3.5 TBtu), energy cost savings of $132.5 million, and 

carbon emissions reductions of 560 817 metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by 

$37.1 million for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. 

84
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

12 Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, is located in the Middle Atlantic Census Division, and spans three climate 

zones (Zone 4A, Zone 5A, and Zone 6A). Table 12-1 provides an overview of 

Pennsylvania’s simulated energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. Average 

energy use varies across building type and energy standard edition. The 8-story office 

building uses the least amount of energy at 83 kWh/m2 to 101 kWh/m2 (26 kBtu/ft2 to 32 

kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 231 kWh/m2 to 

244 kWh/m2 (73 kBtu/ ft2 to 77 kBtu/ ft2

) annually. 

Table 12-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Pennsylvania 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

163 52 

162 51 

148 47 

145 46 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

127 40 

178 56 

113 36 

160 51 

HOTEL15 170 54 150 47 

HIGHS02 244 77 231 73 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

112 35 

101 32 

159 50 

92 29 

83 26 

136 43 

RETAIL1 123 39 108 34 

RSTRNT1 167 53 128 41 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings on a statewide and cityby-city basis and as total savings on a statewide basis. 

12.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types and 

locations within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in the LEC design in the state of Pennsylvania. 

12.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 12-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

85
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -5.4 % to -23.7 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -13.1 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 12-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10­

Year, Pennsylvania 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.5 -14.9 -16.0 0.6 

APART06 -10.4 -17.1 -18.5 0.5 

DORMI04 -11.1 -15.9 -16.8 -0.8 

DORMI06 -10.3 -16.8 -18.0 0.2 

HOTEL15 -11.8 -17.1 -18.2 0.4 

HIGHS02 -5.4 -12.7 -14.3 -0.6 

OFFIC03 -17.5 -21.5 -22.1 -2.7 

OFFIC08 -18.0 -20.3 -20.6 -2.4 

OFFIC16 -14.4 -18.9 -19.6 0.4 

RETAIL1 -12.3 -15.4 -15.9 0.1 

RSTRNT1 -23.7 -30.4 -31.6 -3.4 

Average -13.1 -18.3 -19.2 -0.7 

There is a significant variation in the average percentage change in energy costs for the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -12.7 % to -30.4 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -18.3 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. In fact, the energy efficiency measures increase natural gas 

consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for all building types. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

46.3 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 2.4 times greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. The 

LEC design incorporates daylighting in all climate zones and overhangs into the building 

design for cities in Zone 4 and Zone 5, which decreases the building’s internal and 

external heat gains, respectively. The shift in energy use from electricity to natural gas 

consumption to meet the greater heating loads decreases energy costs because natural gas 

is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

There is significant variation in the average change in energy-related carbon emissions 

across building types for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging 

from -14.3 % to -31.6 % with an average of -19.2 %. As mentioned above, the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas 

consumption for all 11 building types. The combination of the reduction in total energy 

86
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

use and the shift in energy use from electricity consumption to natural gas consumption 

leads to greater reductions in carbon emissions than reductions in energy use. 

The percentage change in life-cycle costs varies across building types, ranging 

from -3.4 % to 0.6 % for a 10-year study period. Only 5 of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Yet based on the overall average percentage change 

of -0.7 % in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective for the state to adopt 

as its state energy code. 

12.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for 8 cities located in Pennsylvania located across three climate 

zones: Philadelphia located in Zone 4A, Allentown, Erie, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, 

Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsport located in Zone 5A, and Bradford located in Zone 6A. 

The results may vary across cities within Pennsylvania for several reasons. First, the state 

is covered by three climate zones. The ASHRAE 90.1 building design requirements vary 

across climate zones and will impact the relative energy efficiency of the building. 

Second, cities within the same climate zone still have some variation in the local climate, 

which can lead to variation in energy consumption. Third, construction material and labor 

costs vary by locality. 

Table 12-3 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

for each city in the state. The average percentage changes in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design do not vary significantly across cities, ranging 

from -11.0 % to -14.6 % with an overall average of -13.1 %. The warmer the climate 

zone in which a city is located, the greater the reduction in energy use. 

Table 12-3 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design by City, 

10-Year, Pennsylvania 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Philadelphia 4A -14.6 -19.2 -20.2 -0.3 

Allentown 5A -13.6 -18.7 -19.8 -0.5 

Erie 5A -12.4 -17.8 -19.0 -0.7 

Harrisburg 5A -14.0 -18.9 -20.0 -0.7 

Pittsburgh 5A -13.7 -18.8 -19.9 -0.9 

Wilkes-Barre 5A -12.4 -17.8 -19.0 -0.8 

Williamsport 5A -13.1 -18.3 -19.4 -0.9 

Bradford 6A -11.0 -16.8 -18.1 -0.8 

Average -13.1 -18.3 -19.4 -0.7 

87
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -16.8 % to -19.2 % for 10 years of operation. 

Similar to energy use, cities in warmer climate zones realize greater reductions in energy 

costs. For all cities, reductions in energy costs are greater than reductions in energy use 

because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction 

in natural gas consumption. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in 

carbon emissions for all building types also varies minimally across cities, ranging 

from -18.1 % to -20.2 %. Similar to energy use and energy costs, cities in warmer climate 

zones realize greater reductions in carbon emissions. Changes in life-cycle costs vary 

across cities ranging from -0.3 % to -0.9 %. Philadelphia, the only city in Zone 4, realizes 

smaller reductions in life-cycle costs than all other cities in the state. 

12.2 Total Savings 

How much can Pennsylvania save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

12.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 12-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.26 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 12-5 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.27 

26 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

27 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

88
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Table 12-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Pennsylvania
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -15.4 -4.9 

APART06 -16.7 -5.3 

DORMI04 -14.0 -4.4 

DORMI06 -18.2 -5.8 

HOTEL15 -19.9 -6.3 

HIGHS02 -19.5 -6.2 

OFFIC03 -13.0 -4.1 

OFFIC08 -18.2 -5.8 

OFFIC16 -22.9 -7.3 

RETAIL1 -15.1 -4.8 

RSTRNT1 -39.5 -12.5 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 42.6 GWh (145.5 GBtu) of total energy use 

annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study, which represent 55.7 % of all new commercial 

floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial 

building stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate statewide savings to 

be 76.5 GWh (261.2 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 764.9 GWh (2611.5 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

The change in energy use varies across building types. The building types that have the 

greatest percentage reductions are not always the same buildings that lead to the greatest 

total reductions for the state. Instead the building types that represent the greatest amount 

of new floor area realize the largest changes in energy use. For example, the building 

types that lead to the greatest estimated reductions in energy use for the LEC design -­

retail stores and high schools -- only rank 5th and 11th in percentage reduction, 

respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 12-2. 

89
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Table 12-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Pennsylvania 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 135.1 1454 -2 080 259 -7 102 899
 

APART06 55.1 % 165.5 1781 -2 767 241 -9 448 551
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 281.2 3027 -5 607 223 -19 145 471 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 732.0 7879 -9 500 680 -32 439 407 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 181.4 1953 -3 530 608 -12 055 015 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 195.7 2107 -3 562 784 -12 164 877 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 107.7 1159 -2 466 001 -8 419 989 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 752.3 8098 -11 354 259 -38 768 324 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 43.9 472 -1 733 418 -5 918 635 

Total 2594.9 27 931 -42 602 475 -145 463 169 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

12.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 12-6 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type for the 

LEC design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average 

energy cost rates, and regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 12-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Pennsylvania 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$12.12 -$1.13 

APART06 -$13.90 -$1.29 

DORMI04 -$10.23 -$0.95 

DORMI06 -$14.93 -$1.39 

HOTEL15 -$14.68 -$1.36 

HIGHS02 -$15.10 -$1.40 

OFFIC03 -$14.27 -$1.33 

OFFIC08 -$13.78 -$1.28 

OFFIC16 -$17.89 -$1.66 

RETAIL1 -$11.17 -$1.04 

RSTRNT1 -$29.69 -$2.76 

Table 12-7 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type and 

building design, which account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 

10 years. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with a 

statewide reduction in energy costs of $35.6 million for 10 years of building operation. 

90
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 55.7 % of all new 

commercial floor space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $63.9 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

Table 12-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Pennsylvania 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 135.1 1454 -$1 636 842 

APART06 55.1 % 165.5 1781 -$2 300 575 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 281.2 3027 -$4 126 921 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 732.0 7879 -$10 447 069 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 181.4 1953 -$2 741 178 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 195.7 2107 -$2 696 047 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 107.7 1159 -$1 926 308 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 752.3 8098 -$8 402 848 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 43.9 472 -$1 302 380 

Total 2594.9 27 931 -35 580 171 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

12.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 12-8 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined 

in Section 5.3. 

Table 12-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Pennsylvania 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -118.5 -24.3 

APART06 -136.8 -28.0 

DORMI04 -99.1 -20.3 

DORMI06 -146.7 -30.1 

HOTEL15 -142.3 -29.2 

HIGHS02 -144.2 -29.5 

OFFIC03 -147.5 -30.2 

OFFIC08 -134.1 -27.5 

OFFIC16 -174.8 -35.8 

RETAIL1 -108.4 -22.2 

RSTRNT1 -288.7 -59.1 

91
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Table 12-9 applies the Table 12-8 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building designs and is highly correlated with total reduction in energy use. The LEC 

design decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design 

results in savings of 350 304 metric tons over the 10-year study period for one year’s 

worth of new commercial construction for these building types. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 628 913 metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

Table 12-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Pennsylvania – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 135.1 1454 -16 006 

APART06 55.1 % 165.5 1781 -22 639 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 281.2 3027 -40 028 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 732.0 7879 -105 585 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 181.4 1953 -26 763 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 195.7 2107 -26 240 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 107.7 1159 -18 821 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 752.3 8098 -81 558 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 43.9 472 -12 665 

Total 2594.9 27 931 -350 304 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

12.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 12-10 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2

), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

92
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Table 12-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Pennsylvania
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $6.11 $0.57 

APART06 $5.19 $0.48 

DORMI04 -$7.83 -$0.73 

DORMI06 $1.92 $0.18 

HOTEL15 $4.19 $0.39 

HIGHS02 -$5.01 -$0.47 

OFFIC03 -$22.68 -$2.11 

OFFIC08 -$20.67 -$1.92 

OFFIC16 $3.72 $0.35 

RETAIL1 $0.67 $0.06 

RSTRNT1 -$47.53 -$4.42 

Table 12-11 applies the Table 12-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs from adoption of 

the LEC design. Total changes in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary 

across building type, with 4 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $10.1 million in statewide life-cycle 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Three-story office buildings, 8-story office 

buildings, and high schools realize the greatest statewide decreases in life-cycle costs 

