NIST Special Publication 1148-3 

Benefits and Costs of Energy 

Standard Adoption in New 

Commercial Buildings: South 

Census Region 

Joshua Kneifel 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST Special Publication 1148-3
 

Benefits and Costs of Energy 

Standard Adoption in New 

Commercial Buildings: South 

Census Region 

Joshua Kneifel 

Applied Economics Office 

Engineering Laboratory 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-3 

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 1148-3
 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 1148-3, 241 pages (February 2013)
 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1148-3
 

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 

South 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, Ms. Natascha Milesi-Ferretti 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 database. Thanks to Mr. Nathaniel Soares for developing the initial version of the 

Building Industry Reporting and Design for Sustainability (BIRDS) 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 .......................................................................................................... xxvi
 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... xxviii
 

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

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

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

List of Figures................................................................................................................. xiv
 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xvi
 

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 ........................................................................................... 8
 

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

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

3.2 Future Costs........................................................................................................ 12
 

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 Alabama ................................................................................................................... 21
 

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

6.1.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 22
 

6.1.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 23
 

6.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 23
 

6.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 24
 

6.1.5 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 25
 

6.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 27
 

6.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 28
 

6.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 30
 

6.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 31
 

6.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 32
 

6.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 34
 

7 Arkansas .................................................................................................................. 35
 

7.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 35
 

viii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.1.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 36
 

7.1.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 37
 

7.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 38
 

7.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 38
 

7.1.5 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 39
 

7.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 41
 

7.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 41
 

7.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 43
 

7.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 44
 

7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 45
 

7.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 47
 

8 Delaware .................................................................................................................. 49
 

8.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 49
 

8.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 51
 

8.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 51
 

8.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 53
 

8.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 54
 

8.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 55
 

8.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 57
 

9 Florida ...................................................................................................................... 59
 

9.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 59
 

9.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ............................................................... 60
 

9.1.2 City Comparisons...................................................................................... 61
 

9.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 62
 

9.2.1 Energy Use ................................................................................................ 62
 

9.2.2 Energy Costs ............................................................................................. 64
 

9.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions............................................................. 66
 

9.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ....................................................................................... 67
 

9.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 68
 

10 Georgia ..................................................................................................................... 69
 

10.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 69
 

10.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 69
 

10.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 71
 

10.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 72
 

10.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 72
 

10.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 73
 

10.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 75
 

10.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 76
 

10.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 77
 

11 Kentucky .................................................................................................................. 79
 

11.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 79
 

ix
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 79
 

11.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 81
 

11.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 82
 

11.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 82
 

11.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 84
 

11.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 85
 

11.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 86
 

11.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 88
 

12 Louisiana.................................................................................................................. 89
 

12.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 89
 

12.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison .......................................................... 90
 

12.1.2 City Comparisons ................................................................................ 91
 

12.2 Total Savings...................................................................................................... 92
 

12.2.1 Energy Use .......................................................................................... 92
 

12.2.2 Energy Costs ........................................................................................ 94
 

12.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ....................................................... 95
 

12.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 96
 

12.3 State Summary ................................................................................................... 98
 

13 Maryland ................................................................................................................. 99
 

13.1 Percentage Savings............................................................................................. 99
 

13.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 101
 

13.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 101
 

13.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 103
 

13.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 105
 

13.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 106
 

13.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 107
 

14 Mississippi.............................................................................................................. 109
 

14.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 110
 

14.1.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 110
 

14.1.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 111
 

14.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 111
 

14.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 112
 

14.1.5 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 113
 

14.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 115
 

14.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 115
 

14.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 117
 

14.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 118
 

14.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 120
 

14.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 121
 

15 North Carolina ...................................................................................................... 123
 

15.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 123
 

x
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ........................................................ 124
 

15.1.2 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 125
 

15.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 126
 

15.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 126
 

15.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 128
 

15.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 130
 

15.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 131
 

15.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 132
 

16 Oklahoma............................................................................................................... 133
 

16.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 133
 

16.1.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 134
 

16.1.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 135
 

16.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 135
 

16.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 136
 

16.1.5 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 137
 

16.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 139
 

16.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 139
 

16.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 141
 

16.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 142
 

16.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 143
 

16.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 145
 

17 South Carolina ...................................................................................................... 147
 

17.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 147
 

17.1.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 148
 

17.1.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 148
 

17.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 149
 

17.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 150
 

17.1.5 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 151
 

17.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 153
 

17.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 153
 

17.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 155
 

17.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 156
 

17.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 158
 

17.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 159
 

18 Tennessee ............................................................................................................... 161
 

18.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 161
 

18.1.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 162
 

18.1.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 162
 

18.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 163
 

18.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 164
 

18.1.5 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 165
 

xi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 167
 

18.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 167
 

18.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 169
 

18.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 171
 

18.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 172
 

18.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 174
 

19 Texas....................................................................................................................... 175
 

19.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 175
 

19.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ........................................................ 175
 

19.1.2 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 177
 

19.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 178
 

19.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 179
 

19.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 180
 

19.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 182
 

19.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 183
 

19.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 184
 

20 Virginia .................................................................................................................. 185
 

20.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 185
 

20.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison ........................................................ 185
 

20.1.2 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 187
 

20.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 188
 

20.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 188
 

20.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 190
 

20.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 191
 

20.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 192
 

20.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 194
 

21 West Virginia......................................................................................................... 195
 

21.1 Percentage Savings........................................................................................... 195
 

21.1.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 196
 

21.1.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 197
 

21.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 198
 

21.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 199
 

21.1.5 City Comparisons .............................................................................. 199
 

21.2 Total Savings.................................................................................................... 201
 

21.2.1 Energy Use ........................................................................................ 201
 

21.2.2 Energy Costs ...................................................................................... 203
 

21.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions ..................................................... 205
 

21.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs ................................................................................ 206
 

21.3 State Summary ................................................................................................. 207
 

22 State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design ............ 209
 

22.1 Total Savings Comparison ............................................................................... 209
 

xii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22.2 Percentage Change Comparison....................................................................... 214
 

22.2.1 3-Story Office Building ..................................................................... 214
 

22.2.2 Region-wide Results by Study Period Length................................... 218
 

22.2.3 Region-wide Results by Building Type............................................. 221
 

22.2.4 Region-wide Results by Climate Zone .............................................. 221
 

23 Discussion............................................................................................................... 225
 

23.1 Key Findings .................................................................................................... 225
 

23.2 Limitations and Future Research...................................................................... 227
 

References ...................................................................................................................... 230
 

A Building and Energy Characteristics .................................................................. 234
 

B Additional BIRDS Database Results ................................................................... 238
 

xiii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1 Cities and Climate Zones ................................................................................. 8
 

Figure 22-1 Average Energy Use Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 216
 

Figure 22-2 Average Energy Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 216
 

Figure 22-3 Average Energy-related Carbon Emissions Reduction by State, 3-Story
 

Office Building, 10-Year........................................................................... 217
 

Figure 22-4 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building,
 

10-Year ...................................................................................................... 217
 

Figure 22-5 Average Change in Life-Cycle Costs by Building Type and Study
 

Period Length ............................................................................................ 220
 

xiv
 
 xv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

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

Table 2-2 Energy Code by State/City for the South Census Region ................................. 7
 

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 (South, 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,
 

Alabama ...................................................................................................... 21
 

Table 6-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, Alabama ........................................................................ 22
 

Table 6-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Alabama.................. 23
 

Table 6-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Alabama ............................................................................................. 24
 

Table 6-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Alabama ............ 25
 

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

Standard Editions by City, Alabama ........................................................... 26
 

Table 6-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Alabama ..... 26
 

Table 6-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year,
 

Alabama ...................................................................................................... 27
 

Table 6-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Alabama ...................................................................................................... 27
 

Table 6-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Alabama ......................... 28
 

Table 6-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Alabama ...................................................................................................... 29
 

Table 6-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Alabama .................... 30
 

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

10-Year, Alabama ....................................................................................... 31
 

Table 6-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Alabama ............ 31
 

Table 6-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Alabama – Metric Tons ......................................... 32
 

Table 6-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Alabama .............. 33
 

Table 6-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Alabama ....................................................................................... 34
 

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

Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 35
 

Table 7-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, Arkansas ....................................................................... 36
 

Table 7-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas ................. 37
 

Table 7-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Arkansas ............................................................................................ 38
 

Table 7-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas ........... 39
 

Table 7-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, Arkansas........................................................... 39
 

Table 7-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Arkansas .... 40
 

xvi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 40
 

Table 7-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 40
 

Table 7-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Arkansas ........................ 41
 

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

Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 42
 

Table 7-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas ................... 43
 

Table 7-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 10­

Year, Arkansas ............................................................................................ 44
 

Table 7-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Arkansas............ 44
 

Table 7-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Arkansas – Metric Tons......................................... 45
 

Table 7-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas.............. 46
 

Table 7-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Arkansas ....................................................................................... 47
 

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

Delaware...................................................................................................... 49
 

Table 8-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Delaware ...................................................................................... 50
 

Table 8-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Delaware .......................... 52
 

Table 8-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Delaware...................................................................................................... 53
 

Table 8-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Delaware ..................... 53
 

Table 8-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Delaware ...................................................................................... 54
 

Table 8-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Delaware ............. 54
 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Delaware – Metric Tons ........................................ 55
 

Table 8-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Delaware ............... 56
 

Table 8-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Delaware ...................................................................................... 56
 

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

Florida ......................................................................................................... 59
 

Table 9-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year,
 

Florida ......................................................................................................... 60
 

Table 9-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions
 

by City, 10-Year, Florida ............................................................................ 61
 

Table 9-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Florida.............................. 63
 

Table 9-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Florida ......................................................................................................... 64
 

Table 9-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Florida......................... 65
 

Table 9-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Florida .......................................................................................... 65
 

Table 9-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Florida ................. 66
 

xvii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions (t) for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Florida – Metric Tons ............................................ 67
 

Table 9-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Florida ................. 67
 

Table 9-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Florida .......................................................................................... 68
 

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

Georgia ........................................................................................................ 69
 

Table 10-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Georgia ......................................................................................... 70
 

Table 10-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions
 

by City, 10-Year, Georgia ........................................................................... 71
 

Table 10-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Georgia .......................... 72
 

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

Georgia ........................................................................................................ 73
 

Table 10-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Georgia ..................... 74
 

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

10-Year, Georgia ......................................................................................... 74
 

Table 10-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Georgia.............. 75
 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Georgia – Metric Tons........................................... 76
 

Table 10-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Georgia.............. 76
 

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

10-Year, Georgia ......................................................................................... 77
 

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

Kentucky ..................................................................................................... 79
 

Table 11-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Kentucky ...................................................................................... 80
 

Table 11-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions
 

by City, 10-Year, Kentucky ........................................................................ 81
 

Table 11-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Kentucky........................ 82
 

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

Kentucky ..................................................................................................... 83
 

Table 11-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Kentucky................... 84
 

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

10-Year, Kentucky ...................................................................................... 85
 

Table 11-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Kentucky ........... 85
 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Kentucky – Metric Tons ........................................ 86
 

Table 11-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Kentucky ........... 87
 

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

10-Year, Kentucky ...................................................................................... 88
 

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

Louisiana ..................................................................................................... 89
 

Table 12-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Louisiana ...................................................................................... 90
 

xviii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Louisiana ........................................................................ 91
 

Table 12-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Louisiana ....................... 92
 

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

Louisiana ..................................................................................................... 93
 

Table 12-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Louisiana .................. 94
 

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

10-Year, Louisiana ...................................................................................... 95
 

Table 12-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Louisiana........... 95
 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Louisiana – Metric Tons ........................................ 96
 

Table 12-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Louisiana........... 97
 

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

10-Year, Louisiana ...................................................................................... 98
 

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

Maryland ..................................................................................................... 99
 

Table 13-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year,
 

Maryland ................................................................................................... 100
 

Table 13-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Maryland...................... 102
 

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

Maryland ................................................................................................... 103
 

Table 13-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maryland................. 104
 

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

10-Year, Maryland .................................................................................... 104
 

Table 13-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Maryland ......... 105
 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Maryland – Metric Tons ...................................... 106
 

Table 13-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maryland ........... 106
 

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

10-Year, Maryland .................................................................................... 107
 

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

Mississippi................................................................................................. 109
 

Table 14-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, Mississippi .................................................................. 110
 

Table 14-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi .......... 111
 

Table 14-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Mississippi ....................................................................................... 112
 

Table 14-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi .... 113
 

Table 14-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, Mississippi ..................................................... 113
 

Table 14-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Mississippi................................................................................................. 114
 

Table 14-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year,
 

Mississippi................................................................................................. 114
 

Table 14-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Mississippi................................................................................................. 115
 

xix
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Mississippi ................. 116
 

Table 14-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Mississippi................................................................................................. 116
 

Table 14-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi ............ 117
 

Table 14-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Mississippi.................................................................................. 118
 

Table 14-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Mississippi .... 119
 

Table 14-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Mississippi – Metric Tons ................................... 120
 

Table 14-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi ...... 120
 

Table 14-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Mississippi.................................................................................. 121
 

Table 15-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

North Carolina ........................................................................................... 123
 

Table 15-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year,
 

North Carolina ........................................................................................... 124
 

Table 15-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions
 

by City, 10-Year, North Carolina .............................................................. 126
 

Table 15-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, North Carolina ............. 127
 

Table 15-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

North Carolina ........................................................................................... 128
 

Table 15-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, North Carolina ........ 129
 

Table 15-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, North Carolina ............................................................................ 129
 

Table 15-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, North Carolina 130
 

Table 15-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, North Carolina – Metric Tons ............................. 131
 

Table 15-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, North Carolina 131
 

Table 15-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, North Carolina ............................................................................ 132
 

Table 16-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 133
 

Table 16-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, Oklahoma.................................................................... 134
 

Table 16-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma ........... 135
 

Table 16-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Oklahoma ........................................................................................ 136
 

Table 16-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma...... 137
 

Table 16-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, Oklahoma ....................................................... 137
 

Table 16-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 138
 

Table 16-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year,
 

Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 138
 

Table 16-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 138
 

xx
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Oklahoma................... 139
 

Table 16-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Oklahoma .................................................................................................. 140
 

Table 16-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma.............. 141
 

Table 16-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Oklahoma ................................................................................... 142
 

Table 16-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Oklahoma ...... 142
 

Table 16-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Oklahoma – Metric Tons ..................................... 143
 

Table 16-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma ........ 144
 

Table 16-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Oklahoma ................................................................................... 145
 

Table 17-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

South Carolina ........................................................................................... 147
 

Table 17-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, South Carolina ............................................................ 148
 

Table 17-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina .... 149
 

Table 17-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, South Carolina ................................................................................. 150
 

Table 17-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, South
 

Carolina ..................................................................................................... 151
 

Table 17-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, South Carolina ............................................... 151
 

Table 17-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, South
 

Carolina ..................................................................................................... 152
 

Table 17-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, South
 

Carolina ..................................................................................................... 152
 

Table 17-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, South
 

Carolina ..................................................................................................... 153
 

Table 17-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, South Carolina ........... 154
 

Table 17-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

South Carolina ........................................................................................... 154
 

Table 17-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina ...... 155
 

Table 17-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, South Carolina............................................................................ 156
 

Table 17-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, South
 

Carolina ..................................................................................................... 157
 

Table 17-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, South Carolina – Metric Tons ............................. 158
 

Table 17-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina 158
 

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

10-Year, South Carolina............................................................................ 159
 

Table 18-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Tennessee .................................................................................................. 161
 

Table 18-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, Tennessee.................................................................... 162
 

xxi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee ........... 163
 

Table 18-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Tennessee ........................................................................................ 164
 

Table 18-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee...... 165
 

Table 18-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, Tennessee ....................................................... 166
 

Table 18-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Tennessee .................................................................................................. 166
 

Table 18-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, Tennessee ...... 167
 

Table 18-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year,
 

Tennessee .................................................................................................. 167
 

Table 18-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Tennessee................... 168
 

Table 18-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Tennessee .................................................................................................. 169
 

Table 18-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee.............. 170
 

Table 18-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Tennessee ................................................................................... 171
 

Table 18-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Tennessee ...... 171
 

Table 18-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Tennessee – Metric Tons ..................................... 172
 

Table 18-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee ........ 173
 

Table 18-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Tennessee ................................................................................... 174
 

Table 19-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Texas ......................................................................................................... 175
 

Table 19-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Texas .......................................................................................... 176
 

Table 19-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions
 

by City, 10-Year, Texas ............................................................................ 178
 

Table 19-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Texas............................ 179
 

Table 19-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Texas ......................................................................................................... 180
 

Table 19-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Texas....................... 181
 

Table 19-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Texas .......................................................................................... 181
 

Table 19-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Texas ............... 182
 

Table 19-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Texas – Metric Tons ............................................ 183
 

Table 19-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Texas ............... 183
 

Table 19-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Texas .......................................................................................... 184
 

Table 20-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

Virginia...................................................................................................... 185
 

Table 20-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions,
 

10-Year, Virginia ...................................................................................... 186
 

xxii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 20-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Virginia......................................................................... 187
 

Table 20-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Virginia ........................ 188
 

Table 20-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

Virginia...................................................................................................... 189
 