($4.1 million, $4.0 million, and $3.7 million, respectively) while hotels, 6-story 

apartment buildings, and 4-story office buildings realize the greatest increases in lifecycle costs ($1.2 million, $859 590, and $826 125 million, respectively). Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate a decrease in statewide life-cycle costs of $18.2 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

93
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Table 12-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Pennsylvania 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 135.1 1454 $826 125
 

APART06 55.1 % 165.5 1781 $859 590
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 281.2 3027 $1 178 384 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 732.0 7879 -$3 670 171 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 181.4 1953 -$4 116 820 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 195.7 2107 -$4 045 870 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 107.7 1159 $400 381 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 752.3 8098 $504 961 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 43.9 472 -$2 085 209 

Total 2594.9 27 931 -$10 148 630 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

12.3 State Summary 

Pennsylvania has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. On average, adopting the LEC design reduces energy use, energy costs, and 

energy-related carbon emissions, and does so in a cost-effective manner. Based on the 

average annual new construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study 

period, adopting the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would lead to statewide energy use savings of 764.9 GWh (2611.5 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $63.9 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 628 913 metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $18.2 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

94
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

13 Rhode Island 

Rhode Island has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the New England Census Division. Only one city, Providence, 

is simulated for this study, and is located in Zone 5A. Table 13-1 provides an overview of 

Rhode Island’s simulated energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. Average 

energy use varies across building types. The 8-story office building uses the least amount 

of energy at 79 kWh/m2 to 97 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 31 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high 

school uses the greatest amount of energy at 219 kWh/m2 to 230 kWh/m2 (69 kBtu/ft2 to 

73 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

Table 13-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Rhode Island 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

154 49 

152 48 

140 44 

137 43 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

116 37 

168 53 

103 33 

152 48 

HOTEL15 161 51 142 45 

HIGHS02 230 73 219 69 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

105 33 

97 31 

152 48 

85 27 

79 25 

129 41 

RETAIL1 115 37 101 32 

RSTRNT1 155 49 117 37 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings and total savings on a 

statewide basis. There is no within-state variation to consider for this state since only one 

city is simulated for the state (Providence). 

13.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types within a 

state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from investing in the LEC 

design for the state of Rhode Island. 

Table 13-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

95
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

The LEC design realizes changes in energy use ranging from -5.0 % to -25.0 % with an 

average of -13.4 % relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The greatest reduction in 

energy use for the LEC design occurs in the restaurant followed by the small and midsized office buildings. The smallest reduction occurs in the high school followed by the 

4-story apartment and 6-story dormitory. 

Table 13-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10 

Year, Rhode Island 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.2 -15.5 -15.1 0.2 

APART06 -10.0 -17.9 -17.4 0.0 

DORMI04 -11.3 -16.7 -16.4 -1.4 

DORMI06 -9.7 -17.2 -16.7 -0.3 

HOTEL15 -12.1 -18.1 -17.7 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -5.0 -13.7 -13.0 -0.9 

OFFIC03 -18.5 -22.5 -22.3 -2.8 

OFFIC08 -18.9 -21.0 -20.9 -2.4 

OFFIC16 -15.3 -20.0 -19.7 -0.3 

RETAIL1 -12.4 -15.8 -15.6 -1.5 

RSTRNT1 -25.0 -31.8 -31.4 -3.8 

Average -13.4 -19.1 -18.7 -1.2 

The LEC design realizes average percentage changes in energy costs ranging 

from -13.7 % to -31.8 % depending on the building type, with an average of -19.1 % over 

10 years of operation. The high school and 4-story apartment building realize the smallest 

average percentage reduction in energy costs while the restaurant realizes the greatest 

average reduction in energy costs. The energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage 

than energy use because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption 

by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. In fact, the energy efficiency 

measures increase natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for 

all building types. The shift is most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in 

natural gas consumption offsets 52.5 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and 

results in a percentage reduction in energy costs that is 2.7 times greater than the 

percentage reduction in energy use. The LEC design incorporates daylighting and 

overhangs into the building design for cities in Zone 5, which decreases the building’s 

internal and external heat gains, respectively. The shift in energy use from electricity to 

natural gas consumption to meet the greater heating loads decreases energy costs because 

natural gas is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis relative to electricity. 

The LEC design leads to average changes in carbon emissions ranging from -13.0 % 

to -31.4 % depending on the building type, with an average of -18.7 % across all building 

types. As mentioned above, the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity 

96
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

consumption while increasing natural gas consumption for all 11 building types. The 

combination of the reduction in total energy use and the shift in energy use from 

electricity consumption to natural gas consumption leads to greater reductions in carbon 

emissions than reductions in energy use. 

The average change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design over a 10-year study period 

ranges from -3.8 % to 0.2 %. Four- and 6-story apartment buildings realize increases in 

life-cycle costs. The restaurant, 3-story office building, and 8-story office building are the 

building types that realize the greatest reductions in average life-cycle costs. Given that 9 

of 11 buildings types realize an average percentage decrease in life-cycle costs, it is likely 

that the LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy code for 

commercial buildings. 

13.2 Total Savings 

How much can Rhode Island save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

13.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 13-3 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type for 

the LEC design in the state.28 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 13-4 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.29 

28 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

29 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

97
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

Table 13-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Rhode Island
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -14.2 -4.5 

APART06 -15.2 -4.8 

DORMI04 -13.1 -4.2 

DORMI06 -16.3 -5.2 

HOTEL15 -19.5 -6.2 

HIGHS02 -19.4 -6.2 

OFFIC03 -11.5 -3.7 

OFFIC08 -18.4 -5.9 

OFFIC16 -23.36 -7.4 

RETAIL1 -14.3 -4.5 

RSTRNT1 -38.8 -12.3 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 13-4 ranges widely across building 

types with reported floor area data, but the LEC design decreases overall energy use 

across the state. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would save 

energy for all building types and 3.9 GWh (13.3 GBtu) of total energy use annually for 

one year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 70.6 % of all new commercial floor 

space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building 

stock in the state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide savings to 

be 5.5 GWh (18.9 GBtu) annually. These savings imply 55.3 GWh (188.7 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

Table 13-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Rhode Island 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 21.4 230 -302 916 -1 034 287 

APART06 55.1 % 26.2 282 -397 811 -1 358 299 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 38.5 414 -751 212 -2 564 962 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 39.5 425 -454 826 -1 552 973 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 18.9 203 -365 071 -1 246 510 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 20.3 219 -374 200 -1 277 681 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 11.1 120 -260 937 -890 951 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 55.6 598 -793 686 -2 709 987 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 5.2 56 -200 551 -684 766 

Total 236.5 2546 -3 901 212 -13 320 416 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

98
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

The relative reduction in energy use varies across the 9 building types with reported floor 

area data for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The greatest reductions are 

realized by retail stores, hotels, and high schools. The smallest reductions are for 

restaurants and the 16-story office buildings. Building types that represent a greater 

amount of new floor area realize the largest changes in energy use. The building types 

that have the greatest percentage reduction in energy use are not always the same 

buildings that lead to the greatest total reductions for the state. The building types that 

lead to the greatest total reductions in energy use -- retail stores and hotels -- only rank 5th 

and 6th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported in 

Table 13-2. 

13.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 13-5 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type. Energy 

costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average energy cost rates, and 

regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 13-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Rhode Island 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$16.67 -$1.55 

APART06 -$19.26 -$1.79 

DORMI04 -$14.10 -$1.31 

DORMI06 -$20.35 -$1.89 

HOTEL15 -$21.02 -$1.95 

HIGHS02 -$21.65 -$2.01 

OFFIC03 -$20.48 -$1.90 

OFFIC08 -$19.89 -$1.85 

OFFIC16 -$26.36 -$2.45 

RETAIL1 -$15.54 -$1.44 

RSTRNT1 -$41.88 -$3.89 

Table 13-6 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type, which 

account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 10 years of building 

operation. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with the 

energy cost savings being highly correlated with energy use savings. Any variation is a 

result of the greater percentage reduction in electricity consumption relative to the 

reduction in natural gas consumption. Overall, reductions in energy costs total $4.7 

million for adopting the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 70.6 % of all new commercial floor 

space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building 

99
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total 

energy cost savings of $6.6 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 13-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Rhode Island 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 21.4 230 -$356 182 

APART06 55.1 % 26.2 282 -$504 219 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 38.5 414 -$807 997 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 39.5 425 -$808 470 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 18.9 203 -$407 656 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 20.3 219 -$403 745 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 11.1 120 -$294 422 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 55.6 598 -$863 071 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 5.2 56 -$216 324 

Total 236.5 2546 -4 662 086 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

13.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 13-7 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined 

in Section 5.3. 

Table 13-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Rhode Island 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -94.8 -19.4 

APART06 -109.2 -22.4 

DORMI04 -80.6 -16.5 

DORMI06 -115.4 -23.6 

HOTEL15 -120.1 -24.6 

HIGHS02 -114.7 -23.5 

OFFIC03 -123.5 -25.3 

OFFIC08 -113.6 -23.3 

OFFIC16 -150.2 -30.8 

RETAIL1 -88.7 -18.2 

RSTRNT1 -239.2 -49.0 

Table 13-8 applies the Table 13-7 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building types, and is correlated with each building’s total reduction in energy use. 

However, there is not a perfect correlation because the magnitude of the offsetting natural 

gas increase varies across building types. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s 

energy code decreases carbon emissions by 26 501 metric tons over the 10-year study 

period for one year’s worth of new commercial construction for these building types. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be 

extrapolated to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 37 536 metric tons 

over the 10-year study period. 

Table 13-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Rhode Island – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 21.4 230 -2026 

APART06 55.1 % 26.2 282 -2859 

HOTEL15 100 % 38.5 414 -4615 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 39.5 425 -4529 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 18.9 203 -2324 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 20.3 219 -2306 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 11.1 120 -1678 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 55.6 598 -4927 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 5.2 56 -1235 

Total 236.5 2546 -26 501 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

13.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 13-9 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

101
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

Table 13-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Rhode Island
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $1.79 $0.17 

APART06 $0.28 $0.03 

DORMI03 -$13.97 -$1.30 

DORMI06 -$2.84 -$0.26 

HOTEL15 -$0.63 -$0.06 

HIGHS02 -$8.52 -$0.79 

OFFIC03 -$25.09 -$2.33 

OFFIC08 -$22.01 -$2.04 

OFFIC16 -$2.89 -$0.27 

RETAIL1 -$11.00 -$1.02 

RSTRNT1 -$53.61 -$4.98 

Table 13-10 applies the Table 13-9 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the change in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption 

of the LEC design. The change in life-cycle costs varies widely across building types, 

with life-cycle costs decreasing for 7 of 9 building types. Four- and 6-story apartment 

buildings realize increases in life-cycle costs of less than $40 000. Meanwhile, retail 

stores realize a reduction in life-cycle costs of greater than $600 000 overall. The LEC 

design leads to statewide decreases in life-cycle costs of $2.2 million relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2007. Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally 

representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the 

LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide decrease in life-cycle costs 

of $3.1 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 13-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Rhode Island 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 21.4 230 $38 199 

APART06 55.1 % 26.2 282 $7265 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 38.5 414 -$24 041 

HIGHS02 67.5 % 39.5 425 -$336 461 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 18.9 203 -$472 398 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 20.3 219 -$446 840 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 11.1 120 -$32 315 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 55.6 598 -$611 038 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 5.2 56 -$276 929 

Total 236.5 2546 -$2 154 557 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

102
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island 

13.3 State Summary 

Rhode Island has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. The adoption of the LEC design, which goes beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007, 

leads to energy use, energy cost, and energy-related carbon emissions reductions, and 

does so in a life-cycle cost-effective manner. Based on the average annual new 

construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study period, adopting the LEC 

design as the state’s energy code would lead to energy use savings of 55.3 GWh (188.7 

GBtu), energy cost savings of $6.6 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 37 536 

metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $3.1 million for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

103
 
Rhode Island 

104
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

14 Vermont 

Vermont has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the Northeast Census Division. Only one city, Burlington, is 

simulated for this study, and is located in Climate Zone 6A. 

Table 14-1 provides an overview of Vermont’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building types. The 8-story 

office building uses the least amount of energy at 91 kWh/m2 to 109 kWh/m2 (29 kBtu/ft2 

to 35 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 281 

kWh/m2 to 298 kWh/m2 (89 kBtu/ft2 to 95 kBtu/ ft2

) annually. 

Table 14-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Vermont 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

185 59 

183 58 

167 53 

166 53 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

148 47 

204 65 

130 41 

187 59 

HOTEL15 197 62 179 57 

HIGHS02 298 95 281 89 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

122 39 

109 35 

179 57 

101 32 

91 29 

159 50 

RETAIL1 140 45 118 38 

RSTRNT1 187 59 143 45 

The detailed analysis for this state reports the changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design. 

The results are reported in terms of average percentage savings and total savings on a 

statewide basis. There is no within-state variation to consider for this state since only one 

city is simulated for the state (Burlington). 

14.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building types within a 

state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from investing in the LEC 

design for the state of Vermont. 

Table 14-2 shows the percentage change in energy use, energy costs, energy-related 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs for the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

105
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

The LEC design realizes changes in energy use ranging from -5.9 % to -23.6 % with an 

average of -12.6 % relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The greatest reduction in 

energy use for the LEC design occurs in the restaurants followed by the small and midsized office buildings. The smallest reductions occur in the high school followed by the 

6-story dormitory and hotel. 

Table 14-2 Average Percentage Changes from Adoption of the LEC Design, 10 

Year, Vermont 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -9.5 -15.5 -14.6 -0.2 

APART06 -9.2 -15.1 -14.2 -0.1 

DORMI04 -11.9 -16.7 -15.9 -1.6 

DORMI06 -8.2 -13.4 -12.6 -0.3 

HOTEL15 -9.0 -11.3 -11.0 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -5.9 -12.1 -11.0 -1.4 

OFFIC03 -17.6 -20.1 -19.8 -2.6 

OFFIC08 -16.5 -18.0 -17.8 -2.0 

OFFIC16 -11.3 -12.3 -12.2 -0.4 

RETAIL1 -15.7 -17.5 -17.3 -0.8 

RSTRNT1 -23.6 -28.5 -27.9 -4.3 

Average -12.6 -16.4 -15.8 -1.2 

The LEC design realizes average changes in energy costs from -11.3 % to -28.5 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -16.4 % overall over 10 years of 

operation. The hotel and high school realize the smallest average reduction in energy 

costs while the restaurant realizes the greatest average reduction in energy use. The 

energy costs are reduced by a greater percentage than energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. In the most extreme case, the energy efficiency measures increase 

natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity consumption for the high school. 

The increase in natural gas consumption offsets 13.3 % of the reduction in electricity 

consumption, and results in a percentage reduction in energy costs that is twice the 

percentage reduction in energy use. The LEC design incorporates daylighting in Zone 6, 

which decreases the building’s internal heat gains, respectively. The shift in energy use 

from electricity to natural gas consumption to meet the greater heating loads decreases 

energy costs because natural gas is cheaper on a per unit of energy basis relative to 

electricity. 

The LEC design leads to average changes in carbon emissions ranging from -11.0 % 

to -27.9 % depending on the building type, with an average of -15.8 % across all building 

types. As would be expected, a more energy efficient building design results in greater 

reductions in carbon emissions. For the LEC design, the percentage reduction in carbon 

106
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

emissions is greater than the percentage reduction in energy use for all 11 building types 

because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity consumption by a greater 

percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative reduction in electricity 

leads to a greater reduction in carbon emissions because natural gas has a lower average 

carbon emissions rate than electricity. For the high school, the energy efficiency 

measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas consumption, 

which leads to even greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

The average change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design ranges from -4.3 % to -0.1 % 

for a 10-year study period. The restaurant, 3-story office building, and 8-story office 

building are the building types that realize the greatest reductions in average life-cycle 

costs. Given that all 11 buildings types realize an average percentage decrease in 

life-cycle costs, the LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy 

code for commercial buildings. 

14.2 Total Savings 

How much can Vermont save, in terms of energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions, from adopting a more stringent state energy code for commercial buildings? 

What are the life-cycle costs associated with the new energy code adoption? To answer 

these questions, it is necessary to estimate savings per unit of floor area for each building 

type in the state. 

14.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 14-3 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type for 

the LEC design in the state.30 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 14-4 reports the estimated 

average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual reduction in energy 

use for each building type. The weightings within a category (e.g., small, medium, and 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.31 

30 A simple average for a state is used because no data for a weighted average is available regarding the
 

amount of new construction on a city-by-city basis.
 

31 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

107
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

Table 14-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Vermont
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -17.5 -5.5 

APART06 -16.8 -5.3 

DORMI04 -17.6 -5.6 

DORMI06 -16.7 -5.3 

HOTEL15 -17.8 -5.6 

HIGHS02 -21.6 -6.9 

OFFIC03 -17.5 -5.6 

OFFIC08 -18.0 -5.7 

OFFIC16 -20.2 -6.4 

RETAIL1 -22.0 -7.0 

RSTRNT1 -44.0 -14.0 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 14-4 ranges widely across building 

types with reported floor area data, but the LEC design decreases overall energy use 

across the state. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would save 

energy for all building types and 2.1 GWh (7.3 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one 

year’s worth of new construction for these building types. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study, which represent 57.6 % of all new commercial floor space in the 

state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the 

state, the results can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide savings to be 3.7 GWh 

(12.7 GBtu) annually. These savings imply 37.3 GWh (127.3 GBtu) in energy use 

savings over the 10-year study period. 

Table 14-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Vermont 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 14.5 156 -253 220 -864 600 

APART06 55.1 % 17.7 191 -298 851 -1 020 405 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 19.1 206 -339 888 -1 160 525 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 27.2 293 -476 793 -1 627 977 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 8.5 91 -182 453 -622 974 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 9.1 98 -164 270 -560 888 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 5.0 54 -101 073 -345 107 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 12.5 135 -275 921 -942 113 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 1.3 14 -55 647 -190 003 

Total 114.9 1237 -2 148 116 -7 334 592 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

108
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

The size of the reduction in energy use varies across the 9 building types with reported 

floor area data. The greatest reductions are realized by high schools and hotels. The 

smallest reductions are realized by restaurants followed by the 16-story office buildings. 

Building types that represent a greater amount of new floor area realize the largest 

changes in energy use. The building types that have the greatest percentage reduction in 

energy use are not always the same buildings that lead to the greatest total reductions for 

the state. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated reductions in energy use -­

hotels and high schools -- only rank 4th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, 

among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 14-2. 

14.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 14-5 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type. Energy 

costs are calculated using the annual energy use, state average energy cost rates, and 

regional energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 14-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Vermont 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$16.54 -$1.54 

APART06 -$16.09 -$1.50 

DORMI04 -$14.50 -$1.35 

DORMI06 -$15.80 -$1.47 

HOTEL15 -$13.11 -$1.22 

HIGHS02 -$19.08 -$1.77 

OFFIC03 -$19.15 -$1.78 

OFFIC08 -$16.54 -$1.54 

OFFIC16 -$15.77 -$1.47 

RETAIL1 -$17.39 -$1.62 

RSTRNT1 -$37.23 -$3.46 

Table 14-6 reports the statewide changes in total energy costs by building type, which 

account for one year’s worth of new construction evaluated over 10 years of building 

operation. All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design, with the 

energy cost savings being highly correlated with energy use savings. Any variation is a 

result of the greater percentage reduction in electricity consumption relative to the 

reduction in natural gas consumption. Overall, reductions in energy costs total $2.0 

million for adopting the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 57.6 % of all new commercial floor 

space in the state, are generally representative of the entire new commercial building 

stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total 

energy cost savings of $3.4 million over the 10-year study period. 

109
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

Table 14-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Vermont 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 14.5 156 -$239 854 

APART06 55.1 % 17.7 191 -$285 765 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 19.1 206 -$250 866 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 27.2 293 -$520 486 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 8.5 91 -$161 052 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 9.1 98 -$150 574 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 5.0 54 -$78 997 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 12.5 135 -$217 782 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 1.3 14 -$47 041 

Total 114.9 1237 -$1 952 418 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

14.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 14-7 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 10 

years, per m 

2 (ft2

), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined 

in Section 5.3. 

Table 14-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Vermont 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -100.5 -20.6 

APART06 -97.7 -20.0 

DORMI04 -89.5 -18.3 

DORMI06 -96.0 -19.7 

HOTEL15 -82.0 -16.8 

HIGHS02 -114.7 -23.5 

OFFIC03 -116.8 -23.9 

OFFIC08 -100.8 -20.6 

OFFIC16 -97.9 -20.1 

RETAIL1 -107.8 -22.1 

RSTRNT1 -229.0 -46.9 

Table 14-8 applies the Table 14-7 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building types, and is correlated with each building’s total reduction in energy use. 