Table 20-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Virginia ................... 190
 

Table 20-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Virginia ...................................................................................... 191
 

Table 20-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Virginia ........... 191
 

Table 20-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, Virginia – Metric Tons ........................................ 192
 

Table 20-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Virginia ........... 193
 

Table 20-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, Virginia ...................................................................................... 194
 

Table 21-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition,
 

West Virginia ............................................................................................ 195
 

Table 21-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions, West Virginia .............................................................. 196
 

Table 21-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia...... 197
 

Table 21-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, West Virginia................................................................................... 198
 

Table 21-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia 199
 

Table 21-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer
 

Standard Editions by City, West Virginia ................................................. 200
 

Table 21-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, West
 

Virginia...................................................................................................... 200
 

Table 21-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year,
 

West Virginia ............................................................................................ 201
 

Table 21-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, West
 

Virginia...................................................................................................... 201
 

Table 21-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, West Virginia............. 202
 

Table 21-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction,
 

West Virginia ............................................................................................ 203
 

Table 21-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia........ 204
 

Table 21-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 10­

Year, West Virginia................................................................................... 204
 

Table 21-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, West Virginia 205
 

Table 21-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of
 

Construction, 10-Year, West Virginia – Metric Tons ............................... 206
 

Table 21-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia .. 206
 

Table 21-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction,
 

10-Year, West Virginia ............................................................................. 207
 

Table 22-1 Total Reductions by State for Adoption of the LEC Design, 10-Year........ 210
 

Table 22-2 Energy Use Reduction per Unit of Floor Area for Adoption of the LEC
 

Design by State, 10-Year .......................................................................... 211
 

xxiii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 22-3 Energy Cost Reduction per kWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption 

of the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ........................................................ 212
 

Table 22-4 Carbon Reduction per GWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption of
 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ............................................................ 213
 

Table 22-5 Life-Cycle Cost Reductions per Unit of New Floor Area for Adoption of
 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year ............................................................ 214
 

Table 22-6 Average Percentage Change by State from Region-wide Adoption of the
 

LEC design, 3-Story Office Building, 10-Year......................................... 215
 

Table 22-7 South Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Use by Building
 

Type ........................................................................................................... 218
 

Table 22-8 South Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by Building
 

Type and Study Period Length .................................................................. 219
 

Table 22-9 South Region Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by
 

Building Type............................................................................................ 219
 

Table 22-10 South Region Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by
 

Building Type and Study Period Length ................................................... 220
 

Table 22-11 South Region Percentage Change for LEC by Building Type, 10-Year ... 221
 

Table 22-12 Average Percentage Change for LEC by Climate Zone............................ 222
 

Table 22-13 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use for LEC by Climate Zone
 

and State Energy Code .............................................................................. 222
 

Table 22-14 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs for LEC by Climate Zone
 

and State Energy Code .............................................................................. 223
 

Table 22-15 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions for LEC by Climate
 

Zone and State Energy Code ..................................................................... 223
 

Table 22-16 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs for LEC by Climate
 

Zone and State Energy Code ..................................................................... 224
 

Table A-1 CBECS Categories and Subcategories .......................................................... 234
 

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

2007 by State and Building Type .............................................................. 235
 

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

Type ........................................................................................................... 236
 

Table A-4 Electricity Generation CO2, CH4, and N2O Emissions Rates by State ......... 236
 

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

Period ........................................................................................................ 238
 

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

Period ........................................................................................................ 238
 

Table B-3 4-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period ..... 239
 

Table B-4 6-Story Dormitory Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period ..... 239
 

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

Period ........................................................................................................ 240
 

Table B-6 2-Story High School Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period 240
 

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

Period ........................................................................................................ 241
 

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

Period ........................................................................................................ 241
 

Table B-9 1-Story Retail Store Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period . 242
 

xxiv
 
Table B-10 1-Story Restaurant Summary Table for LEC and 10-Year Study Period . 242
 

xxv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

xxvi
 
 

Acronym Definition 

UPV* Uniform Present Value Modified for Fuel Price Escalation 

xxvii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 sixteen states in the South 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. 

Three states in the South Census Region have not yet adopted a state energy code for 

commercial buildings: Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. For these states, adoption of 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related 

carbon emissions, but not in a life-cycle cost-effective manner. The additional costs from 

implementing the energy efficiency measures overwhelm the future energy cost savings. 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 lead to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, and 

carbon emissions than ASHRAE 90.1-2001, and are life-cycle cost-effective to adopt in 

two of the three states, with only Oklahoma realizing an increase in life-cycle costs. 

Arkansas and West Virginia are the states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Both states 

would realize reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions while realizing reductions in life-cycle costs from adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 would lead to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, carbon emissions, 

and life-cycle costs than adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004. 

xxviii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Tennessee and South Carolina are the states in the South Census Region that have 

adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Both 

states would realize reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions while realizing reductions in life-cycle costs from adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2007. 

The adoption of the LEC design is analyzed for all sixteen 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 South 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 (20.1 %), energy costs (23.3 %), and 

carbon emissions (24.2 %), on average, while reducing life-cycle costs (1.3 %), on 

average, for a 10-year study period. Although the LEC design leads to reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions for all states, the magnitude of the 

reductions varies according to each state’s adopted energy code. The three states with no 

energy code realize the greatest percentage savings in energy use, energy costs, and 

carbon emissions. However, two of the three states realize percentage increases in 

life-cycle costs and the third state realizes a minimal percentage decrease. Meanwhile, the 

states that have already adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, or -2007 realize percentage 

reductions in life-cycle costs. 

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

period length increases from 5 years to 15 years, the number of building types that are 

cost-effective increases from eight to all eleven considered. The study period is an 

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

costs. 

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 tend to realize greater average percentage reductions in these 

measures. 

Different building types realize different regional average percentage reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions for a 10-year study period. 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 are 

xxix
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

also realized by restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings while the only percentage 

increase is realized by 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 Texas than 

in Delaware because the amount of newly constructed floor area from 2003 to 2007 was 

42 times greater in Texas. 

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

emissions: state energy codes, energy rates, and carbon emissions rates. The greatest 10­

year reduction in energy use per unit of floor area resulting from adoption of the LEC 

design is realized by the three states that have no state energy code, ranging from 

376 kWh/m2 (119 kBtu/ft2

) to 551 kWh/m2 (175 kBtu/ft2), followed by the states that 

have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001, where the reduction ranges from 359 kWh/m2 

(114 kBtu/ft2) to 370 kWh/m2 (117 kBtu/ft2). The states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1­

2004 or -2007 realize reductions ranging from 175 kWh/m2 (56 kBtu/ft2

) to 247 kWh/m2 

(78 kBtu/ft2). 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 tend to realize greater reductions in 

emissions per unit of energy consumption reduced. The greater the offset of electricity 

consumption reductions with natural gas consumption increases, the greater the reduction 

in both energy costs and carbon emissions per unit of energy consumption reduced. 

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. 

xxx
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

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. 

xxxi
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

located in the South 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 71 cities located in the 16 states of the South 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 

South 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, 71 cities across the 

sixteen states in the South 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 the variation in commercial building energy codes across the sixteen 

states in the South Census Region.3 Three states currently do not have a statewide energy 

code while two states, two states, and eight states have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001, 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and ASHRAE 90.1-2007, respectively. One city in the South Census 

Region (Huntsville, AL) has adopted a newer edition of ASHRAE 90.1 than has the state 

in which it is located. 

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. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design 

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

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

AL Birmingham	 Baton Rouge 2007 Abilene 3B
 3A None LA 2A TX 2007 

Huntsville 3A 2001 Lake Charles 2A 2007 Amarillo 4B 2007 

Mobile 2A None New Orleans 2A 2007 Austin 2A 2007 

Montgomery 3A	 None Shreveport 3A 2007 Brownsville 2A 2007 

AR Fort Smith 3A 2001 MD Baltimore 4A 2007 Corpus Christi 2A 2007
 

Little Rock 3A 2001 MS Jackson 3A
 None Del Rio 2B 2007 

DE Wilmington 4A 2007 Meridian 3A None El Paso 3B 2007
 

FL	 Daytona Beach 2A 2007 NC Asheville 4A 2007 Fort Worth 3A 2007
 

3A 

Key West 1 2007 Greensboro 2007 Lubbock 3B 2007 

Jacksonville 2A 2007 Charlotte 2007 Houston 2A 2007
 

4A 

Miami 1 2007 Hatteras 3A 2007 Lufkin 2A 2007 

Tallahassee 2A 2007 Raleigh 4A 2007 Midland 3B 2007 

Tampa 2A 2007 Wilmington 3A 2007 Port Arthur 2A 2007 

West Palm Beach 2A 2007 OK Oklahoma City 3A None San Angelo 3B 2007
 

GA Athens 3A 2007 Tulsa	 3A
 None San Antonio 2A 2007 

Atlanta 3A 2007 SC
 Charleston 3A 2004 Victoria 2A 2007 

Augusta 3A 2007 Columbia 3A 2004 Waco 2A 2007
 

Columbus 3A 2007 Greenville 3A 2004 Wichita Falls 3A 2007
 

Macon 3A 2007 TN Bristol 4A 2004 VA Lynchburg 4A 2007
 

2A
 

KY Covington 4A 2007 Knoxville 4A 2004 Richmond 4A 2007
 

Lexington 4A 2007 Memphis 2004 Roanoke 4A 2007
 

Savannah 2007 Chattanooga 4A 2004 Norfolk 4A 2007
 

3A
 

Louisville 4A 2007 Nashville 4A 2004 WV Charleston 4A
 2001 

Elkins	 5A 2001 

Huntington 4A 2001 

The sixteen states, 71 cities, and 5 ASHRAE climate zones listed in Table 2-2 are shown 

in Figure 2-1. Larger states and states with more significant population centers have more 

cities included in the BIRDS database. For example, Texas has eighteen cities while 

Delaware has one city. The climate zone(s) for each state vary across the South Census 

Region from ASHRAE Climate Zone 1 in Key West, Florida to Climate Zone 5 in Elkins, 

West Virginia. Almost the entire region is located in the “wet” (A) subzones except for 

western Texas and Oklahoma, which are located in the “dry” (B) subzones. 

4 State energy codes as of December 2011. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Data 

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
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Data 

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
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Data 

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.9 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. 

9 For more detail about the ventilation requirements are see Kneifel (2011b). 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Data 

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 

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 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Data 

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

period. 

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).10 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. 

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

13
 
 

 

Cost Data 

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 50.8 % of new commercial 

building stock floor area for 2003 through 2007 for the South 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 61.5 % of the new commercial building stock. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Stock Data 

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

Category Subcategory 

Conditioned Floor 

Area 

1000 m2 (1000 ft2

) 

Percentage in 

Category 

Percentage 

of Total 

Office Large 9425 (101 445) 22.2 % 2.8% 

Office Medium 17 151 (184 611) 40.4 % 5.0% 

Office Small 15 877 (170 902) 37.4 % 4.7% 

Retail 41 494 (446 642) 72.9 % 12.2% 

Strip Mall 15 425 (166 035) 27.1 % 4.5% 

School Primary 14 698 (158 208) 32.5 % 4.3% 

School Secondary 30 527 (328 585) 67.5 % 9.0% 

Hospital 8192 (88 179) 44.1 % 2.4% 

Other Health Care 10 384 (111 773) 55.9 % 3.0% 

Restaurant Sit Down 1872 (20 153) 52.9 % 0.5% 

Restaurant Fast Food 1667 (17 944) 47.1 % 0.5% 

Hotel Large 12 488 (134 417) 74.2 % 3.7% 

Hotel/Motel Small 4342 (46 738) 25.8 % 1.3% 

Warehouse 44 362 (477 511) 13.0% 

Public Assembly 15 692 (168 905) 4.6% 

Apartment High-rise 24 789 (266 827) 55.1 % 7.3% 

Apartment Mid-rise 20 200 (217 433) 44.9 % 5.9% 

No Prototype 51 999 (559 715) 15.3% 

Total (2003 to 2007) 340 584 (3 666 018) 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 ta 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.11 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. 

11 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.12 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). 13 

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.14 

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 

12 For states located in more than one NERC sub-region, a weighted average of emissions rates for the
 

multiple sub-regions is implemented.
 

13 Emissions rates are held constant over all study periods.
 14 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 

the GWP as carbon dioxide. The aggregated CO2e is calculated by taking the amount of 

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. 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis Approach 

The total change per unit of floor area is multiplied by the average annual floor area of 

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 

Alabama 

Alabama 

Alabama is located in the East South Central Census Division and spans two climate 

zones (Zone 2A and Zone 3A). 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 6-1 provides an overview of Alabama’s 

simulated energy use keyed to building type and energy standard edition. Average energy 

use varies across building types and building designs. The 8-story office building uses the 

least amount of energy at 81 kWh/m2 to 119 kWh/m2 (26 kBtu/ft2 to 38 kBtu/ft2

) 

annually. The restaurant uses the greatest amount of energy for the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

design at 189 kWh/m2 (60 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount 

of energy for the LEC design at 130 kWh/m2 (41 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

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

Alabama 

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 

167 53 

167 53 

165 52 

165 52 

133 42 

132 42 

126 40 

127 40 

108 34 

107 34 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

128 41 

187 59 

123 39 

180 57 

98 31 

145 46 

94 30 

136 43 

80 25 

115 37 

HOTEL15 150 48 148 47 117 37 122 39 104 33 

HIGHS02 170 54 168 53 154 49 149 47 130 41 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

128 41 

119 38 

143 45 

124 39 

116 37 

141 45 

109 34 

103 33 

125 40 

103 33 

100 32 

129 41 

81 26 

81 26 

109 35 

RETAIL1 139 44 136 43 115 36 105 33 90 28 

RSTRNT1 189 60 182 58 154 49 148 47 105 33 

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. 

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 more energy efficient designs for the state of Alabama. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

6.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 6-2 shows a small change in energy use from adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001 relative 

to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 with all 11 building types realizing reductions in energy use of 

3.0 % or less. There is a decrease in energy use for all 11 building types for ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, with the percentage change in energy use ranging from -9.0 % to -22.9 % with 

an average of -17.3 %. The average change in energy use from constructing buildings 

using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -9.1 % to -26.5 %, with an overall 

average of -19.9 %. The smallest reductions in energy use are realized by the 16-story 

office building and high school. 

Table 6-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Alabama 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.9 -20.4 -24.3 -35.2 

APART06 -0.9 -20.5 -23.7 -35.6 

DORMI04 -2.7 -22.9 -25.6 -36.7 

DORMI06 -3.0 -21.7 -26.5 -37.9 

HOTEL15 -1.0 -21.5 -18.6 -30.3 

HIGHS02 -0.6 -9.0 -12.3 -23.6 

OFFIC03 -2.3 -14.4 -19.0 -36.3 

OFFIC08 -2.4 -13.2 -15.3 -31.7 

OFFIC16 -0.9 -12.1 -9.1 -23.3 

RETAIL1 -2.0 -17.1 -23.7 -35.1 

RSTRNT1 -2.9 -17.7 -21.0 -43.9 

Average -1.8 -17.3 -19.9 -33.6 

For the high-rise buildings (15-story hotel and 16-story office building), ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 is actually more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 because the 

maximum window SHGC requirement in Zone 2 and Zone 3 is increased from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for buildings with greater than 40 % window glazing, 

making the requirement less strict. Buildings in warmer climates benefit from decreasing 

solar heat gains. The 100 % glazing amplifies the heat gain from the higher SHGC, which 

increases electricity consumption enough to overwhelm the energy efficiency gains 

obtained from other measures that decrease electricity 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 -23.3 % to -43.9 % with an average 

of -33.6 %.The lowest reduction in energy use for the LEC design occurs in the buildings 

with the greatest window-to-wall ratios. 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. 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

6.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 6-3 shows a small percentage change in energy costs over 10 years from adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (-0.7 % to -3.2 %), 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 -11.2 % to -26.2 % depending on the building type 

with an average of -19.4 %. The average change in energy costs from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -9.4 % to -30.5 %, with an 

overall average of -21.9 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest change in energy costs, 

with the average change by building type ranging from -25.1 % to -46.5 % with an 

average of -37.2 % overall. 

Table 6-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Alabama 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.0 -23.9 -27.9 -40.3 

APART06 -1.0 -23.9 -27.6 -41.2 

DORMI04 -2.9 -26.2 -29.4 -41.7 

DORMI06 -3.2 -25.3 -30.5 -43.7 

HOTEL15 -1.1 -25.1 -22.4 -36.2 

HIGHS02 -0.7 -11.2 -14.4 -29.4 

OFFIC03 -2.4 -14.6 -18.3 -36.6 

OFFIC08 -2.5 -13.6 -15.3 -32.2 

OFFIC16 -1.0 -12.3 -9.4 -25.1 

RETAIL1 -2.1 -18.1 -23.6 -35.6 

RSTRNT1 -3.0 -19.4 -22.1 -46.5 

Average -1.9 -19.4 -21.9 -37.2 

For all building designs, the average reductions in energy costs are greater than the 

reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is 

greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. For 7 of the 11 building types, 

adopting the LEC design increases natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity 

consumption. 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. 

6.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

The small changes in energy use lead to small percentage reductions (3.3 % or less) in 

cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions from adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

design across all building types. Table 6-4 shows a significant change in average energy23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

related carbon emissions for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging 

from -12.3 % to -27.8 % with an average of -20.5 %. 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 -9.6 % to -32.5 % with an overall average 

of -22.9 %. The LEC design leads to the greatest average changes in carbon emissions, 

ranging from -26.0 % to -47.7 % depending on the building type with an average 

of -39.0 % across all building types. 

Table 6-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Alabama 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.0 -25.6 -29.8 -42.9 

APART06 -1.0 -25.6 -29.5 -44.1 

DORMI04 -3.0 -27.8 -31.2 -44.2 

DORMI06 -3.3 -27.1 -32.5 -46.7 

HOTEL15 -1.2 -26.9 -24.3 -39.2 

HIGHS02 -0.7 -12.5 -15.6 -32.7 

OFFIC03 -2.5 -14.7 -17.9 -36.8 

OFFIC08 -2.5 -13.9 -15.3 -32.4 

OFFIC16 -1.0 -12.3 -9.6 -26.0 

RETAIL1 -2.2 -18.6 -23.5 -35.9 

RSTRNT1 -3.1 -20.2 -22.6 -47.7 

Average -2.0 -20.5 -22.9 -39.0 

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 consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. The greater relative reduction in electricity further decreases carbon 

emissions because electricity has a higher carbon emissions rate per unit of energy than 

natural gas in Alabama. 

6.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 6-5. 

Life-cycle costs increase for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999 for 8 of 11 building types over a 10-year study period. The current state energy 

code is never the lowest cost building design. 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 range from -4.6 % to 

2.5 % depending on the building type. The LEC design is the lowest cost building design 

for six building types, with the percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -4.9 % 

to -0.9 %. Given that all building types realize a reduction in life-cycle costs, the LEC 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings. 

Table 6-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Alabama 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 0.0 -3.0 -3.6 -3.4 

APART06 -0.1 -3.1 -3.6 -3.5 

DORMI04 3.4 -1.4 -1.2 -2.9 

DORMI06 -0.4 -3.9 -4.6 -4.9 

HOTEL15 -0.1 -3.6 -3.2 -3.0 

HIGHS02 0.1 -1.5 -1.7 -3.3 

OFFIC03 4.7 2.0 1.2 -0.7 

OFFIC08 4.7 1.7 1.1 -0.7 

OFFIC16 0.0 -1.7 -1.3 -1.0 

RETAIL1 2.7 -0.5 -1.2 -0.9 

RSTRNT1 6.5 2.5 1.5 -3.4 

Average 2.0 -1.1 -1.5 -2.5 

6.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for four cities located in Alabama: Mobile in Climate Zone 2A and 

Birmingham, Huntsville, and Montgomery in Climate Zone 3A. The results may vary 

across cities within Alabama for four 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, 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. 

Finally, Huntsville has adopted a stricter building energy code than the state. 

As can be seen in Table 6-6, average reductions in energy use for all building types from 

adopting newer energy standard editions vary across and within climate zones. Huntsville 

realizes smaller reductions in energy use than the other three cities for all building 

designs because it has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as its state energy code. Excluding 

Huntsville, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 leads to reductions in energy use that range 

from 16.4 % to 22.8 %. Montgomery realizes the greatest reductions in energy use from 

adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, -2007, and LEC designs. Excluding Huntsville, the city 

in Zone 2A (Mobile) realizes the greatest reduction for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC 

designs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

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

Standard Editions by City, Alabama 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Mobile 2A -2.6 -17.6 -23.9 -37.4 

Birmingham 3A -2.3 -16.4 -17.8 -31.9 

Huntsville 3A 0.0 -12.4 -13.5 -26.8 

Montgomery 3A -2.3 -22.8 -24.5 -38.3 

Average -1.8 -17.3 -19.9 -33.6 

The variations in energy costs across cities are a result of three factors, the reduction in 

energy use, the fuel source of the reduction, and the local energy code. Table 6-7 shows 

that Huntsville realizes the smallest reductions in energy costs because it has adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001. Mobile and Montgomery realize similar reductions in energy costs 

for all building designs. The climate zone with the greatest reduction in energy use 

realizes the greatest reduction in energy costs for each of the building designs. Three of 

the four cities realize larger percentage reductions in energy costs than percentage 

reductions in energy use for all building designs because the percentage reduction in 

electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. Since 

electricity is more expensive than natural gas on a per unit basis, a greater relative 

reduction in electricity leads to additional reductions in energy costs. Montgomery 

realizes slightly lower reductions in energy costs than reductions in energy use for the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 designs because the percentage reduction in electricity 

consumption is less than the reduction in natural gas consumption. 

Table 6-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Alabama 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Mobile 2A -2.7 -20.0 -24.1 -39.1 

Birmingham 3A -2.4 -19.5 -21.5 -37.0 

Huntsville 3A 0.0 -16.3 -18.1 -33.2 

Montgomery 3A -2.5 -21.8 -23.9 -39.3 

Average -1.9 -19.4 -21.9 -37.2 

Table 6-8 reports changes in energy-related carbon emissions by city for Alabama. For all 

cities, the more stringent standard editions result in greater reductions in carbon 

emissions. Birmingham and Huntsville realize greater reductions in carbon emissions 

than reductions in energy use for all building designs. Meanwhile, Mobile and 

Montgomery realize smaller reductions in carbon emissions than energy use for two 

building designs. 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

Table 6-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Alabama 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Mobile 2A -2.5 -20.2 -23.8 -39.9 

Birmingham 3A -2.3 -20.3 -22.7 -39.3 

Huntsville 3A 0.0 -17.8 -20.1 -36.5 

Montgomery 3A -2.4 -20.9 -23.4 -39.9 

Average -1.8 -19.8 -22.5 -38.9 

The data reported in Table 6-9 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 -2007 designs result in average 

reductions in life-cycle costs for three and four cities relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999, 

respectively. Adoption of the LEC design realizes the greatest average percentage 

reductions in life-cycle costs for all cities in both climate zones. For the LEC design, 

buildings in Huntsville realize greater reductions in life-cycle costs than buildings in the 

other cities. 

Table 6-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Alabama 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Mobile 2A 3.0 0.0 -0.8 -2.2 

Birmingham 3A 2.5 -0.5 -0.7 -1.6 

Huntsville 3A 0.0 -2.8 -3.0 -3.8 

Montgomery 3A 2.3 -1.3 -1.6 -2.4 

Average 2.0 -1.1 -1.5 -2.5 

6.2 Total Savings 

How much can Alabama 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. 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

6.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 6-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.15 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 6-11 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.16 

Table 6-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Alabama 

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 

-1.6 -0.5 

-1.6 -0.5 

-34.1 -10.8 

-34.0 -10.8 

-40.5 -12.9 

-39.5 -12.5 

-58.8 -18.6 

-59.2 -18.8 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-3.5 -1.1 

-5.6 -1.8 

-29.1 -9.2 

-40.5 -12.9 

-32.6 -10.3 

-49.6 -15.7 

-46.7 -14.8 

-70.8 -22.4 

HOTEL15 -1.6 -0.5 -32.3 -10.3 -28.1 -8.9 -45.5 -14.4 

HIGHS02 -1.0 -0.3 -18.6 -5.9 -24.5 -7.8 -46.5 -14.8 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-3.0 -0.9 

-2.9 -0.9 

-1.3 -0.4 

-15.0 -4.8 

-15.7 -5.0 

-17.4 -5.5 

-20.5 -6.5 

-18.2 -5.8 

-13.0 -4.1 

-39.5 -12.5 

-37.7 -11.9 

-33.3 -10.6 

RETAIL1 -2.8 -0.9 -24.0 -7.6 -33.3 -10.5 -49.0 -15.5 

RSTRNT1 -5.4 -1.7 -33.3 -10.6 -39.5 -12.5 -82.4 -26.1 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 6-11 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 3.2 GWh (10.9 GBtu), 33.8 

GWh (115.4 GBtu), and 41.2 GWh (140.6 GBtu), respectively. The adoption of the LEC 

design as the state’s energy code would save energy for all building types and 68.5 GWh 

(233.9 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one year’s worth of new construction for 

these building types. 

15 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.
 

16 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

Table 6-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Alabama 

Building 

Type 

Subcat. 

Weight. 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 % 

72 

88 

775 

949 

-112 -382 

-138 -472 

-2456 -8385 

-3001 -10 246 

-2919 

-3480 

-9965 

-11 881 

-4231 -14 446 

-5217 -17 814 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 171 1837 -265 -906 -5517 -18 838 -4790 -16 354 -7772 -26 536 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 307 3303 -300 -1024 -4615 -15 756 -6286 -21 463 -12 109 -41 347 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

113 

121 

67 

1212 

1307 

719 

-337 -1151 

-355 -1212 

-89 -305 

-2100 -7169 

-1902 -6493 

-1159 -3959 

-2763 

-2208 

-869 

-9432 

-7539 

-2967 

-5237 -17 882 

-4572 -15 611 

-2226 -7602 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 497 5350 -1410 -4815 -11 924 -40 712 -16 530 -56 437 -24 346 -83 128 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 364 -183 -625 -1126 -3846 -1336 -4560 -2787 -9515 

Total 1469 15 815 -3190 -10 892 -33 799 -115 404 -41 178 -140 601 -68 498 -233 882 

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 65.2 % 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 adopting the LEC design in new commercial buildings to be 

105.1 GWh (358.7 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 1.1 TWh (3.6 TBtu) in energy 

use savings over the 10-year study period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would 

save 63.2 GWh (215.6 GBtu) annually or 631.6 GWh (2156.4 GBtu) over the 10-year 

study period. 

The statewide change in energy use across the 9 building types with reported floor area 

data vary across and within the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC 

designs. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design, the greatest reduction in energy use is 

realized by the retail store followed by the 8- and 3-story office buildings. Adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 leads to the greatest reduction for the retail store followed by the 

hotel and high school. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs, building types that 

represent the greatest amount of new floor area realize the largest changes in aggregate 

energy use, with retail stores and high schools realizing the greatest total reductions in 

energy use and accounting for 33.8 % and 20.9 %, respectively, of the combined new 

construction in the state for the building types in this study. All other building types 

represent 11.6 % or less of new construction. For the LEC design, the amount of new 

construction overwhelms the relative percentage changes in energy use, with the retail 

store and high school ranked 7th and 10th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 

11 building types, as reported in Table 6-2. 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

6.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 6-12 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. 

Table 6-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Alabama 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$1.24 

-$1.25 

-$0.12 

-$0.12 

-$29.56 

-$29.58 

-$2.75 

-$2.75 

-$34.53 

-$34.11 

-$3.21 

-$3.17 

-$49.87 

-$50.97 

-$4.63 

-$4.74 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$2.78 

-$4.48 

-$0.26 

-$0.42 

-$24.97 

-$35.13 

-$2.32 

-$3.26 

-$28.03 

-$42.32 

-$2.60 

-$3.93 

-$39.72 

-$60.59 

-$3.69 

-$5.63 

HOTEL15 -$1.24 -$0.12 -$26.96 -$2.50 -$24.14 -$2.24 -$38.94 -$3.62 

HIGHS02 -$2.39 -$0.22 -$14.22 -$1.32 -$17.84 -$1.66 -$35.57 -$3.30 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$0.78 

-$2.33 

-$1.07 

-$0.07 

-$0.22 

-$0.10 

-$13.07 

-$12.62 

-$13.05 

-$1.21 

-$1.17 

-$1.21 

-$16.66 

-$14.12 

-$10.04 

-$1.55 

-$1.31 

-$0.93 

-$34.11 

-$29.75 

-$26.75 

-$3.17 

-$2.76 

-$2.48 

RETAIL1 -$2.26 -$0.21 -$19.01 -$1.77 -$24.80 -$2.30 -$37.32 -$3.47 

RSTRNT1 -$4.31 -$0.40 -$27.29 -$2.54 -$31.10 -$2.89 -$65.41 -$6.08 

Table 6-13 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 reductions in energy costs 

of $2.5 million. ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the LEC design realize 

decreases in energy costs of $27.7 million, $32.5 million, and $55.4 million respectively. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 65.2 % 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs can be extrapolated to estimate 

statewide reductions in energy costs of $3.9 million, $42.5 million, $49.8 million, and 

$84.9 million over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

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

10-Year, Alabama 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 72 775 -$89 128 -$2 128 087 -$2 485 667 -$3 589 756
 

APART06 55.1 % 88 949 -$110 147 -$2 607 811 -$3 007 728 -$4 494 121
 

HOTEL15 100 % 171 1837 -$211 628 -$4 600 730 -$4 118 738 -$6 645 423 

HIGHS02 100 % 307 3303 -$238 982 -$4 009 902 -$5 112 524 -$10 467 042 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 113 1212 -$268 779 -$1 601 738 -$2 008 743 -$4 005 416 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 121 1307 -$283 014 -$1 532 805 -$1 714 809 -$3 613 016 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 67 719 -$71 161 -$871 948 -$670 703 -$1 786 908 

RETAIL1 100 % 497 5350 -$1 124 251 -$9 449 092 -$12 325 705 -$18 548 214 

RSTRNT1 100 % 34 364 -$145 915 -$923 287 -$1 052 206 -$2 213 315 

Total 1469 15 815 -$2 543 006 -$27 725 400 -$32 496 823 -$55 363 211 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

6.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 6-14 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 6-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Alabama 

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 

APART06 

-13.2 -2.7 

-13.3 -2.7 

-325.8 -66.7 

-326.3 -66.8 

-377.8 -77.4 

-375.5 -76.9 

-544.8 -111.6 

-560.3 -114.8 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-29.6 -6.1 

-47.7 -9.8 

-274.0 -56.1 

-387.1 -79.3 

-307.9 -63.1 

-463.5 -94.9 

-434.5 -89.0 

-664.4 -136.1 

HOTEL15 -13.2 -2.7 -292.4 -59.9 -265.1 -54.3 -426.8 -87.4 

HIGHS02 -8.3 -1.7 -144.2 -29.5 -178.8 -36.6 -375.5 -76.9 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-25.4 -5.2 

-24.8 -5.1 

-11.3 -2.3 

-148.3 -30.4 

-134.9 -27.6 

-135.1 -27.7 

-181.6 -37.2 

-148.4 -30.4 

-105.2 -21.5 

-371.2 -76.0 

-315.3 -64.6 

-285.4 -58.4 

RETAIL1 -24.1 -4.9 -201.7 -41.3 -255.6 -52.4 -388.7 -79.6 

RSTRNT1 -45.9 -9.4 -293.8 -60.2 -329.0 -67.4 -694.6 -142.3 

Table 6-15 applies the Table 6-14 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 for all building types. 

The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in savings of 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

298 639 metric tons and 344 097 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 

592 509 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 458 035 

metric tons, 527 756 metric tons, and 908 756 metric tons over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

Table 6-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Alabama – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 72 775 -948 -23 449 -27 198 -39 218
 

APART06 55.1 % 88 949 -1172 -28 767 -33 107 -49 401
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 171 1837 -2251 -49 903 -45 243 -72 831 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 307 3303 -2542 -44 232 -54 865 -115 215 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 113 1212 -2859 -16 695 -20 445 -41 797 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 121 1307 -3010 -16 384 -18 024 -38 281 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 67 719 -757 -9026 -7029 -19 064 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 497 5350 -11 959 -100 242 -127 054 -193 199 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 364 -1552 -9942 -11 133 -23 503 

Total 1469 15 815 -27 050 -298 639 -344 097 -592 509 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

6.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 6-16 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. 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

Table 6-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Alabama
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$0.22 -$0.02 -$29.02 -$2.70 -$34.68 -$3.22 -$32.82 -$3.05 

APART06 -$0.64 -$0.06 -$29.49 -$2.74 -$34.31 -$3.19 -$33.68 -$3.13 

DORMI04 $30.77 $2.86 -$12.81 -$1.19 -$11.55 -$1.07 -$26.26 -$2.44 

DORMI06 -$4.04 -$0.38 -$38.92 -$3.62 -$46.02 -$4.27 -$49.08 -$4.56 

HOTEL15 -$0.59 -$0.06 -$33.94 -$3.15 -$30.13 -$2.80 -$28.26 -$2.63 

HIGHS02 $1.13 $0.11 -$11.49 -$1.07 -$13.15 -$1.22 -$25.57 -$2.38 

OFFIC03 $35.03 $3.25 $15.14 $1.41 $8.59 $0.80 -$5.82 -$0.54 

OFFIC08 $36.01 $3.35 $12.89 $1.20 $8.11 $0.75 -$6.40 -$0.59 

OFFIC16 -$0.05 $0.00 -$12.70 -$1.18 -$9.47 -$0.88 -$6.95 -$0.65 

RETAIL1 $17.00 $1.58 -$3.00 -$0.28 -$7.95 -$0.74 -$5.48 -$0.51 

RSTRNT1 $80.02 $7.43 $29.39 $2.73 $16.66 $1.55 -$44.79 -$4.16 

Table 6-17 applies the Table 6-16 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 

life-cycle 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 6 of 9 building 

types and increases total life-cycle costs by $19.6 million. The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

and -2007 designs result in a decrease in life-cycle costs for 6 of 9 building types, and 

decreases total life-cycle costs by $12.1 million and $16.8 million, respectively. The LEC 

design decreases life-cycle costs for all 9 building types, and decreases total life-cycle 

costs by $24.1 million. For a 10-year study period, it is cost-effective to adopt ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, -2007, or the LEC design as Alabama’s state energy code for commercial 

buildings. 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 

designs can be extrapolated to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs of 

$30.1 million, -$18.5 million, -$25.7 million, and -$37.0 million over the 10-year study 

period, respectively. 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama 

Table 6-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Alabama 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 72 775 -$16 187 -$2 088 867 -$2 496 460 -$2 362 203
 

APART06 55.1 % 88 949 -$56 386 -$2 599 670 -$3 025 054 -$2 969 767
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 171 1837 -$101 118 -$5 791 083 -$5 141 870 -$4 821 976 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 307 3303 $347 397 -$3 524 687 -$4 036 456 -$7 844 754 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 113 1212 $3 944 651 $1 704 315 $967 514 -$655 088 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 121 1307 $4 372 695 $1 565 333 $984 552 -$777 154 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 67 719 -$3022 -$848 266 -$632 800 -$464 051 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 497 5350 $8 447 106 -$1 489 371 -$3 952 577 -$2 725 771 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 364 $2 707 478 $994 305 $563 586 -$1 515 419 

Total 1469 15 815 $19 642 612 -$12 077 990 -$16 769 565 -$24 136 183 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

6.3 State Summary 

Alabama is one of three states in the South Census Region that have not yet adopted a 

state energy code for commercial buildings. 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, 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the state’s energy code for commercial 

buildings would lead to energy use savings of 631.6 GWh (2156.4 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $49.8 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 527 756 metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $25.7 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. The adoption of the LEC design leads to even greater savings in 1.1 TWh 

(3.6 TBtu) of energy use, $84.9 million in energy costs, 908 756 metric tons of carbon 

emissions, and $37.0 million of life-cycle costs for one year’s worth of commercial 

building construction. 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

Arkansas 

Arkansas 

Arkansas is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2001 as their state energy code for commercial buildings, is located in the West 

South Central Census Division, and spans two climate zones (Zone 3A and Zone 4A). 