However, there is not a perfect correlation because the magnitude of the offsetting natural 

110
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

gas increase varies across building types. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s 

energy code decreases carbon emissions by 11 912 metric tons over the 10-year study 

period for one year’s worth of new commercial construction for these building types. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the 

entire new commercial building stock in the state, the results for the LEC design can be 

extrapolated to estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 20 681 metric tons 

over the 10-year study period. 

Table 14-8 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Vermont – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 14.5 156 -1457 

APART06 55.1 % 17.7 191 -1734 

HOTEL15 100 % 19.1 206 -1569 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 27.2 293 -3118 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 8.5 91 -986 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 9.1 98 -918 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 5.0 54 -490 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 12.5 135 -1351 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 1.3 14 -289 

Total 114.9 1237 -11 912 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

14.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 14-9 reports the average change in life-cycle cost over 10 years, per m2 (ft2), by 

building type. As discussed in Section 5.2, life-cycle costs include construction costs, 

maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, energy costs, and residual values. 

111
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

Table 14-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Vermont
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$1.60 -$0.15 

APART06 -$0.65 -$0.06 

DORMI04 -$14.04 -$1.30 

DORMI06 -$2.91 -$0.27 

HOTEL15 -$1.19 -$0.11 

HIGHS02 -$11.98 -$1.11 

OFFIC03 -$19.39 -$1.80 

OFFIC08 -$15.62 -$1.45 

OFFIC16 -$3.28 -$0.31 

RETAIL1 -$4.74 -$0.44 

RSTRNT1 -$52.47 -$4.87 

Table 14-10 applies the Table 14-9 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the change in statewide life-cycle costs from adoption 

of the LEC design. The change in life-cycle costs varies widely across building types, but 

all 9 building types realize reductions in life-cycle costs. High schools realize the greatest 

reductions ($325 561). The LEC design leads to a statewide decrease in life-cycle costs 

of $831 158 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the buildings considered in 

this study are generally representative of the entire new commercial building stock in the 

state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide 

decrease in life-cycle costs of $1.4 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 14-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Vermont 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 14.5 156 -$23 164 

APART06 55.1 % 17.7 191 -$11 626 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 19.1 206 -$22 806 

HIGHS02 67.5 % 27.2 293 -$325 561 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 8.5 91 -$163 714 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 9.1 98 -$142 225 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 5.0 54 -$16 455 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 12.5 135 -$59 311 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 1.3 14 -$66 297 

Total 114.9 1237 -$831 158 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

112
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont 

14.3 State Summary 

Vermont has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. The adoption of the LEC design, which goes beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007, 

leads to reductions in energy use, energy cost, and energy-related carbon emissions, and 

does so in a life-cycle cost-effective manner. Based on the average annual new 

construction in the state from 2003 to 2007 and a 10-year study period, adopting the LEC 

design as the state’s energy code would lead to energy use savings of 37.3 GWh 

(127.3 GBtu), energy cost savings of $3.4 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 

20 681 metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $1.4 million for one year’s worth 

of commercial building construction. 

113
 
Vermont 

114
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

15 State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

One purpose of this study is to determine which states could benefit the most from 

adopting a more stringent state energy code. This chapter analyzes benefits from the 

region-wide adoption of the LEC design relative to the current collection of state energy 

codes. The aggregate benefits and costs are compared for each of the states in the 

Northeast Census Region. Benefits and costs on a percentage basis are also evaluated 

across several dimensions: geography (state and climate zone), time, and building type. 

As in the state-by-state analysis for analyzing benefits from adopting the LEC design, it 

is necessary to assume a particular study period length because energy costs and lifecycle costs fluctuate on an annual basis. A 10-year study period is used as the baseline 

because it is the most realistic investor time frame of the nine study period length options 

in BIRDS. The significance of the study period length will be tested below. 

It would be expected that the state with no state energy code, Maine, would realize 

greater benefits from adopting the LEC design relative to the other eight states in the 

Northeast Census Region that have adopted the more energy efficient ASHRAE 

90.1-2007. 

15.1 Total Savings Comparison 

By comparing the aggregate results from the detailed state-by-state analysis, some 

interesting trends emerge. Table 15-1 shows the total savings in energy use, energy costs, 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adopting the LEC design as the commercial 

building energy code for each of the states in the Northeast Census Region for a 10-year 

study period. In general, there is a strong correlation between energy use with both 

energy costs and carbon emissions. However, there are a number of factors that lead to 

significant variation in relative savings, including current state energy code requirements, 

newly constructed building stock mix and size, climate zone, electricity costs, and 

electricity production fuel mix. 

115
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-1 Total Reductions by State for Adoption of the LEC Design, 10-Year
 

Average Annual Energy Energy Carbon LCC 

State Code New Floor Area Use Costs (1000 tCO2e) ($million) 

1000 m2 (1000 ft2

) (GWh) ($million) 

CT 2007 1445 (15 549) 232.0 35.1 160.6 19.7 

MA 2007 2579 (27 760) 403.8 56.0 277.4 12.8 

ME None 497 (5349) 216.6 18.0 113.3 6.4 

NH 2007 553 (5948) 108.0 10.9 59.2 5.8 

NJ 2007 3476 (37 421) 581.6 72.7 436.8 20.8 

NY 2007 6071 (65 346) 1037.6 132.5 560.8 37.1 

PA 2007 4661 (50 170) 764.9 63.9 628.9 18.2 

RI 2007 335 (3604) 55.3 6.6 37.5 3.1 

VT 2007 200 (2147) 37.3 3.4 20.7 1.4 

Total 22 395 (241 056) 3437.1 399.1 2331.5 125.3 

Total energy use savings varies across states for a number of reasons. First, states with 

more newly constructed commercial floor area realize greater reductions in energy use. 

Second, states located in warmer climate zones realize greater reductions in energy use 

than the states located in colder climate zones because the buildings in warmer climates 

benefit more from the overhangs and daylighting installed in the LEC design. Third, a 

state’s current state energy code for commercial buildings drives the variation in energy 

use. Consider the reductions in energy use for two states with similar amounts of new 

floor area, Maine and New Hampshire. Even though New Hampshire has slightly more 

new floor area construction and a warmer climate, Maine realizes twice the total 

reductions in energy use. Maine has not adopted a state energy code for commercial 

buildings while New Hampshire has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

Table 15-2 shows the reduction in energy use per unit of newly constructed floor area by 

state. Maine realizes over twice the reduction in energy use per unit of floor area relative 

to all other states in the Northeast. The two states with the greatest total new floor area, 

New York and Pennsylvania, are 4th and 7th out of the 9 states considered in this study, 

respectively. These results vary significantly from the total reductions in energy use, 

where New York is 1st (1038 GWh), Pennsylvania a distant 2nd (765 GWh), and Maine 

6th (217 GWh). 

116
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-2 Energy Use Reduction per Unit of Floor Area for Adoption of the LEC 

Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code 

Floor 

Area Average Annual 

New Floor Area 

Energy Use Reduction 

Ranking 1000 m2 (1000 ft2

) GWh kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

ME None 41 497 (5349) 216.6 436 138 

NH 2007 39 553 (5948) 107.9 195 62 

VT 2007 50 200 (2147) 37.3 187 59 

NY 2007 6 6071 (65346) 1037.6 171 54 

NJ 2007 15 3476 (37421) 581.6 167 53 

RI 2007 44 335 (3604) 55.3 165 52 

PA 2007 9 4661 (50170) 764.9 164 52 

CT 2007 32 1445 (15549) 232.0 161 51 

MA 2007 21 2579 (27760) 403.8 157 50 

In general, the states that realize the greatest reductions in energy use also realize the 

greatest reductions in energy costs. However, reductions in energy costs are also 

impacted by the per unit energy costs of electricity and natural gas, and the fuel mix of 

the reductions in energy use in a state. Table 15-3 shows each state’s reduction in energy 

costs per unit of reduction in energy use, natural gas rate, electricity rate, and the 

weighted average fraction of electricity consumption offset by a change in natural gas 

consumption. 32 States with the highest electricity rates tend to realize the greatest 

reductions in energy costs per unit of reduction in energy use. Relative to electricity 

prices, natural gas prices are fairly constant across states ($0.03/kWh or $0.04/kWh) and 

are always cheaper per unit of energy. 

There is some fluctuation in the results due to the fuel source mix of the reductions in 

energy use. For example, New Hampshire has a higher electricity rate than Rhode Island. 

However, Rhode Island realizes a greater average energy cost savings per unit of energy 

use savings ($0.12) than New Hampshire ($0.10) because Rhode Island realizes a shift in 

fuel consumption from electricity to natural gas, magnifying the savings from the 

reduction in total energy use alone. Meanwhile, New Hampshire realizes reductions in 

both electricity and natural gas consumption, which dampens its savings per unit of 

reduction in energy use. 

32 The fraction of electricity offset by natural gas consumption is greater (less) than 100 % (-100 %) when 

natural gas consumption increases (decreases) by a greater amount than electricity consumption decreases. 

117
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-3 Energy Cost Reduction per kWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption 

of the LEC Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code 

Offset* 

(%) 

Electricity 

Rate 

(¢/kWh) 

Natural Gas 

Rate 

(¢/kWh) 

Energy Cost 

Reduction 

($/kWh) 

CT 2007 18.5 16.9 2.9 0.15 

MA 2007 18.0 15.4 3.8 0.14 

NY 2007 7.6 15.5 3.1 0.13 

NJ 2007 17.4 13.8 3.0 0.13 

RI 2007 16.8 13.7 4.4 0.12 

NH 2007 -20.4 14.6 4.2 0.10 

VT 2007 -18.6 12.9 3.8 0.09 

PA 2007 17.2 9.5 3.5 0.08 

ME None -27.5 12.6 4.1 0.08 

*Percentage of the reduction in electricity consumption offset by change in 

natural gas consumption. 

Table 15-4 shows the weighted average fraction of electricity consumption offset by a 

change in natural gas consumption, the average CO2e emission rate for electricity and 

natural gas, and the reduction in cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions per unit 

of reduction in energy use. There is a direct correlation between the carbon emissions rate 

for electricity generation in a state and the reduction in carbon emissions per unit of 

reduction in energy use. However, the fuel source mix of reductions in energy use leads 

to additional variation. For example, six states have the same average emissions rate for 

electricity generation. The states with a greater offset in the reduction of electricity due to 

a change in natural gas realize a greater average reduction in carbon emissions. 

Additionally, New York realizes greater average reductions in carbon emissions than 

Maine even though its emissions rate for electricity is smaller, because Maine’s offset 

reflects an increase in natural gas consumption while New York’s reflects a decrease. 