Table 7-1 provides an overview of Arkansas’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

type and energy standard edition. Average energy use varies across building types and 

building designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 83 

kWh/m2 to 118 kWh/m2 (26 kBtu/ft2 to 37 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The restaurant uses the 

greatest amount of energy for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design at 188 kWh/m2 (60 

kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy for the LEC 

design at 154 kWh/m2 (49 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

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

Arkansas 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2001 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

172 54 

170 54 

145 46 

144 46 

140 44 

139 44 

122 39 

120 38 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

127 40 

186 59 

106 34 

157 50 

105 33 

150 48 

91 29 

129 41 

HOTEL15 150 48 126 40 136 43 118 37 

HIGHS02 185 59 176 56 173 55 154 49 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

121 39 

118 37 

143 46 

110 35 

105 33 

130 41 

107 34 

102 32 

138 44 

85 27 

83 26 

117 37 

RETAIL1 134 42 118 37 110 35 94 30 

RSTRNT1 188 60 162 51 158 50 113 36 

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 codes. 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 more energy efficient designs for the state of Arkansas. 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

7.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 7-2 shows that the average percentage changes in energy use from adopting the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2001 range from -4.9 % to -16.7 % 

depending on the building type, with an overall average of -12.8 %. The average 

percentage change in energy use from constructing buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

requirements ranges from -3.5 % to -19.5 %, with an overall average of -13.9 %. 

Table 7-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -15.5 -18.7 -29.0 

APART06 -15.7 -18.4 -29.8 

DORMI04 -16.7 -17.7 -28.8 

DORMI06 -15.5 -19.5 -30.8 

HOTEL15 -15.8 -9.1 -21.5 

HIGHS02 -4.9 -6.4 -16.5 

OFFIC03 -9.7 -12.2 -30.4 

OFFIC08 -11.1 -13.8 -30.0 

OFFIC16 -9.6 -3.5 -18.2 

RETAIL1 -11.9 -17.5 -29.8 

RSTRNT1 -14.0 -16.2 -39.8 

Average -12.8 -13.9 -27.7 

For the high-rise buildings (15-story hotel and 16-story office building), ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 is actually more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 because the 

maximum window SHGC requirement in Zone 2 and Zone 3 is increased from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for buildings with greater than 40 % window glazing, 

making the requirement less strict. Buildings in warmer climates benefit from decreasing 

solar heat gains. The 100 % glazing amplifies the heat gain from the higher SHGC, which 

increases electricity consumption enough to overwhelm the energy efficiency gains 

obtained from other measures that decrease electricity consumption, such as increased 

roof insulation R-values. 

The LEC design realizes the greatest percentage change in energy use relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 with a range of -16.5 % to -39.8 % and an overall average 

of -27.7 %. Similar to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the smallest reduction in energy 

use for the LEC design occurs in the buildings with the greatest window-to-wall ratios. 

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. 

36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

7.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 7-3 shows a significant variation in the average change in energy costs over 10 

years of operation from adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 design relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2001, ranging from -8.7 % to -22.3 % depending on the building type, with an 

overall average of -16.5 %. The average change in energy costs from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -7.9 % to -25.6 %, with an 

overall average of -18.3 %. As with energy use savings, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

results in greater reductions in energy costs than adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for the two 

high rise buildings (16-story office building and 15-story hotel) because of the 100 % 

glazing in the buildings and the relaxed window SHGC requirements. The LEC design 

realizes the greatest percentage changes in energy costs, with the average reduction by 

building type ranging from -23.8 % to -44.8 % and an overall average of -33.9 %. 

Table 7-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -20.4 -24.5 -36.6 

APART06 -20.5 -24.3 -37.9 

DORMI04 -21.8 -24.5 -37.1 

DORMI06 -20.3 -25.6 -39.1 

HOTEL15 -22.3 -17.8 -32.1 

HIGHS02 -8.7 -10.5 -25.0 

OFFIC03 -11.4 -13.8 -33.0 

OFFIC08 -12.3 -14.5 -31.4 

OFFIC16 -12.0 -7.9 -23.8 

RETAIL1 -14.0 -18.7 -31.8 

RSTRNT1 -17.4 -19.6 -44.8 

Average -16.5 -18.3 -33.9 

For all building designs, the average reductions in energy costs are greater than the 

reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is 

greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. Adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, 

-2007, and LEC designs increase natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity 

consumption for 11, 10, and 10 building types, respectively. 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. 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

7.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 7-4 shows significant changes in average energy-related carbon emissions for 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging from -10.3 % to -24.6 % with an 

average of -17.8 %. The average change in carbon emissions from constructing buildings 

using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements is -19.9 % overall with the average change in 

carbon emissions varying across building types from -9.4 % to -27.8 %. The LEC design 

leads to the greatest average percentage changes in carbon emissions, ranging 

from -25.7 % to -46.5 % depending on the building type with an overall average 

of -36.1 % across all building types. 

Table 7-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -22.2 -26.6 -39.4 

APART06 -22.2 -26.4 -40.8 

DORMI04 -23.5 -26.9 -40.0 

DORMI06 -22.0 -27.8 -42.1 

HOTEL15 -24.6 -21.0 -36.0 

HIGHS02 -10.3 -12.1 -28.5 

OFFIC03 -12.0 -14.3 -33.9 

OFFIC08 -12.7 -14.7 -31.9 

OFFIC16 -12.8 -9.4 -25.7 

RETAIL1 -14.8 -19.1 -32.5 

RSTRNT1 -18.6 -20.7 -46.5 

Average -17.8 -19.9 -36.1 

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 consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. The greater relative reduction in electricity further decreases carbon 

emissions because electricity has a higher carbon emissions rate per unit of energy than 

natural gas in Arkansas. 

7.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 7-5. 

The ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs realize the lowest 

life-cycle costs for two, five, and four building types, respectively. Both ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 realize lower life-cycle costs than ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

for all 11 building types. The LEC design results in significant reductions in life-cycle 

costs for 10 of 11 building types. The change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design 

ranges from -10.3 % to 0.0 %. Based on the overall average percentage change of -3.3 % 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design is likely to be cost-effective if the state adopted it as 

its state energy code for commercial buildings. 

Table 7-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -2.1 -2.5 -1.8 

APART06 -2.1 -2.5 -1.9 

DORMI04 -3.8 -5.1 -4.9 

DORMI06 -2.6 -3.2 -2.9 

HOTEL15 -2.8 -2.2 -1.6 

HIGHS02 -0.9 -0.7 -1.8 

OFFIC03 -2.9 -3.4 -3.8 

OFFIC08 -3.0 -3.9 -5.2 

OFFIC16 -1.5 -1.0 0.0 

RETAIL1 -2.5 -2.6 -1.7 

RSTRNT1 -2.5 -3.1 -10.3 

Average -2.4 -2.7 -3.3 

7.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for two cities located in Arkansas, both of which are located in 

Climate Zone 3A: Fort Smith and Little Rock. 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. 

As can be seen in Table 7-6, there is minimal variation in the average percentage 

reduction in energy use across cities in the state, with a difference of 0.4 to 0.6 

percentage points depending on the building design. 

Table 7-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, Arkansas 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Fort Smith 3A -12.6 -13.7 -27.4 

Little Rock 3A -13.0 -14.1 -28.0 

Average -12.8 -13.9 -27.7 

Similar to energy use, Table 7-7 shows that the average percentage change in energy 

costs for all building types also varies minimally across cities, with a difference of less 

than 0.3 percentage points depending on the building design. For both cities, reductions 

39
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

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. 

Table 7-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, Arkansas 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Fort Smith 3A -16.3 -18.2 -33.7 

Little Rock 3A -16.6 -18.4 -34.0 

Average -16.5 -18.3 -33.9 

Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon emissions for all building 

types also varies minimally between cities. Table 7-8 shows that there is a 0.1 percentage 

point difference between cities for each building design. Similar to energy costs, 

reductions in carbon emissions are greater than the reductions in energy use because the 

percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural 

gas consumption. 

Table 7-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Arkansas 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Fort Smith 3A -17.2 -19.5 -36.0 

Little Rock 3A -17.3 -19.6 -36.1 

Average -17.2 -19.6 -36.1 

The data reported in Table 7-9 show that, over a 10-year period, the LEC design results in 

the lowest average life-cycle costs for both cities in the state. Reductions in life-cycle 

costs are similar across all cities in the state for each building design, with a variation of 

0.1 percentage points between cities. 

Table 7-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Arkansas 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Fort Smith 3A -2.5 -2.8 -3.3 

Little Rock 3A -2.4 -2.7 -3.2 

Average -2.4 -2.7 -3.3 

40
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

7.2 Total Savings 

How much can Arkansas 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 7-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.17 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated 

annual m2 (ft2

) of new construction of each building type, and Table 7-11 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.18 

Table 7-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -26.6 -8.5 -32.2 -10.2 -49.9 -15.8 

APART06 -26.8 -8.5 -31.3 -9.9 -50.8 -16.1 

DORMI04 -21.3 -6.7 -22.5 -7.1 -36.7 -11.6 

DORMI06 -28.9 -9.2 -36.3 -11.5 -57.3 -18.2 

HOTEL15 -23.6 -7.5 -13.6 -4.3 -32.2 -10.2 

HIGHS02 -11.8 -3.7 -14.9 -4.7 -36.9 -11.7 

OFFIC03 -9.0 -2.9 -11.9 -3.8 -30.5 -9.7 

OFFIC08 -13.1 -4.2 -16.3 -5.2 -35.4 -11.2 

OFFIC16 -13.7 -4.3 -5.0 -1.6 -26.1 -8.3 

RETAIL1 -16.0 -5.1 -23.5 -7.4 -39.9 -12.7 

RSTRNT1 -26.4 -8.4 -30.4 -9.7 -74.9 -23.8 

The total annual reduction in energy use ranges widely across building designs, but the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs all decrease overall energy 

use across the state. Adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 results in annual reductions of 

11.6 GWh (39.8 GBtu) while adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 13.7 GWh (46.8 GBtu) 

17 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.
 

18 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

annually. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would save energy 

for all building types and 28.6 GWh (97.6 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one 

year’s worth of new construction for these building types. 

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

Arkansas 

Building 

Type 

Subcategory 

Weighting m 2 

(1000s) 

ft2 

(1000s) 

Standard Edition 

2004 

MWh MBtu 

2007 

MWh MBtu 

LEC 

MWh MBtu 

APART04 

APART06 

44.9 % 

55.1 % 

11 

13 

114 

140 

-283 -966 

-348 -1 188 

-342 -1 167 

-407 -1 391 

-530 -1 808 

-661 -2 258 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97 1040 -2 282 -7 793 -1 316 -4 494 -3 113 -10 631 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 259 2787 -2 333 -7 966 -3 077 -10 506 -7 908 -27 001 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

48 

52 

29 

521 

562 

309 

-570 -1 948 

-685 -2 340 

-394 -1 345 

-719 -2 456 

-853 -2 913 

-145 -494 

-1 789 -6 108 

-1 850 -6 317 

-749 -2 558 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 272 2925 -4 346 -14 838 -6 380 -21 782 -10 836 -37 000 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 15 166 -406 -1 386 -469 -1 600 -1 154 -3 941 

Total 796 8564 -11 648 -39 771 -13 707 -46 802 -28 591 -97 621 

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 67.1 % 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 use savings to be 42.6 GWh (145.5 GBtu) annually. 

These savings imply 426.1 GWh (1454.9 GBtu) in energy savings over the 10-year study 

period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would save 

17.4 GWh (59.3 GBtu) and 20.4 GWh (69.7 GBtu) annually, or 173.6 GWh (592.7 GBtu) 

and 204.3 GWh (697.5 GBtu) over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

The variation in the statewide change in energy use across the 9 building types with 

reported floor area data are consistent across building designs. 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 6th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building 

types, as reported in Table 7-2. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

7.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 7-12 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type and 

building design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, energy cost 

rates, and energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

Table 7-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$18.88 -$1.75 -$22.64 -$2.10 -$33.84 -$3.14 

APART06 -$18.93 -$1.76 -$22.42 -$2.08 -$35.01 -$3.25 

DORMI04 -$15.28 -$1.42 -$17.18 -$1.60 -$26.02 -$2.42 

DORMI06 -$20.48 -$1.90 -$25.84 -$2.40 -$39.45 -$3.67 

HOTEL15 -$17.99 -$1.67 -$14.37 -$1.33 -$25.94 -$2.41 

HIGHS02 -$7.98 -$0.74 -$9.60 -$0.89 -$23.03 -$2.14 

OFFIC03 -$7.93 -$0.74 -$9.51 -$0.88 -$22.72 -$2.11 

OFFIC08 -$8.50 -$0.79 -$9.99 -$0.93 -$21.62 -$2.01 

OFFIC16 -$9.76 -$0.91 -$6.42 -$0.60 -$19.32 -$1.80 

RETAIL1 -$10.49 -$0.97 -$13.95 -$1.30 -$23.74 -$2.21 

RSTRNT1 -$18.32 -$1.70 -$20.60 -$1.91 -$47.16 -$4.38 

Table 7-13 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. Overall, reductions in energy costs are greater for the 

more energy efficient building designs: $8.5 million, $9.7 million, and $19.2 million for 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC, respectively. All building 

types realize energy cost savings for all three of these building designs. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, and LEC can be extrapolated to estimate the total statewide energy cost 

savings of $12.6 million, $14.4 million, and $28.6 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a a.

Arkansas 

Table 7-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 10­

Year, Arkansas 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 11 114 -$200 540 -$240 462 -$359 499 

APART06 55.1 % 13 140 -$246 323 -$291 728 -$455 580 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97 1040 -$1 737 230 -$1 387 818 -$2 505 465 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 259 2787 -$2 053 821 -$2 462 032 -$5 881 930 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 48 521 -$386 274 -$464 768 -$1 114 838 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 52 562 -$443 853 -$521 460 -$1 129 016 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 29 309 -$280 371 -$184 387 -$555 117 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 272 2925 -$2 849 372 -$3 791 847 -$6 451 060 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 15 166 -$282 204 -$317 349 -$726 487 

Total 796 8564 -$8 479 988 -$9 661 851 -$19 178 992 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction 

d t 

7.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 7-14 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 7-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Arkansas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

2007 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -249.8 -51.2 -299.0 -61.2 -442.7 -90.7 

APART06 -250.4 -51.3 -297.5 -60.9 -459.9 -94.2 

DORMI04 -202.8 -41.5 -231.6 -47.4 -344.3 -70.5 

DORMI06 -270.9 -55.5 -342.2 -70.1 -518.1 -106.1 

HOTEL15 -242.2 -49.6 -206.0 -42.2 -353.7 -72.4 

HIGHS02 -110.2 -22.6 -129.5 -26.5 -304.2 -62.3 

OFFIC03 -104.3 -21.4 -123.9 -25.4 -294.0 -60.2 

OFFIC08 -109.8 -22.5 -126.8 -26.0 -274.3 -56.2 

OFFIC16 -129.3 -26.5 -94.6 -19.4 -258.5 -52.9 

RETAIL1 -135.9 -27.8 -175.6 -36.0 -298.9 -61.2 

RSTRNT1 -241.2 -49.4 -269.4 -55.2 -604.0 -123.7 

Table 7-15 applies the Table 7-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of more energy efficient codes. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and 

LEC designs all decrease carbon emissions. The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 results 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

in savings of 112 965 metric tons while adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 127 666 

metric tons over a 10-year study period. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s 

energy code decreases carbon emissions by 250 112 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 building stock in the state, the results for the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, and LEC designs can be extrapolated to estimate statewide reductions in 

carbon emissions of 168 353 metric tons, 190 262 metric tons, and 372 746 metric tons 

over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

Table 7-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Arkansas – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 11 114 -2653 -3176 -4703
 

APART06 55.1 % 13 140 -3258 -3871 -5984
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97 1040 -23 391 -19 900 -34 161 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 259 2787 -28 528 -33 527 -78 766 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 48 521 -5050 -5998 -14 235 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 52 562 -5732 -6619 -14 324 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 29 309 -3714 -2716 -7427 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 272 2925 -36 924 -47 710 -81 209 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 15 166 -3716 -4149 -9304 

Total 796 8564 -112 965 -127 666 -250 112 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

7.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 7-16 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. 