118
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-4 Carbon Reduction per GWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption of 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code Offset* 

(%) 

CO2e 

Emissions Rate 

for Electricity 

(t/GWh) 

CO2e 

Emissions Rate 

for Natural Gas 

(t/GWh) 

CO2e 

Reduction 

(t/GWh) 

PA 2007 17.2 708 241 822 

NJ 2007 17.4 653 241 751 

CT 2007 18.5 599 241 692 

MA 2007 18.0 599 241 687 

RI 2007 16.8 599 241 678 

VT 2007 -18.6 599 241 555 

NH 2007 -20.4 599 241 548 

NY 2007 7.6 514 241 540 

ME None -27.5 599 241 523 

*Percentage of the reduction in electricity consumption offset by change in natural 

gas consumption. 

The relative change in life-cycle costs per unit of new floor area is shown in Table 15-5. 

There is some correlation between the energy cost savings (Table 15-3) and the life-cycle 

cost-effectiveness of adopting the LEC design. However, it is not a strong correlation 

because additional construction costs are required to obtain future energy cost savings. 

All Northeast states realize an average decrease in life-cycle costs, ranging from $3.90/m2 

to $13.63/m2 ($0.36/ft2 to $1.27/ft2). 

Table 15-5 Life-Cycle Cost Reductions per Unit of New Floor Area for Adoption of 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code Floor 

Area 

kWh/m2 

LCC Reduction 

Ranking $million $/m2 $/ft2 

CT 2007 32 161 $19.7 $13.63 $1.27 

ME None 41 436 $6.4 $12.88 $1.20 

NH 2007 39 195 $5.8 $10.49 $0.98 

RI 2007 44 165 $3.1 $9.25 $0.86 

VT 2007 50 187 $1.4 $7.00 $0.65 

NY 2007 6 171 $37.1 $6.11 $0.57 

NJ 2007 15 167 $20.8 $5.98 $0.56 

MA 2007 21 157 $12.8 $4.96 $0.46 

PA 2007 9 164 $18.2 $3.90 $0.36 

119
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

15.2 Percentage Savings Comparison 

State comparisons are made based on the simple average changes for the cities analyzed 

in each state by building type.33 One building type is chosen to illustrate the detailed 

analysis possible with the powerful BIRDS database compiled for this study. Energy use, 

energy costs, carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs are analyzed for the most common 

existing building type, small office buildings. Summary results for the other 10 building 

types are reported in Table B-1 through Table B-10 in Appendix B. 

15.2.1 3-Story Office Building 

Table 15-6 summarizes the percentage changes in energy use, energy costs, carbon 

emissions, and life-cycle costs for the 3-story office building. On average, adoption of the 

LEC design for a 3-story office building decreases energy use, energy costs, and energyrelated carbon emissions by more than 18 % each while reducing life-cycle costs by 

2.6 %. 

Table 15-6 Average Percentage Change by State, 3-Story Office Building, 10-Year 

Percentage Change 

State Energy Energy Carbon LCC 

Use Cost Emissions 

CT -17.9 -23.4 -21.8 -3.1 

MA -17.6 -22.8 -21.8 -2.6 

ME -31.1 -31.6 -31.6 -0.7 

NH -18.1 -20.4 -20.1 -2.8 

NJ -19.6 -23.6 -22.9 -2.5 

NY -16.9 -22.0 -20.2 -3.0 

PA -17.5 -21.5 -22.1 -2.7 

RI -18.5 -22.5 -22.3 -2.8 

VT -17.6 -20.1 -19.8 -2.6 

Avg. -18.7 -22.8 -22.2 -2.6 

These detailed results can be readily analyzed in mappings of the Northeast Census 

Region. Figure 15-1, Figure 15-2, Figure 15-3, and Figure 15-4 display the average 

percentage energy use savings, energy cost savings, carbon emissions reduction, and lifecycle cost savings by state, respectively. The state with no state energy code is shown 

with cross hatching and a bolded state border. 

The state energy code is the primary driver of the reductions in energy use. Figure 15-1 

shows that Maine, the only state without a state energy code, realizes energy use savings 

greater than 30 % by adopting the LEC design. The other 8 Northeastern states, which 

33 City-level data is not available to weight by amount of building construction in each city. 

120
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

have all adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007, realize much lower energy use savings (less than 

20 %). 

Figure 15-1 Average Energy Use Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 10-year 

Figure 15-2 shows the average energy cost savings over 10 years by state from adopting 

the LEC design. Every state reduces energy costs by at least 20 %. Similar to energy use, 

Maine realizes the greatest energy cost savings. None of the other eight states have cost 

savings greater than 25 %. The reductions in energy costs are larger than the reductions in 

energy use for all states. 

Figure 15-2 Average Energy Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 

10-Year 

Figure 15-3 shows the average reductions in energy-related carbon emissions by state 

from adopting the LEC design. The results for carbon emissions are similar to those for 

energy use and energy costs. Maine realizes the greatest reduction in carbon emissions 

(33 %). Seven of the other eight states realize reductions between 20 % and 25 %. 

Vermont realizes the smallest reductions in carbon emissions (19.8 %) because natural 

gas accounts for a greater fraction of the reduction in total energy use for Vermont than 

for any other state. 

121
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Figure 15-3 Average Energy-related Carbon Emissions Reduction by State, 3-Story 

Office Building, 10-year 

Figure 15-4 shows the average life-cycle cost savings over 10 years by state from 

adopting the LEC design. Maine realizes the smallest reduction in life-cycle costs 

(0.7 %), which may be driven by the higher investment costs required to obtain the more 

efficient building design. The other 8 states realize reductions in life-cycle costs between 

2 % and 4 %. 

Figure 15-4 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 

10-Year 

For a 3-story office building, as expected, Maine has the most to gain in percentage terms 

in energy use, energy cost, and carbon emissions savings from adopting the LEC design. 

However, Maine realizes the smallest life-cycle cost reductions. The other eight states 

would also realize significant benefits from the adoption of the LEC design for 3-story 

office buildings, and do so while realizing greater life-cycle cost savings. 

15.2.2 Region-wide Results by Study Period Length 

The percentage change comparisons up to this point have focused on 3-story office 

buildings over a 10-year study period. It is important to consider how the study period 

length – representing the time horizon of the investor -- impacts energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs. Nine study period lengths are 

analyzed: 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 

40 years. All building types are included in this analysis. 

122
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Average reductions in energy use from adoption of the LEC design are constant over all 

study period lengths because energy efficiency is assumed to be constant over time. The 

regional reduction in average energy use across all 26 cities in the study ranges from 

6.1 % to 25.1 %, depending on the building type, with an overall regional average of 

13.8 %. Table 15-7 shows these results. 

Table 15-7 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Use by 

Building Type 

Building Percentage 

Type Change 

APART04 -10.2 

APART06 -10.8 

DORMI04 -12.3 

DORMI06 -10.4 

HOTEL15 -11.8 

HIGHS02 -6.1 

OFFIC03 -18.7 

OFFIC08 -18.6 

OFFIC16 -14.2 

RETAIL1 -14.2 

RSTRNT1 -25.1 

Average -13.8 

As shown in Table 15-8, savings in energy costs vary slightly, in percentage terms, over 

increasing study period lengths. The regional average reduction in energy costs across all 

location-building type combinations is constant at 20.1 % for all study periods. The 

minor variation within a building type is a result of the escalation rates used to adjust 

future energy prices. The regional average reduction ranges from 15.1 % to 32.6 %, 

depending on the building type, over all study periods. 

Table 15-8 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by 

Building Type and Study Period Length 

Building Study Period Length 

Type 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

APART04 -17.8 -17.7 -17.7 -17.8 -17.8 -17.8 -17.8 -17.7 -17.7 

APART06 -19.7 -19.5 -19.6 -19.7 -19.7 -19.7 -19.7 -19.6 -19.6 

DORMI04 -18.8 -18.6 -18.7 -18.8 -18.8 -18.8 -18.7 -18.7 -18.7 

DORMI06 -18.9 -18.7 -18.8 -18.8 -18.9 -18.9 -18.8 -18.8 -18.8 

HOTEL15 -18.2 -18.1 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.1 

HIGHS02 -15.3 -15.1 -15.2 -15.3 -15.3 -15.3 -15.3 -15.2 -15.2 

OFFIC03 -22.8 -22.7 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 

OFFIC08 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 

OFFIC16 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 

RETAIL1 -17.6 -17.5 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 

RSTRNT1 -32.6 -32.4 -32.5 -32.5 -32.6 -32.6 -32.5 -32.5 -32.5 

Average -20.1 -20.0 -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 

123 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Since the regional average reduction in energy use is constant over all study periods, the 

average energy-related carbon emissions are also constant at 19.0 %. The regional 

average reduction in carbon emissions ranges from 13.4 % to 31.3 % depending on the 

building type, as shown in Table 15-9. 

Table 15-9 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by 

Building Type 

Building Percentage 

Type Change 

APART04 -16.3 

APART06 -18.0 

DORMI04 -17.6 

DORMI06 -17.3 

HOTEL15 -17.1 

HIGHS02 -13.4 

OFFIC03 -22.2 

OFFIC08 -20.7 

OFFIC16 -18.0 

RETAIL1 -17.0 

RSTRNT1 -31.3 

Average -19.0 

Table 15-10 shows that the percentage changes in life-cycle costs vary significantly over 

increasing study period lengths, but on average decrease for all study period lengths. 

Seven of the 11 building types realize reductions in life-cycle costs for all study periods. 

Table 15-10 Northeast Region Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by 

Building Type and Study Period Length 

Building Study Period Length 

Type 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

APART04 -2.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 

APART06 0.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.6 -0.5 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 

DORMI04 -7.0 -1.6 -1.2 -1.5 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.4 

DORMI06 1.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.4 

HOTEL15 1.7 0.3 -0.2 -0.9 -0.9 -1.2 -1.4 -1.7 -1.7 

HIGHS02 -1.5 -1.1 -1.2 -1.6 -1.6 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -2.2 

OFFIC03 -10.7 -3.1 -2.6 -3.0 -2.6 -2.7 -2.9 -3.0 -2.9 

OFFIC08 -4.6 -2.4 -2.3 -2.7 -2.4 -2.5 -2.6 -2.8 -2.7 

OFFIC16 2.5 0.5 -0.2 -1.1 -1.2 -1.5 -1.7 -2.1 -2.1 

RETAIL1 -9.1 -0.6 -0.5 -1.1 -0.7 -0.9 -1.1 -1.4 -1.3 

RSTRNT1 -10.9 -4.7 -4.0 -4.9 -4.4 -4.5 -4.8 -5.0 -5.0 

Average -3.7 -1.1 -1.2 -1.7 -1.5 -1.7 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 

Figure 15-5 shows that four building types – the 6-story apartment building, 6-story 

dormitory, hotel, and 16-story office building – are not cost-effective for a 1-year study 

124
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

period, with an average change in life-cycle costs ranging from 0.1 % to 2.5 %. By a 10­

year study period, these four building types become cost-effective. 