45
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas 

Table 7-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Arkansas
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$19.01 -$1.77 -$23.10 -$2.15 -$16.36 -$1.52 

APART06 -$19.27 -$1.79 -$22.83 -$2.12 -$17.09 -$1.59 

DORMI04 -$34.05 -$3.16 -$46.10 -$4.28 -$43.58 -$4.05 

DORMI06 -$24.70 -$2.29 -$29.71 -$2.76 -$27.38 -$2.54 

HOTEL15 -$24.95 -$2.32 -$19.86 -$1.84 -$14.39 -$1.34 

HIGHS02 -$6.70 -$0.62 -$4.95 -$0.46 -$13.44 -$1.25 

OFFIC03 -$21.86 -$2.03 -$25.88 -$2.40 -$28.91 -$2.69 

OFFIC08 -$23.34 -$2.17 -$30.56 -$2.84 -$40.67 -$3.78 

OFFIC16 -$10.19 -$0.95 -$6.60 -$0.61 $0.26 $0.02 

RETAIL1 -$15.44 -$1.43 -$16.08 -$1.49 -$10.54 -$0.98 

RSTRNT1 -$31.59 -$2.93 -$39.25 -$3.65 -$130.62 -$12.13 

Table 7-17 applies the Table 7-16 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide changes in life-cycle costs from 

adoption of more energy-efficient codes. Total reductions in life-cycle costs over the 

10-year study period vary across building designs. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 result in a decrease in life-cycle costs for all 9 building types while the LEC 

design decreases life-cycle costs for 8 of 9 building types. The 16-story office building 

realizes the smallest total reductions in life-cycle costs for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and 

realizes an increase in life-cycle costs for the LEC design. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 result in similar total reductions in life-cycle costs for the building 

types considered in this study ($11.8 million each). The LEC design leads to the greatest 

total reductions in life-cycle costs of $13.7 million. 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 designs can be extrapolated to estimate statewide changes in life-cycle costs of 

$17.7 million, $17.5 million, and $20.4 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

46
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

data.

Arkansas 

Table 7-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Arkansas 

Building 

Type 

Subcategory 

Weighting 

m 2 

(1000s) 

ft2 

(1000s) 

Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 

APART06 

44.9 % 11 114 -$201 958 -$245 401 -$173 778 

55.1 % 13 140 -$250 744 -$296 999 -$222 395 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 97 1040 -$2 409 963 -$1 918 016 -$1 389 520 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 259 2787 -$1 736 035 -$1 282 081 -$3 479 349 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 48 521 -$1 058 473 -$1 252 947 -$1 399 758 

40.4 % 52 562 -$1 218 597 -$1 595 671 -$2 123 465 

22.2 % 29 309 -$292 835 -$189 489 $7495 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 272 2925 -$4 194 606 -$4 369 646 -$2 863 397 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 15 166 -$486 547 -$604 645 -$2 011 969 

Total 796 8564 -$11 849 757 -$11 754 894 -$13 656 136 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction 

7.3 State Summary 

Arkansas is one of two states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as their state energy 

code for commercial buildings. On average, adopting a newer edition of ASHRAE 90.1 

leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and cradle-to-grave 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 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings would lead to 

energy use savings of 204.3 GWh (697.5 GBtu), energy cost savings of $14.4 million, 

and 190 262 metric tons of carbon emissions reductions while saving $17.5 million in 

life-cycle costs for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. Adopting the 

LEC design would lead to even greater impacts with savings of 426.1 GWh 

(1454.9 GBtu), $28.6 million in energy costs, 372 746 metric tons of carbon emissions, 

and life-cycle cost savings of $20.4 million. 

47
 
 

Arkansas 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 

Delaware 

Delaware 

Delaware has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the South Atlantic Census Division and Climate Zone 4A. 

Table 8-1 provides an overview of Delaware’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building types and building 

designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 79 kWh/m2 to 

99 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 31 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the greatest 

amount of energy at 197 kWh/m2 to 210 kWh/m2 (62 kBtu/ ft2 to 67 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

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

Delaware 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

152 48 

150 48 

136 43 

133 42 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

112 36 

165 52 

98 31 

146 46 

HOTEL15 154 49 134 42 

HIGHS02 210 67 197 62 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

106 34 

99 31 

148 47 

85 27 

79 25 

124 39 

RETAIL1 113 36 97 31 

RSTRNT1 160 51 116 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 

city-by-city basis and as 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 

(Wilmington). 

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 the LEC design in the state of Delaware. 

Table 8-2 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. 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -6.4 % to -27.7 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -14.8 %. High schools realize the lowest reductions in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reductions in energy use. 

Table 8-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions, 

10-Year, Delaware 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -10.4 -15.0 -16.0 -0.2 

APART06 -11.2 -17.0 -18.2 -0.4 

DORMI04 -12.3 -16.3 -17.2 -0.5 

DORMI06 -11.3 -16.9 -18.0 -0.8 

HOTEL15 -13.1 -17.6 -18.5 -0.6 

HIGHS02 -6.4 -13.3 -14.8 -1.8 

OFFIC03 -20.0 -22.7 -23.2 -3.4 

OFFIC08 -19.7 -21.1 -21.3 -3.2 

OFFIC16 -16.0 -19.4 -19.9 -1.0 

RETAIL1 -14.2 -16.7 -17.1 -0.8 

RSTRNT1 -27.7 -32.2 -33.0 -8.5 

Average -14.8 -18.9 -19.7 -1.9 

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 -13.3 % to -32.2 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -18.9 % 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 

44.6 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is over two 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 -14.8 % to -33.0 % 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 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

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 8 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 -8.5 % to -0.2 % for a 10-year study period. Since all 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs, the LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its 

state energy code for commercial buildings. 

8.2 Total Savings 

How much can Delaware 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 8-3 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.19 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 8-4 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.20 

19 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.
 

20 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

Table 8-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Delaware
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -15.7 -5.0 

APART06 -16.9 -5.4 

DORMI04 -13.8 -4.4 

DORMI06 -18.6 -5.9 

HOTEL15 -20.1 -6.4 

HIGHS02 -21.1 -6.7 

OFFIC03 -13.5 -4.3 

OFFIC08 -19.5 -6.2 

OFFIC16 -23.7 -7.5 

RETAIL1 -16.1 -5.1 

RSTRNT1 -44.3 -14.1 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 3.4 GWh (11.5 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 55.9 % 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 6.0 GWh (20.5 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 60.1 GWh (205.3 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. 

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. The greatest total reductions are realized by high schools and 

retail stores because they represent 30.2 % and 24.5 %, respectively, of the combined 

new construction in the state for the building types in this study while all other building 

types represent 13.0 % or less. The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative 

percentage changes in energy use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reduction in energy use for the LEC design -- high schools and retail stores -- only rank 

11th and 5th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as 

reported in Table 8-2. 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

Table 8-4 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Delaware 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 6 68 -99 049 -338 196
 

APART06 55.1 % 8 83 -130 376 -445 161
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 25 266 -496 289 -1 694 545 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 58 625 -785 128 -2 680 765 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 17 180 -354 464 -1 210 293 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18 195 -352 850 -1 204 782 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 10 107 -235 479 -804 028 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 47 510 -764 433 -2 610 103 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 3 35 -142 399 -486 211 

Total 192 2069 -3 360 468 -11 474 083 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

8.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 8-5 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 8-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Delaware 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$16.19 -$1.50 

APART06 -$18.32 -$1.70 

DORMI04 -$13.47 -$1.25 

DORMI06 -$19.96 -$1.85 

HOTEL15 -$19.58 -$1.82 

HIGHS02 -$20.85 -$1.94 

OFFIC03 -$18.53 -$1.72 

OFFIC08 -$18.92 -$1.76 

OFFIC16 -$23.87 -$2.22 

RETAIL1 -$15.58 -$1.45 

RSTRNT1 -$41.84 -$3.89 

Table 8-6 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 $3.6 million for 10 years of building operation. 

53
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 55.9 % 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 $6.5 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

Table 8-6 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Delaware 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 6 68 -$102 070 

APART06 55.1 % 8 83 -$141 520 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 25 266 -$483 773 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 58 625 -$1 076 378 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 17 180 -$349 528 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18 195 -$341 994 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 10 107 -$237 330 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 47 510 -$738 614 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 3 35 -$134 485 

Total 192 2069 -$3 605 692 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

8.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 8-7 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 8-7 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Delaware 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -112.5 -23.0 

APART06 -128.3 -26.3 

DORMI04 -92.9 -19.0 

DORMI06 -139.5 -28.6 

HOTEL15 -135.0 -27.7 

HIGHS02 -133.2 -27.3 

OFFIC03 -144.1 -29.5 

OFFIC08 -130.4 -26.7 

OFFIC16 -165.4 -33.9 

RETAIL1 -107.3 -22.0 

RSTRNT1 -287.2 -58.8 

54
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

Table 8-8 applies the Table 8-7 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 

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 25 198 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 45 078 metric tons over the 10-year study period. 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Delaware – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 6 68 -709 

APART06 55.1 % 8 83 -990 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 25 266 -3337 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 58 625 -7735 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 17 180 -2415 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18 195 -2357 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 10 107 -1645 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 47 510 -5088 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 3 35 -923 

Total 192 2069 -25 198 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

8.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 8-9 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. 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

Table 8-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Delaware
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$2.26 -$0.21 

APART06 -$4.06 -$0.38 

DORMI04 -$4.86 -$0.45 

DORMI06 -$7.35 -$0.68 

HOTEL15 -$5.12 -$0.48 

HIGHS02 -$13.74 -$1.28 

OFFIC03 -$26.17 -$2.43 

OFFIC08 -$25.02 -$2.32 

OFFIC16 -$7.19 -$0.67 

RETAIL1 -$5.22 -$0.49 

RSTRNT1 -$112.91 -$10.49 

Table 8-10 applies the Table 8-9 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate 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 types, with all 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. Overall, 

the LEC design results in a decrease of $2.5 million in statewide life-cycle costs relative 

to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools, 8-story office buildings, and 3-story office 

buildings realize the greatest statewide decrease in life-cycle costs ($798 270, $452 159, 

and $438 620, 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 $4.5 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 8-10 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Delaware 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 6 68 -$14 278
 

APART06 55.1 % 8 83 -$31 373
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 25 266 -$126 570 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 58 625 -$798 270 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 17 180 -$438 620 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 18 195 -$452 159 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 10 107 -$71 527 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 47 510 -$247 565 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 3 35 -$362 959 

Total 192 2069 -$2 543 321 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware 

8.3 State Summary 

Delaware 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 

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 60.1 GWh (205.3 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $6.5 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 45 078 metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $4.5 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

57
 
 

Delaware 

58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

Florida 

Florida 

Florida has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, is located in the South Atlantic Census Division, and spans two climate zones 

(Zone 1 and Zone 2A). Table 9-1 provides an overview of Florida’s simulated energy use 

keyed to building type and energy standard edition. Average energy use varies across 

building types and building designs. The 4-story dormitory uses the least amount of 

energy at 79 kWh/m2 to 95 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 30 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The restaurant 

uses the greatest amount of energy at 108 kWh/m2 to 155 kWh/m2 (34 kBtu/ft2 to 49 

kBtu/ ft2

) annually. 

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

Florida 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

129 41 

130 41 

108 34 

107 34 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

95 30 

139 44 

79 25 

114 36 

HOTEL15 109 35 91 29 

HIGHS02 126 40 99 31 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

113 36 

109 35 

127 40 

86 27 

87 28 

105 33 

RETAIL1 114 36 93 29 

RSTRNT1 155 49 108 34 

The detailed analysis for this state reports changes in energy use, energy costs, 

energy-related carbon emissions, and life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design 

beyond the current state energy code. 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. 

9.1 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 for the state of Florida. 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

9.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

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 -16.6 % to -30.5 %, with an 

average of -19.8 %. The lowest reduction in energy use for the LEC design occurs in the 

4-story apartment building and hotel while the greatest reduction in energy use occurs in 

restaurants. 

Table 9-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year, 

Florida 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Costs Carbon LCC 

APART04 -16.6 -17.7 -17.8 -0.3 

APART06 -17.5 -18.9 -19.0 -0.4 

DORMI04 -17.4 -18.4 -18.5 -2.1 

DORMI06 -18.4 -20.0 -20.1 -0.9 

HOTEL15 -16.7 -18.8 -19.0 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -21.2 -23.4 -23.7 -1.9 

OFFIC03 -24.0 -24.3 -24.3 -2.3 

OFFIC08 -20.1 -20.2 -20.2 -2.6 

OFFIC16 -17.6 -18.5 -18.5 -0.2 

RETAIL1 -17.9 -18.2 -18.2 -0.7 

RSTRNT1 -30.5 -31.5 -31.6 -5.3 

Average -19.8 -20.9 -21.0 -1.5 

The LEC design realizes average percentage changes in energy costs over 10 years of 

building operation ranging from -17.7 % to -31.5 % depending on the building type, with 

an average of -20.9 % overall. The 4-story apartment building realizes the smallest 

average percentage reductions in energy costs while the restaurant realizes the greatest 

average reductions in energy use. The reductions in energy costs are nearly identical to 

the reductions in energy use because electricity accounts for 95 % of total energy use. 

Therefore, any change in energy costs is driven by the change in use of a single fuel type, 

electricity. 

The LEC design leads to average percentage changes in energy-related carbon emissions 

ranging from -17.8 % to -31.6 %, depending on the building type, with an average 

of -21.0 % across all building types. As would be expected, a more energy efficient 

building design results in greater reductions in carbon emissions. Similar to energy costs, 

the percentage reduction in carbon emissions is nearly identical to the percentage 

reduction in energy use because electricity consumption accounts for 95 % of total 

energy use, which minimizes any impacts from shifting of energy use between electricity 

and natural gas consumption. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

The LEC design results in average reductions in life-cycle costs for a 10-year study 

period for all 11 building types. The average percentage change in life-cycle costs for the 

LEC design ranges from -0.1 % to -5.3 %. The restaurant and 3- and 8-story office 

buildings realize the greatest average percentage reduction in life-cycle costs while the 

hotel and 16-story office building realize the smallest average percentage reduction in 

life-cycle costs. The LEC design is cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state energy 

code for commercial buildings. 

9.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for seven cities located in Florida: Key West and Miami in Climate 

Zone 1, and Daytona Beach, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Tampa, and West Palm Beach in 

Climate Zone 2A. The results may vary across cities within the state for several 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, 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. 

As can be seen in Table 9-3, the average reduction in energy use for all building types 

from adopting the LEC design is slightly greater for the cities located in Zone 1 than in 

Zone 2. For the LEC design, Zone 1 realizes an average change in energy use of -21.2 % 

compared to -19.6 % for Zone 2. The average percentage change in energy use varies 

minimally within Zone 2, -17.6 % to -20.3 %, because of climate variation within the 

subzone. The cities located furthest north in the state, Jacksonville and Tallahassee, 

realize the smallest reductions in energy use. 

Table 9-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Florida 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Key West 1 -21.3 -21.3 -22.1 -2.1 

Miami 1 -21.2 -21.3 -22.0 -1.9 

Daytona Beach 2A -20.3 -21.4 -21.9 -1.4 

Jacksonville 2A -18.1 -20.4 -21.0 -1.1 

Tallahassee 2A -17.6 -20.5 -21.1 -1.1 

Tampa 2A -19.9 -20.8 -21.2 -1.5 

West Palm Beach 2A -20.3 -20.5 -20.9 -1.6 

Average -19.8 -20.9 -21.5 -1.5 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

The average reduction in energy costs for all building types is relatively constant across 

cities throughout the state. For the LEC design, Zone 1 realizes an average change in 

energy costs of -21.3 % compared to -20.7 % for Zone 2. 

For all cities, the LEC design results in reductions in energy-related carbon emissions 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. There is minor variation across cities in the change in 

carbon emissions, -20.9 % versus -22.1 %, with Climate Zone 1 realizing slightly greater 

reductions. 

The LEC design results in average percentage reductions in life-cycle costs relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 across all cities in the state, ranging from 1.1 % to 2.1 %. These cost 

variations are probably a result of the variation in building envelope design requirements 

across climate zones combined with different local construction costs across the state. 

Cities located further north realize smaller percentage reductions in life-cycle costs. 

9.2 Total Savings 

How much can Florida 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 9-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type for 

the LEC design in the state.21 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 9-5 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.22 

21 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. 

22 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

Table 9-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Florida
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -21.4 -6.8 

APART06 -22.8 -7.2 

DORMI04 -16.6 -5.3 

DORMI06 -25.8 -8.2 

HIGHS02 -18.2 -5.8 

HOTEL15 -27.4 -8.7 

OFFIC03 -26.7 -8.5 

OFFIC08 -21.9 -6.9 

OFFIC16 -22.4 -7.1 

RETAIL1 -20.8 -6.6 

RSTRNT1 -47.3 -15.0 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 9-5 ranges widely across building 

types, but the LEC design decreases overall energy use across the state relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would 

save energy for all building types, and 246.4 GWh (841.3 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 65.0 % 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 total statewide 

savings to be 379.0 GWh (1294.2 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 3.8 TWh (12.9 

TBtu) in energy savings over the 10-year study period. 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

Table 9-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Florida 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 1923 20 704 -41 125 439 -140 419 934
 

APART06 55.1 % 2356 25 359 -53 670 927 -183 255 624
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 596 6414 -10 823 497 -36 956 072 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1552 16 705 -41 416 445 -141 413 553 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 676 7277 -18 492 215 -63 140 373 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 729 7848 -15 950 755 -54 462 735 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 401 4318 -8 971 492 -30 632 532 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2381 25 627 -49 516 636 -169 071 088 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 136 1460 -6 413 952 -21 899 992 

Total 10 750 115 711 -246 381 359 -841 251 902 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

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. The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative 

percentage changes in energy use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reduction in energy use for the LEC design -- 6-story apartment buildings and retail 

stores -- only rank 9th and 5th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 

building types, as reported in Table 9-2. 

9.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 9-6 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. 

64
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

Table 9-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Florida
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$18.85 -$1.75 

APART06 -$20.25 -$1.88 

DORMI04 -$14.60 -$1.36 

DORMI06 -$22.97 -$2.13 

HIGHS02 -$16.63 -$1.55 

HOTEL15 -$24.03 -$2.23 

OFFIC03 -$23.50 -$2.18 

OFFIC08 -$18.64 -$1.73 

OFFIC16 -$19.69 -$1.83 

RETAIL1 -$17.79 -$1.65 

RSTRNT1 -$40.76 -$3.79 

Table 9-7 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. Overall, the reduction in energy costs totals $216.4 million for adopting the 

LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. All building types realize energy cost savings 

for the LEC design. The greatest energy cost savings are realized by the apartment 

buildings, retail stores, and high schools. The smallest reductions in energy costs are 

realized by restaurants and 16-story office buildings. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study, which represent 65.0 % of all new 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 $333.0 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 9-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Florida 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 1923 20 704 -$36 256 290
 

APART06 55.1 % 2356 25 359 -$47 701 308
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 596 6414 -$9 911 975 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1552 16 705 -$37 299 219 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 676 7277 -$15 888 663 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 729 7848 -$13 590 986 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 401 4318 -$7 896 893 

RETAIL1 100 % 2381 25 627 -$42 351 551 

RSTRNT1 100 % 136 1460 -$5 527 562 

Total 10 750 115 711 -$216 424 446 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

65
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

9.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 9-8 reports the average energy-related reduction in carbon emissions over 10 years, 

per m 2 (ft2), by building type. The carbon emissions estimation approach is defined in 

Section 5.3. 

Table 9-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Florida 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -182.9 -37.5 

APART06 -196.6 -40.3 

DORMI04 -141.7 -29.0 

DORMI06 -223.2 -45.7 

HOTEL15 -161.9 -33.2 

HIGHS02 -233.7 -47.9 

OFFIC03 -227.5 -46.6 

OFFIC08 -180.4 -36.9 

OFFIC16 -191.0 -39.1 

RETAIL1 -172.2 -35.3 

RSTRNT1 -394.7 -80.8 

Table 9-9 applies the Table 9-8 results to one year’s worth of new building construction 

in the state to estimate statewide energy-related reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of the LEC design. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building types, and is correlated to the reductions in energy use. The adoption of the LEC 

design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings decreases carbon emissions by 

2.1 million 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 building stock in the state, the 

results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate total statewide reductions in 

carbon emissions of 3.2 million metric tons over the 10-year study period. 

66
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

Table 9-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions (t) for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Florida – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 1923 20 704 -351 846
 

APART06 55.1 % 2356 25 359 -463 242
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 596 6414 -96 506 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1552 16 705 -362 638 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 676 7277 -153 836 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 729 7848 -131 490 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 401 4318 -76 624 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2381 25 627 -409 884 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 136 1460 -53 533 

Total 10 750 115 711 -2 099 598 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

9.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 9-10 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. The 

average change in life-cycle costs per unit of floor area varies significantly across 

building types. 

Table 9-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Florida 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$2.59 -$0.24 

APART06 -$4.08 -$0.38 

DORMI04 -$19.87 -$1.85 

DORMI06 -$9.00 -$0.84 

HOTEL15 -$0.69 -$0.06 

HIGHS02 -$15.43 -$1.43 

OFFIC03 -$19.75 -$1.83 

OFFIC08 -$22.10 -$2.05 

OFFIC16 -$1.59 -$0.15 

RETAIL1 -$5.18 -$0.48 

RSTRNT1 -$73.78 -$6.85 

Table 9-11 applies the Table 9-10 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide change in total life-cycle costs from 

adoption of the LEC design. Adopting the LEC design decreases total life-cycle costs by 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida 

$91.4 million, and reduces costs for all 9 building types. Hotels and high-rise office 

buildings realize the smallest reductions in life-cycle costs. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new building stock in 

the state, the results for the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate an increase in 

total statewide life-cycle costs of $151.3 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 9-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Florida 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 1923 20 704 -$4 984 164
 

APART06 55.1 % 2356 25 359 -$9 607 112
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 596 6414 -$409 194 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1552 16 705 -$23 950 746 

OFFIC04 37.4 % 676 7277 -$13 353 416 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 729 7848 -$16 112 836 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 401 4318 -$638 697 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2381 25 627 -$12 330 802 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 136 1460 -$10 005 885 

Total 10 750 115 711 -$91 392 851 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

9.3 State Summary 

Florida 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 sizeable total energy use, energy cost, and carbon emissions reductions while 

significantly decreasing life-cycle costs. Based on the average annual new commercial 

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 energy savings 

of 3.8 TWh (12.9 TBtu), energy cost savings of $333.0 million, and carbon emissions 

savings of 3.2 million metric tons, and life-cycle cost savings of $151.3 million for one 

year’s worth of commercial building construction. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

10 Georgia 

Georgia has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code, is located in the South 

Atlantic Census Division, and spans two climate zones (Zone 2A and Zone 3A). Table 

10-1 provides an overview of Georgia’s simulated energy use keyed to building types and 

energy codes. Average energy use varies across building types and building designs. The 

8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 80 kWh/m2 to 100 kWh/m2 

(25 kBtu/ft2 to 32 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy 

at 129 kWh/m2 to 148 kWh/m2 (41 kBtu/ft2 to 47 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

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

Georgia 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

124 39 

124 39 

106 34 

105 33 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

93 30 

135 43 

79 25 

114 36 

HOTEL15 121 38 104 33 

HIGHS02 148 47 129 41 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

102 32 

100 32 

130 41 

80 25 

80 25 

109 34 

RETAIL1 104 33 88 28 

RSTRNT1 148 47 103 33 

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. 

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 Georgia. 

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. 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

69
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -12.6 % to -30.0 % depending on the building type 

with an overall average of -17.3 %. High schools realize the lowest reductions in energy 

use while restaurants realize the greatest reductions in energy use. 

Table 10-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard 

Editions, 10-Year, Georgia 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -14.3 -17.7 -18.8 0.4 

APART06 -15.5 -19.5 -20.9 0.3 

DORMI04 -15.1 -18.1 -19.1 -1.2 

DORMI06 -15.5 -19.7 -21.2 -0.1 

HOTEL15 -14.5 -18.5 -19.9 0.4 

HIGHS02 -12.6 -18.2 -20.3 -1.6 

OFFIC03 -21.6 -22.9 -23.3 -1.2 

OFFIC08 -19.5 -20.2 -20.4 -1.7 

OFFIC16 -16.5 -18.4 -19.1 0.5 

RETAIL1 -15.5 -16.5 -16.8 0.5 

RSTRNT1 -30.0 -32.7 -33.6 -4.9 

Average -17.3 -20.2 -21.2 -0.8 

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 -16.5 % to -32.7 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -20.2 % 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. In fact, adopting the LEC design leads to an increase in natural gas 

consumption and a decrease in electricity consumption all 11 building types. The shift is 

most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption offsets 

24.8 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 44 % greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. The LEC 

design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for cities in 

Zone 2 and Zone 3, 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 -16.8 % to -33.6 % with an average of -21.2 %. 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 

70
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

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 -4.9 % to 0.5 % for a 10-year study period. Six of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Based on the overall average percentage change of -0.8 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state 

energy code for commercial buildings. 

10.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for six cities located in Georgia: Savannah in Zone 2A and Athens, 

Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, and Macon in Zone 3A. The results may vary across cities 

within Georgia for several reasons. First, the state is covered by two climate zones. The 

ASHRAE 90.1 building design requirements vary across climate zones and may 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 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 vary minimally across cities, ranging from -16.6 % 

to -18.1 % with an overall average of -17.3 %. There is no significant difference between 

cities located in Zone 2A relative to cities in Zone 3A. 

Table 10-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Georgia 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Savannah 2A -17.2 -20.0 -21.2 -0.8 

Athens 3A -17.5 -20.5 -21.9 -0.7 

Atlanta 3A -16.7 -19.9 -21.4 -0.6 

Augusta 3A -16.6 -19.8 -21.2 -0.8 

Columbus 3A -18.1 -20.6 -21.7 -1.0 

Macon 3A -17.9 -20.5 -21.6 -0.8 

Average -17.3 -20.2 -21.5 -0.8 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -19.8 % to -20.6 % for 10 years of operation. For 

all cities, percentage reductions in energy costs are greater than percentage reductions in 

energy use because electricity consumption decreases while natural gas consumption 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

increases. Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon emissions for 

all building types also varies minimally across cities, ranging from -21.2 % to -21.9 %. 

Reductions in life-cycle costs for all building types vary minimally across cities, ranging 

from -0.6 % to -1.0 %. 

10.2 Total Savings 

How much can Georgia 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.23 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.24 

Table 10-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Georgia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -17.72 -5.62 

APART06 -19.28 -6.11 

DORMI04 -14.09 -4.47 

DORMI06 -20.86 -6.62 

HOTEL15 -17.61 -5.59 

HIGHS02 -22.04 -6.99 

OFFIC03 -18.57 -5.89 

OFFIC08 -19.48 -6.18 

OFFIC16 -21.55 -6.83 

RETAIL1 -16.09 -5.10 

RSTRNT1 -44.19 -14.02 

23 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.
 

24 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 76.8 GWh (262.4 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 57.0 % 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 statewide savings to 

be 134.8 GWh (460.3 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 1.3 TWh (4.6 TBtu) 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. The 

greatest total reductions are realized by high schools and retail stores because they 

represent 27.0 % and 28.6 %, respectively, of the combined new construction in the state 

for the building types in this study while all other building types represent 9.9 % or less. 

The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative percentage changes in energy 

use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated reduction in energy use for the 

LEC design -- retail stores and high schools -- only rank 7th 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, 

Georgia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 332 3576 -5 887 666 -20 103 022
 

APART06 55.1 % 407 4380 -7 843 401 -26 780 745
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 302 3251 -5 319 574 -18 163 313 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1116 12 012 -20 728 878 -70 777 302 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 272 2925 -5 990 308 -20 453 489 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 293 3154 -5 709 765 -19 495 594 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 161 1736 -3 474 048 -11 861 895 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 1179 12 686 -18 957 555 -64 729 243 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 66 713 -2 925 702 -9 989 605 

Total 4128 44 433 -76 836 897 -262 354 207 

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. 

73
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

Table 10-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Georgia
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$13.43 -$1.25 

APART06 -$14.90 -$1.38 

DORMI04 -$10.49 -$0.97 

DORMI06 -$16.23 -$1.51 

HOTEL15 -$13.33 -$1.24 

HIGHS02 -$15.87 -$1.47 

OFFIC03 -$15.58 -$1.45 

OFFIC08 -$13.95 -$1.30 

OFFIC16 -$15.77 -$1.46 

RETAIL1 -$11.44 -$1.06 

RSTRNT1 -$31.48 -$2.92 

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 $58.4 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 57.0 % 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 the LEC design can be extrapolated 

to estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $102.5 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

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

10-Year, Georgia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 332 3576 -$4 462 271 

APART06 55.1 % 407 4380 -$6 062 625 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 302 3251 -$4 027 231 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1116 12 012 -$17 384 927 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 272 2925 -$4 312 175 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 293 3154 -$4 088 695 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 161 1736 -$2 542 103 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 1179 12 686 -$13 480 042 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 66 713 -$2 084 174 

Total 4128 44 433 -58 444 243 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

74
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

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, Georgia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -163.6 -33.5 

APART06 -182.4 -37.4 

DORMI04 -127.1 -26.0 

DORMI06 -199.1 -40.8 

HOTEL15 -162.4 -33.3 

HIGHS02 -194.6 -39.9 

OFFIC03 -190.6 -39.0 

OFFIC08 -167.3 -34.3 

OFFIC16 -190.2 -39.0 

RETAIL1 -136.9 -28.0 

RSTRNT1 -376.9 -77.2 

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 712 622 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 1.3 million metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

75
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Georgia – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 332 3576 -54 357 

APART06 55.1 % 407 4380 -74 236 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 302 3251 -49 043 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1116 12 012 -217 226 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 272 2925 -51 787 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 293 3154 -49 029 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 161 1736 -30 671 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 1179 12 686 -161 317 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 66 713 -24 955 

Total 4128 44 433 -712 622 

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, Georgia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $3.82 $0.35 

APART06 $2.68 $0.25 

DORMI04 -$10.91 -$1.01 

DORMI06 -$0.86 -$0.08 

HOTEL15 $3.44 $0.32 

HIGHS02 -$12.10 -$1.12 

OFFIC03 -$8.79 -$0.82 

OFFIC08 -$13.43 -$1.25 

OFFIC16 $3.47 $0.32 

RETAIL1 $3.09 $0.29 

RSTRNT1 -$60.97 -$5.66 

Table 10-11 applies the Table 10-10 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 4 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $16.3 million in statewide life-cycle 

76
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools realize the greatest statewide 

decreases in life-cycle costs ($13.5 million) while the retail stores realize the greatest 

increases in life-cycle costs ($3.6 million). 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 $28.5 million over the 10-year study period. 

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

10-Year, Georgia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 332 3576 $1 268 257 

APART06 55.1 % 407 4380 $1 090 901 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 302 3251 $1 040 169 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 1116 12 012 -$13 508 986 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 272 2925 -$2 389 100 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 293 3154 -$3 936 111 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 161 1736 $559 388 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 1179 12 686 $3 646 333 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 66 713 -$4 036 321 

Total 4128 44 433 -$16 265 471 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

10.3 State Summary 

Georgia 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 1.3 TWh (4.6 TBtu), energy cost savings 

of $102.5 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 1.3 million metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $28.5 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

77
 
 

Georgia 

78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

11 Kentucky 

Kentucky has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code, and is located in the 

East South Central Census Division and Climate Zone 4A. Table 11-1 provides an 

overview of Kentucky’s simulated energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. 

Average energy use varies across building types and building designs. The 8-story office 

building uses the least amount of energy at 81 kWh/m2 to 101 kWh/m2 (26 kBtu/ft2 to 32 

kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 192 kWh/m2 to 

209 kWh/m2 (61 kBtu/ft2 to 66 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

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

Kentucky 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

151 48 

151 48 

134 43 

131 41 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

114 36 

165 52 

100 32 

143 45 

HOTEL15 153 49 132 42 

HIGHS02 209 66 192 61 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

109 34 

101 32 

151 48 

87 28 

81 26 

126 40 

RETAIL1 115 37 98 31 

RSTRNT1 164 52 119 38 

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. 

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 Kentucky. 