4.0 

Change in Life-cycle Costs (%)
 

2.0 

0.0 

-2.0 

-4.0 

-6.0 

-8.0 

-10.0 

-12.0 

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
 

APART04 

APART06 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

HOTEL15 

HIGHS02 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

RETAIL1 

RSTRNT1 

Study Period
 

Figure 15-5 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by Building Type and Study Period 

Length 

15.2.3 Region-wide Results by Building Type 

For a 10-year study period length, Table 15-11 shows the simple average changes across 

all 26 cities in the Northeast Census Region, in percentage terms, from adopting the LEC 

design. The building type that realizes the smallest percentage reductions in energy use, 

energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions is the high school while the greatest 

reductions are realized by the restaurant followed by the 3- and 8-story office buildings. 

The occupant activity is the primary driver of the results for the high school, which is 

heavily occupied during the school year and lightly occupied during the summer months. 

Some of the energy efficiency measures (e.g., lighting) decrease heat gains, which lead to 

lower cooling loads during warmer months and greater heating loads during the colder 

months. A significant portion of the reductions in electricity consumption during these 

colder months is offset by increases in natural gas consumption required to meet the 

increased heating loads. Thus, a greater portion of the high school’s energy use occurs 

during the colder months relative to other building types. The combination of more 

energy use occurring during the colder months and the offsetting increase in natural gas 

consumption during those months leads to a smaller overall percentage reduction in 

energy use for high schools. 

125
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

One of the reasons that the restaurant realizes the greatest reductions in energy use is that 

the restaurant has the smallest plug and process loads in terms of watts per unit of floor 

area. Since the plug and process load is the only electricity use not impacted by the 

energy efficiency measures adopted in this study, a greater fraction of energy use can be 

decreased for restaurants relative to the other building types. 

For all types, the percentage changes in energy costs and carbon emissions are greater 

than the percentage changes in energy use. This result is most significant for the high 

school, for which the percentage reduction in energy costs is over twice the percentage 

reduction in energy use. High schools realize such a dramatic difference due to the 

significant shift in energy use from electricity to cheaper and cleaner natural gas. 

All 11 building types realize reductions in life-cycle costs. The restaurant, 3-story office 

building, and 8-story office building realize the greatest percentage reductions in lifecycle costs. The 4- and 6-story apartment buildings realize the smallest reductions in lifecycle costs. 

Table 15-11 Northeast Region Percentage Change for LEC by Building Type, 

10-Year 

Building Percentage Change 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -10.2 -17.7 -16.3 -0.0 

APART06 -10.8 -19.6 -18.0 -0.1 

DORMI04 -12.3 -18.7 -17.6 -1.2 

DORMI06 -10.4 -18.8 -17.3 -0.4 

HOTEL15 -11.8 -18.2 -17.1 -0.2 

HIGHS02 -6.1 -15.2 -13.4 -1.2 

OFFIC03 -18.7 -22.8 -22.2 -2.6 

OFFIC08 -18.6 -21.0 -20.7 -2.3 

OFFIC16 -14.2 -18.6 -18.0 -0.2 

RETAIL1 -14.2 -17.6 -17.0 -0.5 

RSTRNT1 -25.1 -32.5 -31.3 -4.0 

Average -13.8 -20.1 -19.0 -1.2 

15.2.4 Region-wide Results by Climate Zone 

Table 15-12 shows the region-wide average percentage change in energy use, energy 

costs, energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs by ASHRAE climate zone. 

These changes are for the adoption of the LEC design relative to current state energy 

codes for all building types combined. However, it is necessary to control for state energy 

codes to properly analyze these results. 

126
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-12 Average Percentage Change for LEC by Climate Zone
 

Climate Zone Energy Energy Carbon LCC 

Use Cost Emissions 

4A -14.4 -20.8 -19.7 -1.0 

5A -12.9 -19.6 -18.5 -1.1 

6A -14.0 -19.2 -18.4 -1.2 

7 -24.2 -30.1 -29.5 -2.0 

Average -13.8 -20.1 -19.1 -1.2 

Table 15-13 shows the average percentage reduction in energy use for all cities located in 

a climate zone while controlling for state energy codes. The region-wide average 

reduction in energy use is -13.8 % with Zone 7 realizing the greatest reduction (-24.2 %) 

and Zone 5 the smallest (-12.9 %). Controlling for state energy codes, the warmer the 

climate the greater the reduction in energy use, which is a result of the energy efficiency 

improvement options considered in the LEC design. In general, warmer climates have an 

additional option (adding overhangs) that is not beneficial in the colder climates because 

solar heat gains are beneficial in cold climates and harmful in warm climates. 

Table 15-13 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use for LEC by Climate Zone 

and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2007 All 

4A -14.4 -14.4 

5A -12.9 -12.9 

6A -22.1 -12.3 -14.0 

-24.2 -24.2 

Grand Total -23.1 -13.1 -13.8 

Table 15-14 shows the average percentage reduction in energy costs for all cities located 

in a climate zone while controlling for state energy codes. The region-wide average 

reduction in energy costs is -20.1 % with Zone 7 realizing the greatest average reduction. 

Similar to energy use, controlling for state energy codes, cities located in warmer 

climates realize greater reductions in energy costs. 

127
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 15-14 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs for LEC by Climate Zone 

and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2007 All 

4A -20.7 -20.8 

5A -19.6 -19.6 

6A -29.8 -17.0 -19.2 

7 -30.0 -30.1 

Grand Total -29.9 -19.2 -20.1 

Table 15-15 shows the average percentage reduction in energy-related carbon emissions 

for all cities located in a climate zone. Similar to energy use and energy costs, while 

controlling for state energy codes, cities located in warmer climates realize greater 

reductions in the carbon emissions. 

Table 15-15 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions for LEC by Climate 

Zone and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2007 All 

4A -19.7 -19.7 

5A -18.5 -18.5 

6A -29.1 -16.3 -18.4 

7 -29.5 -29.5 

Grand Total -29.3 -18.3 -19.1 

Table 15-16 shows the average percentage change in life-cycle costs for all cities located 

in a climate zone while controlling for state energy codes. For both state energy codes, 

cities in warmer climate zones realize smaller percentage reductions in life-cycle costs. 

For the adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, cities in Zone 4 realize reductions of 

1.0 % and cities in Zone 6 realize 1.2 %. 

Table 15-16 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs for LEC by Climate 

Zone and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2007 All 

4A -1.0 -1.0 

5A -1.1 -1.1 

6A -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 

7 -2.0 -2.0 

Grand Total -1.7 -1.1 -1.2 

128
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

16 Discussion 

This study analyzes the impacts of adopting new, more stringent state energy codes for 

26 cities located across the Northeast Census Region. Results are summarized at the 

regional level as well as the state level for all 9 Northeastern states. This section will 

discuss the key findings, limitations of the research, and recommended directions for 

future research. 

16.1 Key Findings 

Maine is the only state in the Northeast Census Region that has not yet adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings. Maine would benefit from 

adopting either ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code. 

Adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, 

carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs than adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999. 

The adoption of the LEC design is analyzed for all nine states. The LEC design goes 

beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2007 by setting stricter building envelope requirements, lower 

lighting densities, and requiring daylighting controls as well as requiring overhangs for 

warmer climate zones. There are several factors that impact the percentage savings from 

adopting the LEC design for all states in the Northeast Census Region, including the 

current state energy code, selected study period length, building type, and climate zone of 

the location. 

The region-wide adoption of the LEC design as the commercial building energy code for 

all building types significantly decreases energy use (13.8 %), energy costs (20.1 %), and 

carbon emissions (19.0 %) while reducing life-cycle costs (1.2 %), on average, for a 

10-year study period. Although the LEC design leads to reductions for all states, the 

magnitude of the reductions varies according to each state’s adopted energy code. The 

state with no energy code, Maine, realizes the greatest percentage savings in energy use, 

energy costs, and carbon emissions. 

The study period length impacts the resulting reductions in life-cycle costs. As the study 

period length increases from 1 year to 10 years, the number of building types that are 

cost-effective increases from 7 to all 11. Setting the study period is an important 

determinant of cost-effectiveness and size of the percentage changes in life-cycle cost. 

The climate zone of a location impacts the percentage reduction in energy use, energy 

costs, and carbon emissions. After controlling for each state’s energy code, cities located 

in warmer climates realize greater average percentage reductions in these measures. 

However, these same cities realize smaller percentage reductions in life-cycle costs 

because additional construction costs are required to obtain future energy cost savings. 

129
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

Different building types realize different regional average percentage reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions. High schools realize the smallest 

reductions while restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings realize the greatest 

reductions. The greatest percentage reductions in life-cycle costs also are realized by 

restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings while the smallest percentage reductions 

are realized by 4 and 6-story apartment buildings and 16-story office buildings. 

The magnitude of a building type’s average percentage change is not necessarily 

correlated with its changes in total energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions relative to other building types. For example, high schools tend to realize some 

of the smallest percentage reductions, but some of the greatest total reductions in energy 

use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions. Total reductions are driven 

largely by total new floor area constructed for the building type in a state. The adoption 

of the LEC design would lead to greater aggregate reductions in energy use in New York 

than in Vermont because the amount of newly constructed floor area for 2003 to 2007 

was about 30 times greater in New York. 

A number of other factors impact total reductions in energy use, energy costs, and carbon 

emissions: state energy codes, energy prices, and emissions rates. Maine realizes over 

twice the energy use reductions per unit of floor area than any other state in the Northeast 

because it has no state energy code, while the other eight states have adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2007. States with the highest electricity rates tend to realize the largest reductions in 

energy costs per unit of energy consumption reduced. Similarly, states with higher 

emission rates per unit of electricity generated realize greater reductions in emissions per 

unit of energy consumption reduced. 

16.2 Limitations and Future Research 

The use of building prototypes in this study is meant to reveal general trends in the 

benefits and costs of energy standard adoption at the city, state, and regional levels. The 

study is not appropriate for analysis of individual buildings because each building has 

specific characteristics that may differ from the prototype. The analysis in this study is 

limited in scope and would be strengthened by analyzing more states, including 

sensitivity analysis, expanding the BIRDS database and metrics, and enabling public 

access to all the results. 

This study only analyzes 9 of the 50 states in detail, and cannot be extrapolated to 

estimate the magnitude of nationwide savings. Combining the results in this study with 

detailed analysis of the remaining 41 states will allow for estimation of nationwide 

impacts. Also, analysis across census regions may show some additional variation in 

results revealing insights not captured in this study. 