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. 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

79
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -8.0 % to -27.9 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -15.5 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 11-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard 

Editions, 10-Year, Kentucky 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -11.5 -15.6 -17.9 0.7 

APART06 -13.4 -18.6 -21.4 0.5 

DORMI04 -12.9 -16.4 -18.3 -1.0 

DORMI06 -12.9 -17.9 -20.6 0.2 

HOTEL15 -13.7 -17.6 -19.8 0.6 

HIGHS02 -8.0 -14.1 -17.8 -0.9 

OFFIC03 -19.8 -22.4 -23.5 -2.4 

OFFIC08 -19.5 -20.8 -21.4 -2.4 

OFFIC16 -16.2 -19.3 -20.7 0.7 

RETAIL1 -14.9 -17.2 -18.3 0.5 

RSTRNT1 -27.9 -32.3 -34.3 -5.4 

Average -15.5 -19.3 -21.3 -0.8 

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 -14.1 % to -32.3 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -19.3 % 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. 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 

35.4 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 76.3 % 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 -17.8 % to -34.3 % with an average of -21.3 %. 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 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative 

80
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

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 -5.4 % to 0.7 % for a 10-year study period. Five of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs, with restaurants realizing the greatest percentage reduction 

while 16-story office buildings and 4-story apartment buildings realize the largest 

increases in life-cycle costs (0.7 %). Based on the overall average percentage change 

of -0.8 % in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective for the state to adopt 

as its state energy code. 

11.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for three cities located in Kentucky, all of which are located in 

Zone 4A: Covington, Lexington, and Louisville. While the three 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 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 varies minimally across cities, ranging from -14.9 % 

to -16.3 % with an overall average of -15.5 %. 

Table 11-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Kentucky 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Covington 4A -14.9 -18.9 -21.2 -0.8 

Lexington 4A -15.3 -19.2 -21.5 -0.8 

Louisville 4A -16.3 -19.8 -21.8 -0.9 

Average -15.5 -19.3 -21.5 -0.8 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types varies minimally 

across cities, ranging from -18.9 % to -19.8 % for 10 years of operation. For all cities, 

reductions in energy costs are greater than reductions in energy use because the 

81
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

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 -21.2 % 

to -21.8 %. Changes in life-cycle costs for all building types vary minimally across cities, 

with the percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -0.8 % to -0.9 %. 

11.2 Total Savings 

How much can Kentucky 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.25 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 

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.26 

Table 11-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Kentucky 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -17.4 -5.5 

APART06 -20.1 -6.4 

DORMI04 -14.7 -4.7 

DORMI06 -21.2 -6.7 

HOTEL15 -20.9 -6.6 

HIGHS02 -21.5 -6.8 

OFFIC03 -16.6 -5.3 

OFFIC08 -19.6 -6.2 

OFFIC16 -24.4 -7.7 

RETAIL1 -17.2 -5.5 

RSTRNT1 -45.9 -14.5 

25 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.
 

26 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

82
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 19.9 GWh (68.0 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 52.7 % 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 37.8 GWh (129.1 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 378.0 GWh (1290.8 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 larger changes in energy use. The greatest total reductions are 

realized by retail stores and high schools because they represent 32.3 % and 24.6 %, 

respectively, of the combined new construction in the state for the building types in this 

study while all other building types represent 12.5 % or less. The amount of new 

construction overwhelms the relative percentage changes in energy use. The building 

types that lead to the greatest estimated total 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 11-2. 

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

Kentucky 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 24 260 -419 589 -1 432 658
 

APART06 55.1 % 30 318 -594 651 -2 030 394
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 129 1384 -2 693 623 -9 197 188 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 254 2734 -4 214 129 -14 388 848 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 87 940 -1 878 787 -6 414 985 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 94 1014 -1 844 372 -6 297 480 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 558 -1 262 947 -4 312 245 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 333 3588 -5 745 573 -19 617 856 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 298 -1 268 604 -4 331 561 

Total 1031 11094 -19 922 276 -68 023 215 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

83
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

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, Kentucky 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$11.10 -$1.03 

APART06 -$13.23 -$1.23 

DORMI04 -$8.95 -$0.83 

DORMI06 -$13.94 -$1.29 

HOTEL15 -$12.77 -$1.19 

HIGHS02 -$13.46 -$1.25 

OFFIC03 -$12.87 -$1.20 

OFFIC08 -$12.10 -$1.12 

OFFIC16 -$15.48 -$1.44 

RETAIL1 -$10.48 -$0.97 

RSTRNT1 -$27.57 -$2.56 

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 $12.9 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 52.7 % 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 $24.6 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

84
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

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

10-Year, Kentucky 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 24 260 -$267 838 

APART06 55.1 % 30 318 -$390 794 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 129 1384 -$1 642 428 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 254 2734 -$3 270 162 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 87 940 -$1 175 470 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 94 1014 -$1 139 281 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 558 -$802 153 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 333 3588 -$3 494 781 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 298 -$762 826 

Total 1031 11094 -$12 945 734 

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, Kentucky 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -153.3 -31.4 

APART06 -184.4 -37.8 

DORMI04 -121.4 -24.9 

DORMI06 -194.2 -39.8 

HOTEL15 -173.4 -35.5 

HIGHS02 -188.6 -38.6 

OFFIC03 -184.5 -37.8 

OFFIC08 -165.0 -33.8 

OFFIC16 -213.3 -43.7 

RETAIL1 -142.2 -29.1 

RSTRNT1 -372.5 -76.3 

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 reduction in carbon emissions ranges widely across 

building designs and is highly correlated with total reductions in energy use. The LEC 

design decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design 

85
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

results in savings of 179 794 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 341 165 metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Kentucky – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 24 260 -3 697 

APART06 55.1 % 30 318 -5 448 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 129 1384 -22 303 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 254 2734 -47 919 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 87 940 -16 112 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 94 1014 -15 544 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 558 -11 053 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 333 3588 -47 413 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 298 -10 305 

Total 1031 11094 -179 794 

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 costs 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. 

86
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

Table 11-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Kentucky
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $6.57 $0.61 

APART06 $4.85 $0.45 

DORMI04 -$9.27 -$0.86 

DORMI06 $1.97 $0.18 

HOTEL15 $5.27 $0.49 

HIGHS02 -$6.94 -$0.64 

OFFIC03 -$19.99 -$1.86 

OFFIC08 -$19.91 -$1.85 

OFFIC16 $5.23 $0.49 

RETAIL1 $3.07 $0.29 

RSTRNT1 -$74.26 -$6.90 

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 4 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $5.2 million in statewide life-cycle costs 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Restaurants, 8-story office buildings, high schools, and 

3-story office buildings realize the greatest statewide decreases in life-cycle costs 

($2.1 million, $1.9 million, $1.8 million, and $1.7 million, respectively) while retail 

stores realize the largest increase in life-cycle costs of $1.0 million. 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 $9.8 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

87
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky 

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

10-Year, Kentucky 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 24 260 $158 367
 

APART06 55.1 % 30 318 $143 268
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 129 1384 $677 778 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 254 2734 -$1 762 636 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 87 940 -$1 745 687 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 94 1014 -$1 874 970 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 558 $270 809 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 333 3588 $1 024 294 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 298 -$2 054 629 

Total 1031 11094 -$5 163 407 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

11.3 State Summary 

Kentucky 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 378.0 GWh (1290.8 GBtu), energy cost savings of $24.6 million, 

and carbon emissions reductions of 341 165 metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs 

by $9.8 million for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. 

88
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

12 Louisiana 

Louisiana has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, is located in the West South Central Census Division, and spans two climate 

zones (Zone 2A and Zone 3A). Table 12-1 provides an overview of Louisiana’s 

simulated energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. Average energy use 

varies across building types and building designs. The 4-story dormitory uses the least 

amount of energy at 78 kWh/m2 to 92 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 29 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The 

restaurant uses the greatest amount of energy for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design at 

148 kWh/m2 (47 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy 

for the LEC design at 114 kWh/m2 (36 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

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

Louisiana 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

125 40 

127 40 

106 34 

106 34 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

92 29 

135 43 

78 25 

113 36 

HOTEL15 115 37 98 31 

HIGHS02 135 43 114 36 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

104 33 

103 33 

128 41 

81 26 

83 26 

107 34 

RETAIL1 105 33 89 28 

RSTRNT1 148 47 104 33 

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. 

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 Louisiana. 

89
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

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. 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -14.5 % to -29.3 % depending on the building type 

with an overall average of -17.9 %. Hotels realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 12-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard 

Editions, 10-Year, Louisiana 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -15.4 -17.6 -18.3 0.5 

APART06 -16.5 -19.1 -20.0 0.4 

DORMI04 -15.5 -17.8 -18.5 -0.8 

DORMI06 -16.7 -19.6 -20.6 0.0 

HOTEL15 -14.5 -18.1 -19.3 0.6 

HIGHS02 -15.4 -19.5 -21.0 -0.8 

OFFIC03 -21.9 -22.7 -23.0 -0.3 

OFFIC08 -19.9 -20.2 -20.3 -1.8 

OFFIC16 -16.6 -18.3 -18.8 0.7 

RETAIL1 -15.0 -15.5 -15.7 0.7 

RSTRNT1 -29.3 -31.3 -31.9 -6.0 

Average -17.9 -20.0 -20.7 -0.6 

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 -15.5 % to -31.3% 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, adopting the LEC design leads to an increase in natural gas 

consumption and a decrease in electricity consumption for all 11 building types. The shift 

is most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption 

offsets 19.4 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage 

reduction in energy costs that is 27 % greater than the percentage reduction in energy use. 

The LEC design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for 

cities in Zone 2 and Zone 3, 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 

90
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

from -15.7 % to -31.9 % with an average of -20.7 %. 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 

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 -6.0 % to 0.7 % for a 10-year study period. Five of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Based on the overall average percentage change of -0.6 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state 

energy code for commercial buildings. 

12.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for four cities located in Louisiana: Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and 

New Orleans in Zone 2A and Shreveport in Zone 3A. The results vary across cities 

within Louisiana for several reasons. First, the state is covered by two climate zones. The 

ASHRAE 90.1 building design requirements vary across climate zones and may 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 change in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design vary minimally across cities, ranging from -17.1 % 

to -18.0 %. Any variation across and within climate zones appears to have minimal 

effects on energy consumption. 

Table 12-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Louisiana 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Baton Rouge 2A -18.0 -20.2 -21.1 -0.7 

Lake Charles 2A -17.1 -19.3 -20.4 -0.8 

New Orleans 2A -18.4 -20.2 -21.2 -0.3 

Shreveport 3A -18.0 -20.2 -21.3 -0.6 

Average -17.9 -20.0 -21.0 -0.6 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -19.3 % to -20.2 % for 10 years of operation. For 

all cities, reductions in energy costs are greater than reductions in energy use because the 

91
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

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 -20.4 % 

to -21.3 %. Percentage changes in life-cycle costs for all building types vary across cities, 

ranging from -0.3 % to -0.8 %, with New Orleans realizing the smallest reduction in lifecycle costs. 

12.2 Total Savings 

How much can Louisiana 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.27 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.28 

Table 12-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Louisiana 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -19.3 -6.1 

APART06 -20.8 -6.6 

DORMI04 -14.3 -4.5 

DORMI06 -22.6 -7.2 

HOTEL15 -16.7 -5.3 

HIGHS02 -22.8 -7.2 

OFFIC03 -20.6 -6.5 

OFFIC08 -20.5 -6.5 

OFFIC16 -21.3 -6.8 

RETAIL1 -15.8 -5.0 

RSTRNT1 -43.3 -13.7 

27 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.
 

28 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

92
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 18.6 GWh (63.4 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 57.2 % 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 32.5 GWh (110.8 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 324.6 GWh (1108.3 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. The greatest total reductions are 

realized by retail stores and high schools because they represent 35.7 % and 17.3 %, 

respectively, of the combined new construction in the state for the building types in this 

study while all other building types represent 16.5 % or less. The amount of new 

construction overwhelms the relative percentage changes in energy use. The building 

types that lead to the greatest estimated reductions in energy use for the LEC design -­

retail stores and high schools -- only rank 10th and 9th in percentage reduction, 

respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported in Table 12-2. 

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

Louisiana 

Building Subcategory 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

m Type Weighting (1000s) LEC (1000s) kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 15 164 -293 762 -1 003 028
 

APART06 55.1 % 19 201 -388 654 -1 327 031
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 161 1738 -2 702 869 -9 228 758 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 168 1812 -3 470 485 -11 849 727 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 88 947 -2 005 327 -6 847 047 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 95 1021 -1 947 962 -6 651 179 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 562 -1 113 583 -3 802 250 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 347 3736 -5 474 143 -18 691 077 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 27 291 -1 170 372 -3 996 152 

Total 973 10 471 -18 567 155 -63 396 250 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

93
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

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, Louisiana 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$12.43 -$1.15 

APART06 -$13.62 -$1.27 

DORMI04 -$9.29 -$0.86 

DORMI06 -$14.89 -$1.38 

HOTEL15 -$11.37 -$1.06 

HIGHS02 -$14.14 -$1.31 

OFFIC03 -$14.20 -$1.32 

OFFIC08 -$12.54 -$1.16 

OFFIC16 -$13.73 -$1.28 

RETAIL1 -$9.64 -$0.90 

RSTRNT1 -$26.96 -$2.51 

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 $11.9 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 57.2 % 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 $20.8 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

94
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

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

10-Year, Louisiana 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 15 164 -$189 248 

APART06 55.1 % 19 201 -$253 961 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 161 1738 -$1 835 737 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 168 1812 -$2 390 533 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 88 947 -$1 243 545 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 95 1021 -$1 189 203 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 562 -$716 778 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 347 3736 -$3 346 337 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 27 291 -$728 466 

Total 973 10 471 -$11 893 808 

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, Louisiana 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -161.5 -33.1 

APART06 -177.6 -36.4 

DORMI04 -120.9 -24.8 

DORMI06 -194.6 -39.9 

HOTEL15 -149.7 -30.7 

HIGHS02 -187.7 -38.4 

OFFIC03 -181.8 -37.2 

OFFIC08 -160.5 -32.9 

OFFIC16 -178.4 -36.5 

RETAIL1 -123.4 -25.3 

RSTRNT1 -347.0 -71.1 

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 the total reduction in energy use. The LEC 

design decreases carbon emissions for all building types. The adoption of the LEC design 

95
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

results in savings of 154 275 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 269 711 metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Louisiana – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 15 164 -2 458 

APART06 55.1 % 19 201 -3 312 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 161 1738 -24 177 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 168 1812 -31 594 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 88 947 -15 986 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 95 1021 -15 220 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 562 -9 309 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 347 3736 -42 844 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 27 291 -9 375 

Total 973 10 471 -154 275 

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. 

96
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

Table 12-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Louisiana
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $4.56 $0.42 

APART06 $3.45 $0.32 

DORMI04 -$7.36 -$0.68 

DORMI06 -$0.07 -$0.01 

HOTEL15 $5.43 $0.50 

HIGHS02 -$5.65 -$0.52 

OFFIC03 -$1.95 -$0.18 

OFFIC08 -$14.45 -$1.34 

OFFIC16 $5.08 $0.47 

RETAIL1 $4.20 $0.39 

RSTRNT1 -$77.04 -$7.16 

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 $1.8 million in statewide life-cycle costs 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Restaurants and 8-story office buildings realize the 

greatest reductions in life-cycle costs ($2.1 million and $1.4 million, respectively). Retail 

stores realize the greatest increase in life-cycle costs ($1.5 million). 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 $3.2 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

97
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana 

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

10-Year, Louisiana 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 15 164 $69 450
 

APART06 55.1 % 19 201 $64 410
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 161 1738 $876 528 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 168 1812 -$950 911 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 88 947 -$171 540 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 95 1021 -$1 370 216 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 52 562 $264 871 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 347 3736 $1 457 483 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 27 291 -$2 081 379 

Total 973 10 471 -$1 841 303 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

12.3 State Summary 

Louisiana 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 324.6 GWh (1108.3 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $20.8 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 269 711 metric 

tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $3.2 million for one year’s worth of commercial 

building construction. 

98
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

13 Maryland 

Maryland is located in the South Atlantic Census Division and primarily in Climate 

Zone 4A, with the northwestern portion of the state located in Zone 5A. Only one city, 

Baltimore, is simulated for this study and is located in Zone 4A. While Maryland is now 

the first state to adopt ASHRAE 90.1-2010, at the time of this study the state had adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings. Table 13-1 

provides an overview of Maryland’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 80 kWh/m2 to 100 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 

32 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 192 kWh/m2 

to 207 kWh/m2 (61 kBtu/ft2 to 66 kBtu/ ft2) annually. 

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

Maryland 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

151 48 

149 47 

134 43 

131 42 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

112 35 

164 52 

98 31 

144 46 

HOTEL15 153 48 132 42 

HIGHS02 207 66 192 61 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

107 34 

100 32 

148 47 

85 27 

80 25 

124 39 

RETAIL1 114 36 97 31 

RSTRNT1 161 51 117 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 (Baltimore). 

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 Maryland. 

99
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

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. 

The LEC design realizes changes in energy use ranging from -7.2 % to -27.7 % with an 

average of -15.1 % relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The greatest reduction in 

energy use for the LEC design occurs in restaurants followed by the small and mid-sized 

office buildings. The smallest reductions occur in the high school followed by the 

apartments and dormitories. 