130
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

Sensitivity analysis is needed for at least two assumptions in the analysis. First, consider 

the assumed discount rate used in life-cycle costing. Although 3 % is a reasonable 

discount rate, in real terms, for federal government investment decisions, it may be too 

low of a value for an expected real return on an alternative investment in the private 

sector. A higher discount rate would decrease the value of future energy cost savings, 

which could impact the cost-effectiveness of adopting more energy efficient building 

designs. Sensitivity analysis on the assumed discount rate is needed to determine the 

robustness of the cost results. Second, the current analysis assumes that the cooling load 

is met by equipment running on electricity while heating loads are met with equipment 

running on natural gas, which is not the typical fuel mix for some areas of the nation. The 

database should be expanded to include alternative fuel sources for heating. 

Additional data are needed to refine and expand the BIRDS database. First, the study uses 

simple statewide averages of constructed floor area to summarize energy use, energy 

cost, carbon emissions, and life-cycle cost changes. However, the amount of total floor 

area constructed will vary significantly from city to city. Future research could develop a 

weighted average of savings in a state based on the fraction of newly constructed floor 

area by city. Second, the 11 prototypical buildings analyzed in this study are likely not 

representative of the entire building stock for each building type. For example, all 

high-rise buildings are not 100 % glazed, as assumed here. For this reason, the results 

should be considered as general magnitudes instead of hard numbers. Future research 

should include additional prototypes, such as the DOE Benchmark Buildings 

(NREL, 2011), in the database. Additionally, since existing buildings account for nearly 

the entire building stock, prototypes for retrofitting buildings should be incorporated into 

the BIRDS database as well. Another addition to expand the database is the inclusion of 

building designs to meet the newest edition of ASHRAE 90.1 (-2010) as well as 

ASHRAE’s green building standard (ASHRAE 189.1-2011). The state average energy cost 

rates and energy-related carbon emissions rates do not control for local variation in 

energy tariffs or electricity fuel mixes. By using utility-level energy cost and emissions 

rate data, the accuracy of the estimates in BIRDS could be improved. Additionally, the 

fuel mix used for electricity generation across the United States will change over time as 

economic and regulatory conditions change. A range of potential emissions rates could be 

included to allow for potential changes in emissions rates in the future. 

The analysis in this study ignores the impacts that plug and process loads have on the 

reductions in energy use. Buildings with greater plug and process loads will realize 

smaller percentage changes in energy use because the energy efficiency measures 

considered in this study focus on the building envelope and HVAC equipment, holding 

constant the energy use from other equipment used in the building. As building energy 

efficiency improves, the plug and process loads become a larger fraction of the overall 

energy load. Future research should consider the impact changes in plug and process 

131
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

loads have on the overall energy use savings realized by energy efficiency improvements 

to buildings. 

This study only compares the current state energy code to newer, more stringent standard 

editions for states in the Midwest Census Region. The BIRDS database is much more 

expansive, allowing researchers to compare any of the editions of ASHRAE 90.1 with any 

other edition of ASHRAE 90.1 or the LEC design for any state in the country. The BIRDS 

database should be made available to the public through a simple-to-use software tool 

that allows other researchers to use the database for their own research on building 

energy efficiency. 

Finally, a more comprehensive sustainability assessment of the benefits and costs of 

building energy efficiency would strengthen the impact of this work. This study applies 

environmental life cycle assessment methods to evaluate the global warming potentials 

attributable to building energy efficiency improvements. In a parallel effort, the BIRDS 

database is being expanded to include a full range of 11 life-cycle environmental impacts 

covering human health effects, ecological health effects, and resource depletion. The 

sustainability assessment is also being expanded beyond building energy efficiency to 

cover the materials used in construction, MRR, and waste management. The BIRDS 

software tool in development will provide the results of this more comprehensive 

sustainability assessment alongside the results summarized in this report. 

132
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

References 

ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2011, Standard for the Design of HighPerformance Green Buildings, 2011, ASHRAE, Inc. and U.S. Green Building 

Council. 

ArcMap 10.1 software, ArcGIS desktop package, ESRI, Redlands, CA, 

http://www.esri.com/. 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Project Committee 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

Standard- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

1999, ASHRAE, Inc. 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Project Committee 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

Standard- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

2001, ASHRAE, Inc. 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Project Committee 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

Standard- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

2004, ASHRAE, Inc. 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Project Committee 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

Standard- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

2007, ASHRAE, Inc. 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Project Committee 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 

Standard- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

2010, ASHRAE, Inc. 

ASTM International, ASTM Standards of Building Economics: 7th Edition, 2012. 

D.B. Belzer, K.A. Cort, D.W. Winiarski, E.E. Richman, Analysis of Potential Benefits 

and Costs of Adopting a Commercial Building Energy Standard in South Dakota, 

March 2005, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-15101. 

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database, 2003, accessed 

June-July 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Rules, Regulations, and 

Policies for Energy Efficiency database, building energy codes, accessed summer 

2010, www.dsireusa.org/. 

Department of Energy, 2009a, Building Technologies Program, EnergyPlus energy 

simulation software, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/. 

133
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Department of Energy, 2009b, Building Technologies Program, State energy codes 

at-a-glance, http://www.energycodes.gov/states/maps/commercialStatus.stm. 

EnergyPlus Example File Generator, Building Energy Simulation Web Interface for 

EnergyPlus, accessed Feb. 2009, U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2007 Emissions and Generation Integrated Database. 

S. Fuller, S. Petersen, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management 

Program, 1996, NIST Handbook 135, 1995 Edition, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Technology Administration and NIST. 

M.A. Halverson, K. Gowri, E.E. Richman, Analysis of Energy Savings Impacts of New 

Commercial Energy Codes for the Gulf Coast, December 2006, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, PNNL-16282. 

J. Kneifel, Life-cycle Carbon and Cost Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures in New 

Commercial Buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (3) (2010) 333-340. 

J. Kneifel, 2011a, Beyond the Code: Energy, Carbon, and Cost Savings using 

Conventional Technologies, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 951-959. 

J. Kneifel, 2011b, Prototype Commercial Buildings for Energy and Sustainability 

Assessment: Whole Building Energy Simulation Design, September 2011, NIST, 

Technical Note 1716. 

J. Kneifel, 2012, Prototype Commercial Buildings for Energy and Sustainability 

Assessment: Design Specification, Life-Cycle Costing and Carbon Assessment, 

January 2012, NIST, Technical Note 1732. 

J. Kneifel, 2013, Benefits and Costs of Energy Standard Adoption in New Commercial 

Buildings, February 2013, NIST, Special Publication 1147. 

B. Lippiatt, Greig, A., Lavappa, P., Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability (BEES) Online software, February 2011, NIST, 

http://ws680.nist.gov/bees/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, map of census regions, accessed Dec. 

2010, http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2011, U.S. Department of Energy Commercial 

Reference Building Models of the National Building Stock, TP-5500-46861. 

134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009, Impacts of Standard 90.1-2007 for 

Commercial Buildings at State Level, United States Department of Energy 

Building Energy Codes Program. 

RS Means CostWorks databases, accessed 2009, http://www.meanscostworks.com/. 

A. Rushing, B. Lippiatt, Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis-April 2008, May 2008, NIST, NISTIR 85-3273-23. 

M. Towers, R. Dotz, L. Romani, The Whitestone Building Maintenance and Repair Cost 

Reference 2008-2009, 13th Annual Edition, 2008, Whitestone Research. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010a, Electric power annual state data tables, 

Accessed 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010b, Natural Gas Navigator, accessed 2010, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/natural_gas.html. 

U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database, 2012, http://www.nrel.gov/lci/. 

D. Winiarski, S. Shankle, J. Hail, B. Liu, A. Walker, The Business Case for Sustainable 

Design in Federal Facilities: Appendix B: Energy and Construction Cost 

Estimates, August 2003, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

135
 
References 

136
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

A Building and Energy Characteristics
 

Table A-1 CBECS Categories and Subcategories
 

Category Subcategory 

Education elementary or middle school 

high school 

college or university 

preschool or daycare 

adult education 

career or vocational training 

religious education 

Food Sales	 grocery store or food market 

gas station with a convenience 

store; 

convenience store 

Food Service fast food 

restaurant or cafeteria 

Health Care hospital 

Inpatient inpatient rehabilitation 

Health Care 

Outpatient 

Lodging 

Mercantile NonMall 

medical office (see previous 

column) 

clinic or other outpatient health 

care 

outpatient rehabilitation 

veterinarian 

motel or inn 

hotel 

dormitory, fraternity, or sorority 

retirement home 

nursing home, assisted living, etc. 

convent or monastery 

shelter, orphanage, halfway house 

retail store 

beer, wine, or liquor store 

rental center 

dealership or showroom for 

vehicles or boats 

studio/gallery 

Mercantile Malls enclosed mall 

strip shopping center 

Office administrative or professional 

office 

government office 

mixed-use office 

bank or other financial institution 

medical office (see previous 

column) 

sales office 

contractor's office 

non-profit or social services 

research and development 

city hall or city center 

religious office 

call center 

Category Subcategory 

Public	 social or meeting 

Assembly	 recreation 

entertainment or culture 

library 

funeral home 

student activities center 

armory 

exhibition hall 

broadcasting studio 

transportation terminal 

Public Order police station 

and Safety fire station 

jail, reformatory, or penitentiary 

courthouse or probation office 

Religious None 

Worship 

Service vehicle service or vehicle repair shop 

vehicle storage/ maintenance (car barn) 

repair shop 

dry cleaner or laundromat 

post office or postal center 

car wash 

gas station 

photo processing shop 

beauty parlor or barber shop 

tanning salon 

copy center or printing shop 

kennel 

Warehouse refrigerated warehouse 

and Storage non-refrigerated warehouse 

distribution or shipping center 

Other	 airplane hangar 

crematorium 

laboratory 

telephone switching 

agricultural with some retail space 

manufacturing or industrial with some 

retail space 

data center or server farm 

Vacant None 

137
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table A-2 New Commercial Building Construction Floor Area for 2003 through 

2007 by State and Building Type 

State 

Building Construction Floor Area in 1000 m2 (1,000 ft2

) 

ApartmentHealthcareHotelOfficePublicAssembly

510 

(5485) 

RestaurantRetailSchoolWarehouseNoPrototype

1271 

(13 679) 

Total 

CT 611 

(6582) 

403 

(4333) 

489 

(5261) 

618 

(6651) 

65 

(698) 

1245 

(13 403) 

1194 

(12 856) 

817 

(8798) 

7223 

(77 746) 

MA 2959 

(31 854) 

728 

(7832) 

884 

(9516) 

1103 

(11 868) 

632 

(6808) 

121 

(1306) 

1772 

(19 079) 

1356 

(14 599) 

854 

(9197) 

2484 

(26 742) 

12 895 

(138 802) 

ME 64 (687) 209 

(2245) 

166 

(1791) 

224 

(2411) 

134 

(1441) 

34 

(368) 

566 

(6088) 

313 

(3374) 

281 

(3021) 

494 

(5320) 

2485 

(26 745) 

NH 141 

(1523) 

227 

(2440) 

226 

(2437) 

276 

(2974) 

154 

(1653) 

51 

(548) 

648 

(6970) 

411 

(4421) 

191 

(2059) 

438 

(4717) 

2763 

(29 741) 

NJ 2807 

(30 209) 

796 

(8563) 

943 

(10 145) 

1235 

(13 295) 

774 

(8335) 

112 

(1210) 

2494 

(26 842) 

2627 

(28 280) 

3008 

(32 383) 

2587 

(27 841) 

17 382 

(187 103) 

NY 11 622 

(125 095) 

1639 

(17 639) 

1959 

(21 083) 

3330 

(35 842) 

1075 

(11 572) 

210 

(2259) 

3633 

(39 107) 

2247 

(24 186) 

1286 

(13 845) 

3354 

(36 104) 

30 354 

(326 732) 

PA 1503 

(16 177) 

1908 

(20 535) 

1406 

(15 135) 

2424 

(26 096) 

1354 

(14 577) 

219 

(2361) 

3762 

(40 489) 

3660 

(39 397) 

3512 

(37 805) 

3556 

(38 280) 

23 305 

(250 852) 

RI 238 

(2559) 

60 (649) 192 

(2069) 

251 

(2707) 

81 (877) 26 

(278) 

278 

(2990) 

197 

(2125) 

114 

(1228) 

236 

(2540) 

1674 

(18 021) 

VT 161 

(1736) 

99 

(1063) 

96 

(1030) 

113 

(1214) 

71 (765) 6 (68) 63 (674) 136 

(1463) 

88 (946) 165 

(1777) 

998 

(10 737) 

Total 20 106 

(216 422) 

6069 

(65 299) 

6361 

(68 467) 

9574 

(103 058) 

4785 

(51 513) 

844 

(9096) 

14461 

(155 642) 

12 141 

(130 701) 

10 151 

(109 282) 

14585 

(157 000) 

99 079 

(1 066 479) 

Table A-3 New Commercial Building Construction Share by State and Building 

Type 

Percentage of Building Construction Floor Area 

ApartmentHealthcareHotelOfficePublicAssemblyRestaurantRetailSchoolWarehouseNoPrototypeTotal

CT 8.5 % 5.6 % 6.8 % 8.6 % 7.1 % 0.9 % 17.2 % 16.5 % 11.3 % 17.6 % 100.0 % 58.5 % 

MA 22.9 % 5.6 % 6.9 % 8.6 % 4.9 % 0.9 % 13.7 % 10.5 % 6.6 % 19.3 % 100.0 % 63.6 % 

ME 2.6 % 8.4 % 6.7 % 9.0 % 5.4 % 1.4 % 22.8 % 12.6 % 11.3 % 19.9 % 100.0 % 55.0 % 

NH 5.1 % 8.2 % 8.2 % 10.0 % 5.6 % 1.8 % 23.4 % 14.9 % 6.9 % 15.9 % 100.0 % 63.5 % 

NJ 16.1 % 4.6 % 5.4 % 7.1 % 4.5 % 0.6 % 14.3 % 15.1 % 17.3 % 14.9 % 100.0 % 58.8 % 

NY 38.3 % 5.4 % 6.5 % 11.0 % 3.5 % 0.7 % 12.0 % 7.4 % 4.2 % 11.1 % 100.0 % 75.8 % 

PA 6.4 % 8.2 % 6.0 % 10.4 % 5.8 % 0.9 % 16.1 % 15.7 % 15.1 % 15.3 % 100.0 % 55.7 % 

RI 14.2 % 3.6 % 11.5 % 15.0 % 4.9 % 1.5 % 16.6 % 11.8 % 6.8 % 14.1 % 100.0 % 70.6 % 

VT 16.2 % 9.9 % 9.6 % 11.3 % 7.1 % 0.6 % 6.3 % 13.6 % 8.8 % 16.6 % 100.0 % 57.6 % 

138
 

Rep. byStudy 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table A-4 Electricity Generation CO2, CH4, and N2O Emissions Rates by State 

State CO2 CH4 N2O 

(t/GWh) (t/GWh) (t/GWh) 

CT 550.4 47.0 1.4 

MA 550.4 47.0 1.4 

ME 550.4 47.0 1.4 

NH 550.4 47.0 1.4 

NJ 618.7 33.4 0.4 

NY 480.7 32.3 0.8 

PA 672.9 34.7 0.4 

RI 550.4 47.0 1.4 

VT 550.4 47.0 1.4 

139
 
Additional BIRDS Database Results 

140
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

B Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table B-1 4-Story Apartment Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year 

Study Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -9.5 -18.5 -15.1 -0.1 

MA -9.1 -16.8 -14.8 0.1 

ME -19.9 -32.9 -31.9 -2.6 

NH -9.5 -15.8 -14.7 -0.3 

NJ -10.3 -17.8 -16.0 0.4 

NY -9.2 -17.5 -13.8 0.0 

PA -9.5 -14.9 -16.0 0.6 

RI -9.2 -15.5 -15.1 0.2 

VT -9.5 -15.5 -14.6 -0.2 

Table B-2 6-Story Apartment Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year 

Study Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -10.6 -21.8 -17.7 -0.4 

MA -9.8 -19.5 -17.0 0.0 

ME -19.3 -32.3 -31.4 -2.4 

NH -9.3 -15.4 -14.4 -0.3 

NJ -11.4 -20.6 -18.5 0.2 

NY -9.6 -19.4 -15.1 -0.1 

PA -10.4 -17.1 -18.5 0.5 

RI -10.0 -17.9 -17.4 0.0 

VT -9.2 -15.1 -14.2 -0.1 

Table B-3 4-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period
 

State Percentage Change 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -11.2 -18.9 -16.1 -1.6 

MA -11.1 -17.8 -16.1 -1.3 

ME -24.4 -35.6 -34.9 -1.6 

NH -12.2 -17.0 -16.2 -1.7 

NJ -12.3 -18.6 -17.2 -0.8 

NY -11.1 -18.2 -15.1 -1.5 

PA -11.1 -15.9 -16.8 -0.8 

RI -11.3 -16.7 -16.4 -1.4 

VT -11.9 -16.7 -15.9 -1.6 

141
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table B-4 6-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period
 

State Percentage Change 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -10.4 -21.2 -17.2 -0.7 

MA -9.5 -18.7 -16.4 -0.3 

ME -18.0 -30.6 -29.7 -3.1 

NH -8.4 -13.8 -12.9 -0.5 

NJ -11.4 -20.4 -18.3 -0.2 

NY -9.1 -18.3 -14.3 -0.4 

PA -10.3 -16.8 -18.0 0.2 

RI -9.7 -17.2 -16.7 -0.3 

VT -8.2 -13.4 -12.6 -0.3 

Table B-5 15-Story Hotel Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study 

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -12.7 -21.6 -18.3 -0.5 

MA -11.8 -19.3 -17.4 -0.1 

ME -14.0 -23.1 -22.5 -2.3 

NH -8.9 -11.2 -10.8 -0.2 

NJ -13.1 -20.2 -18.6 0.1 

NY -11.2 -18.0 -15.0 -0.2 

PA -11.8 -17.1 -18.2 0.4 

RI -12.1 -18.1 -17.7 -0.1 

VT -9.0 -11.3 -11.0 -0.1 

Table B-6 2-Story High School Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study 

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -5.3 -17.9 -12.8 -1.9 

MA -4.6 -15.2 -12.3 -1.1 

ME -10.7 -18.9 -18.3 -1.9 

NH -5.7 -12.3 -11.1 -1.5 

NJ -6.6 -17.8 -15.0 -1.5 

NY -6.2 -16.7 -11.8 -1.6 

PA -5.4 -12.7 -14.3 -0.6 

RI -5.0 -13.7 -13.0 -0.9 

VT -5.9 -12.1 -11.0 -1.4 

142
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table B-7 8-Story Office Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study 

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -18.3 -21.3 -20.5 -2.7 

MA -18.3 -21.1 -20.6 -2.5 

ME -28.1 -29.2 -29.1 0.0 

NH -16.9 -18.2 -18.1 -2.2 

NJ -19.5 -21.4 -21.1 -2.5 

NY -17.0 -20.1 -19.0 -2.5 

PA -18.0 -20.3 -20.6 -2.4 

RI -18.9 -21.0 -20.9 -2.4 

VT -16.5 -18.0 -17.8 -2.0 

Table B-8 16-Story Office Building Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study 

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -15.2 -21.6 -19.6 -0.9 

MA -14.4 -20.2 -19.0 -0.3 

ME -13.9 -15.9 -15.8 -0.7 

NH -11.3 -12.3 -12.2 -0.6 

NJ -16.0 -21.0 -20.1 -0.1 

NY -13.9 -18.7 -16.9 -0.6 

PA -14.4 -18.9 -19.6 0.4 

RI -15.3 -20.0 -19.7 -0.3 

VT -11.3 -12.3 -12.2 -0.4 

Table B-9 1-Story Retail Store Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study 

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -12.3 -16.9 -15.5 -1.7 

MA -11.8 -16.1 -15.2 0.1 

ME -31.7 -33.2 -33.1 -1.2 

NH -15.9 -17.8 -17.5 -0.9 

NJ -13.9 -17.4 -16.7 0.1 

NY -12.4 -16.4 -14.9 -0.6 

PA -12.3 -15.4 -15.9 0.1 

RI -12.4 -15.8 -15.6 -1.5 

VT -15.7 -17.5 -17.3 -0.8 

143
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

Table B-10 1-Story Restaurant Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study
 

Period 

State Percentage Change 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

CT -24.1 -33.6 -30.6 -4.4 

MA -23.8 -32.5 -30.7 -3.7 

ME -43.6 -45.6 -45.5 -2.6 

NH -24.3 -29.0 -28.3 -4.6 

NJ -27.3 -34.1 -32.8 -6.3 

NY -21.7 -31.5 -27.7 -4.3 

PA -23.7 -30.4 -31.6 -3.4 

RI -25.0 -31.8 -31.4 -3.8 

VT -23.6 -28.5 -27.9 -4.3 

144