Table 13-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year, 

Maryland 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -10.9 -17.1 -16.4 0.2 

APART06 -12.1 -19.9 -19.0 -0.0 

DORMI04 -12.5 -17.8 -17.2 -0.2 

DORMI06 -12.0 -19.7 -18.8 -0.4 

HOTEL15 -13.4 -19.4 -18.7 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -7.2 -16.9 -15.6 -1.7 

OFFIC03 -20.0 -23.4 -23.1 -3.0 

OFFIC08 -19.7 -21.4 -21.2 -2.9 

OFFIC16 -16.0 -20.1 -19.7 -0.3 

RETAIL1 -14.3 -17.3 -17.0 -0.1 

RSTRNT1 -27.7 -33.5 -32.9 -9.0 

Average -15.1 -20.6 -20.0 -1.6 

The LEC design realizes average changes in energy costs from -16.9 % to -33.5 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -20.6 % overall over 10 years of 

operation. The high school and 4-story apartment building realize the smallest average 

reductions in energy costs while the restaurant realizes the greatest average reductions 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. 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 40.6 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage 

reduction in energy costs that is over twice the percentage reduction in energy use. The 

LEC design incorporates daylighting 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. 

100
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

The LEC design leads to average changes in carbon emissions ranging from -15.6 % 

to -32.9 % depending on the building type, with an average of -20.0 % 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 

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. 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 average change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design over a 10-year study period 

ranges from -9.0 % to 0.2 %. The 4-story apartment building is the only building type 

that realizes a percentage increase 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 10 of 11 buildings types realize an 

average percentage decrease in life-cycle costs, the LEC design is likely to be costeffective if the state adopted it as its state energy code for commercial buildings. 

13.2 Total Savings 

How much can Maryland 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.29 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 

29 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. 

101
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.30 

Table 13-3 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Maryland 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -16.4 -5.2 

APART06 -18.0 -5.7 

DORMI04 -14.0 -4.4 

DORMI06 -19.7 -6.3 

HOTEL15 -20.5 -6.5 

HIGHS02 -21.3 -6.8 

OFFIC03 -14.9 -4.7 

OFFIC08 -19.6 -6.2 

OFFIC16 -23.6 -7.5 

RETAIL1 -16.2 -5.2 

RSTRNT1 -44.6 -14.2 

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 37.3 GWh (127.5 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 60.0 % 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 to 

be 62.2 GWh (212.4 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 622 GWh (2124.5 GBtu) in 

energy savings over the 10-year study period. 

30 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

102
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

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

Maryland 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 300 3233 -4 912 108 -16 772 048
 

APART06 55.1 % 368 3960 -6 629 761 -22 636 856
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 165 1778 -3 376 646 -11 529 321 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 305 3286 -4 561 245 -15 574 052 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 210 2258 -4 473 057 -15 272 939 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 226 2435 -4 436 129 -15 146 851 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 124 1340 -2 942 128 -10 045 692 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 310 3334 -5 028 330 -17 168 881 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22 235 -972 937 -3 322 027 

Total 2031 21 859 -37 332 341 -127 468 665 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

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 

for 6-story apartment buildings followed by retail stores, 4-story apartment buildings, 

high schools, and 3- and 8-story office buildings. The smallest reductions are for 

restaurants followed by the high-rise 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 reductions 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 -- retail stores and 6- and 4-story 

apartment buildings-- only rank 5th, 8th, and 10th 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. 

103
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

Table 13-5 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Maryland
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$17.00 -$1.58 

APART06 -$19.83 -$1.84 

DORMI04 -$13.62 -$1.27 

DORMI06 -$21.45 -$1.99 

HOTEL15 -$19.85 -$1.84 

HIGHS02 -$20.88 -$1.94 

OFFIC03 -$21.12 -$1.96 

OFFIC08 -$19.05 -$1.77 

OFFIC16 -$23.97 -$2.23 

RETAIL1 -$15.57 -$1.45 

RSTRNT1 -$41.93 -$3.90 

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 $37.4 

million for adopting the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 60.0 % 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 the LEC design can be extrapolated to estimate the total 

energy cost savings of $62.4 million over the 10-year study period. 

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

10-Year, Maryland 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 300 3233 -$5 107 758
 

APART06 55.1 % 368 3960 -$7 296 692
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 165 1778 -$3 278 577 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 305 3286 -$4 301 405 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 210 2258 -$4 430 681 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 226 2435 -$4 309 892 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 124 1340 -$2 983 322 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 310 3334 -$4 823 614 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22 235 -$913 865 

Total 2031 21 859 -$37 445 805 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

104
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

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, Maryland 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -116.1 -23.8 

APART06 -134.8 -27.6 

DORMI04 -93.5 -19.1 

DORMI06 -145.9 -29.9 

HOTEL15 -136.3 -27.9 

HIGHS02 -139.6 -28.6 

OFFIC03 -144.7 -29.6 

OFFIC08 -130.8 -26.8 

OFFIC16 -163.9 -33.6 

RETAIL1 -107.0 -21.9 

RSTRNT1 -288.6 -59.1 

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 

adoption of a more energy efficient code. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building types, and is correlated with each building’s total reductions in 

energy use. However, there is not a perfect correlation because the magnitude of the 

offsetting natural gas increase for 10 of 11 building types varies. The adoption of the 

LEC design as the state’s energy code decreases carbon emissions by 269 357 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 

448 928 metric tons over the 10-year study period. 

105
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

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

Construction, 10-Year, Maryland – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 300 3233 -34 859
 

APART06 55.1 % 368 3960 -49 581
 

HOTEL15 100 % 165 1778 -22 508 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 305 3286 -42 619 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 210 2258 -30 361 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 226 2435 -29 581 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 124 1340 -20 407 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 310 3334 -33 138 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22 235 -6301 

Total 2031 21 859 -269 357 

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. 

Table 13-9 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Maryland 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $2.13 $0.20 

APART06 -$0.28 -$0.03 

DORMI04 -$1.52 -$0.14 

DORMI06 -$4.34 -$0.40 

HOTEL15 -$0.64 -$0.06 

HIGHS02 -$14.23 -$1.32 

OFFIC03 -$26.42 -$2.45 

OFFIC08 -$26.11 -$2.43 

OFFIC16 -$2.22 -$0.21 

RETAIL1 -$0.59 -$0.05 

RSTRNT1 -$131.12 -$12.18 

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 more energy-efficient codes. The change in life-cycle costs varies widely across 

building types, with 8 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. Threestory and 8-story office buildings realize total reductions in life-cycle costs of greater 

106
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

than $5.5 million. The LEC design leads to statewide reductions in life-cycle costs of 

$17.3 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 

life-cycle cost increases of $28.8 million over the 10-year study period. 

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

10-Year, Maryland 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 300 3233 $640 249
 

APART06 55.1 % 368 3960 -$104 036
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 165 1778 -$106 294 

HIGHS02 67.5 % 305 3286 -$2 931 692 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 210 2258 -$5 541 957 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 226 2435 -$5 907 246 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 124 1340 -$276 765 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 310 3334 -$183 061 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 22 235 -$2 857 706 

Total 2031 21 859 -$17 268 507 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

13.3 State Summary 

As of December 2011, Maryland had 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 impressive energy use, energy cost, and energy-related carbon 

emissions reductions 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 savings of 622 GWh 

(2124.5 GBtu), energy cost savings of $62.4 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 

448 928 metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $28.8 million for one year’s 

worth of commercial building construction. 

107
 
Maryland 

108
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

14 Mississippi 

Mississippi is located in the East South Central Census Division and primarily in Climate 

Zone 3A with the southern (Gulf Coast) counties of the state located in Zone 2A. All 

cities simulated for this study are located in Zone 3A. 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 14-1 provides 

an overview of Mississippi’s simulated energy use keyed to building type and energy 

standard edition. Average energy use varies across building types and building designs. 

The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 81 kWh/m2 to 120 kWh/m2 

(26 kBtu/ft2 to 38 kBtu/ft2) annually. The restaurant uses the greatest amount of energy 

for the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 design at 197 kWh/m2 (62 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high 

school uses the greatest amount of energy for the LEC design at 132 kWh/m2 

(42 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

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

Mississippi 

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 

171 54 

170 54 

169 54 

168 53 

135 43 

134 43 

127 40 

127 40 

110 35 

109 34 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

133 42 

190 60 

129 41 

183 58 

102 32 

150 47 

94 30 

137 43 

81 26 

117 37 

HOTEL15 163 52 162 51 126 40 122 39 107 34 

HIGHS02 180 57 179 57 160 51 150 47 132 42 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

139 44 

120 38 

151 48 

135 43 

116 37 

149 47 

115 37 

104 33 

131 42 

102 32 

101 32 

130 41 

81 26 

81 26 

110 35 

RETAIL1 151 48 147 47 121 38 105 33 90 28 

RSTRNT1 197 62 190 60 160 51 148 47 106 34 

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. 

109
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

14.1 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 Mississippi. 

14.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 14-2 shows a small change in energy use from adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999, with all 11 building types having a reduction in energy 

use of 3.7 % or less. There is a significant decrease in energy use for all 11 building types 

for ASHRAE 90.1-2004, with the percentage change ranging from -10.9 % to -23.8 % 

with an average of -18.4 %. The average change in energy use from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -14.1 % to -30.5 %, with 

an overall average of -23.7 %. The smallest reductions in energy use are realized by high 

schools and 8- and 16-story office buildings for the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 

designs. Unlike most states that have not yet adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007, the percentage 

decrease in energy use for cities in Mississippi is greater for adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

than ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for the high-rise buildings. 

Table 14-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.1 -20.9 -25.5 -35.7 

APART06 -1.2 -21.0 -25.3 -36.2 

DORMI04 -3.3 -23.8 -29.2 -39.0 

DORMI06 -3.7 -21.2 -27.7 -38.2 

HOTEL15 -1.0 -22.9 -25.0 -34.4 

HIGHS02 -0.7 -10.9 -16.8 -26.7 

OFFIC03 -2.8 -17.1 -26.4 -41.9 

OFFIC08 -3.0 -13.2 -15.8 -32.4 

OFFIC16 -1.0 -13.1 -14.1 -27.3 

RETAIL1 -2.5 -19.8 -30.5 -40.6 

RSTRNT1 -3.4 -18.8 -24.8 -46.0 

Average -2.2 -18.4 -23.7 -36.2 

The LEC design realizes the greatest reductions in energy use, with the change in energy 

use relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 ranging from -26.7 % to -46.0 % with an average 

of -36.2 %. The smallest reduction in energy use for the LEC design occurs in the high 

school and 16-story office building. 

110
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

14.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 14-3 shows a small percentage change in energy costs over 10 years from adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (-0.9 % to -4.1 %), 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 -9.8 % to -28.1 % depending on the building type 

with an average of -20.0 %. The average chagne in energy costs from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -7.9 % to -32.2 %, with an 

overall average of -23.4 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest change in energy costs, 

with the average change by building type ranging from -24.8 % to -47.7 % with an 

average of -38.9 % overall. 

Table 14-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.3 -25.7 -29.7 -42.4 

APART06 -1.3 -25.7 -29.5 -43.3 

DORMI04 -3.7 -28.1 -32.0 -44.2 

DORMI06 -4.1 -26.5 -32.2 -45.6 

HOTEL15 -1.3 -23.8 -22.9 -37.0 

HIGHS02 -0.9 -12.7 -17.4 -33.1 

OFFIC03 -3.1 -15.4 -21.1 -39.1 

OFFIC08 -3.1 -13.1 -14.5 -32.0 

OFFIC16 -1.2 -9.8 -7.9 -24.8 

RETAIL1 -2.8 -20.1 -27.3 -38.8 

RSTRNT1 -3.8 -19.5 -23.1 -47.7 

Average -2.4 -20.0 -23.4 -38.9 

Adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs leads to 

average reductions in energy costs that are lower than the reductions in energy use for 

four, six, and four building types, respectively. Each of these building types realizes a 

greater percentage reduction in natural gas consumption than electricity consumption. 

Since electricity is more expensive than natural gas on a per unit of energy basis, the 

overall reduction in energy costs is decreased for the building. The remaining building 

types realize a greater percentage reduction in electricity consumption than natural gas 

consumption. 

14.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Minimal change in energy use leads to small percentage reductions (4.1 % or less) in 

cradle-to-grave energy-related carbon emissions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design 

across all building types. Table 14-4 shows a significant change in average energy-related 

carbon emissions for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging from -9.7 % 

to -28.2 % with an average of -20.1 %. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design leads to slightly 

111
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

greater reductions overall than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, with the average change in carbon 

emissions ranging from -7.6 % to -32.4 % with an overall average of -23.4 %. The LEC 

design leads to the greatest average changes in carbon emissions, ranging from -24.7 % 

to -47.7 % depending on the building type with an average of -39.0 % across all building 

types. 

Table 14-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.3 -25.9 -29.9 -42.6 

APART06 -1.3 -25.8 -29.7 -43.5 

DORMI04 -3.7 -28.2 -32.1 -44.4 

DORMI06 -4.1 -26.7 -32.4 -45.9 

HOTEL15 -1.3 -23.8 -22.8 -37.1 

HIGHS02 -0.9 -12.7 -17.4 -33.4 

OFFIC03 -3.1 -15.3 -20.9 -39.0 

OFFIC08 -3.2 -13.1 -14.5 -31.9 

OFFIC16 -1.2 -9.7 -7.6 -24.7 

RETAIL1 -2.8 -20.1 -27.2 -38.8 

RSTRNT1 -3.8 -19.5 -23.0 -47.7 

Average -2.4 -20.1 -23.4 -39.0 

As would be expected, a more energy efficient building design results in greater 

reductions in carbon emissions. Similar to energy costs, some building types realize 

smaller percentage changes in carbon emissions than in energy use because the energy 

efficiency measures decrease natural gas consumption by a greater percentage than 

electricity consumption. The greater relative reduction in natural gas decreases the overall 

average emissions rate per unit of reduction in energy use. 

14.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 14-5. 

Life-cycle costs increase for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999 for 7 of 11 building types over a 10-year study period. The current state energy 

code is the lowest cost option for two building types. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 are the lowest cost building design for two and three building types, 

respectively. The change in life-cycle costs for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 range 

from -4.5 % to 4.9 % depending on building type. The LEC design is the lowest cost 

building design for four building types and realizes a reduction in life-cycle costs for 9 of 

11 building types, with the percentage change in life-cycle costs ranging from -4.7 % to 

1.1 %. Based on the overall average percentage reduction in life-cycle costs of 1.9 %, the 

LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state energy code for 

commercial buildings. 

112
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.0 -3.0 -3.6 -3.3 

APART06 -0.1 -3.1 -3.6 -3.4 

DORMI04 4.5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.8 

DORMI06 -0.5 -3.8 -4.5 -4.7 

HOTEL15 -0.1 -3.3 -3.1 -2.8 

HIGHS02 0.2 -1.7 -2.3 -3.4 

OFFIC03 6.0 3.5 1.7 0.4 

OFFIC08 6.0 3.5 3.1 1.1 

OFFIC16 0.0 -1.2 -0.9 -0.5 

RETAIL1 3.6 -0.0 -1.3 -0.3 

RSTRNT1 8.4 4.9 3.6 -1.9 

Average 2.6 -0.4 -1.1 -1.9 

14.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for two cities located in Mississippi, both of which are located in 

Zone 3A: Jackson and Meridian. There are no significant population centers in the area of 

Mississippi located in Zone 2A. While the 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. 

As can be seen in Table 14-6, average reductions in energy use for all building types 

from adopting newer energy standard editions varies within the climate zone. Jackson 

realizes slightly greater reductions in energy use than Meridian from adoption of the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design. Meridian realizes slightly greater reductions in energy use 

than Jackson for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs, and significantly greater 

reductions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 design (22.8 % versus 14.0 %). 

Table 14-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, Mississippi 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Jackson 3A -2.2 -14.0 -23.1 -35.0 

Meridian 3A -2.1 -22.8 -24.3 -37.5 

Average -2.2 -18.4 -23.7 -36.2 

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 14-7 shows that Jackson realizes 

larger percentage reductions in energy costs than percentage reductions in energy use 

113
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction 

in 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. 

Meanwhile, Meridian realizes smaller percentage reductions in energy costs than 

percentage reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity 

consumption is less than the reduction in natural gas consumption from adoption of the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and -2007 designs. 

Table 14-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Mississippi 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Jackson 3A -2.5 -18.7 -23.2 -38.3 

Meridian 3A -2.4 -21.4 -23.6 -39.5 

Average -2.4 -20.0 -23.4 -38.9 

Table 14-8 reports changes in energy-related carbon emissions by city for Mississippi. 

For both cities, the more stringent standard editions result in greater reductions in carbon 

emissions. Jackson realizes greater reductions in carbon emissions than reductions in 

energy use for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, and LEC designs. Meridian realizes 

greater reductions in carbon emissions than reductions in energy use for the ASHRAE 

90.1-2001 and LEC designs. 

Table 14-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Mississippi 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Jackson 3A -2.3 -18.0 -23.0 -38.5 

Meridian 3A -2.2 -21.0 -23.4 -39.6 

Average -2.2 -19.5 -23.2 -39.1 

The data reported in Table 14-9 show that, over a 10-year period, average life-cycle costs 

increase for both cities for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999. Adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, -2007, and LEC designs results 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 both cities. There is minimal variation across cities in the percentage 

reduction in life-cycle costs. 

114
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Mississippi 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Jackson 3A 2.5 -0.1 -1.2 -1.8
 

Meridian 3A 2.6 -0.7 -1.0 -1.9
 

Average 2.6 -0.4 -1.1 -1.9 

14.2 Total Savings 

How much can Mississippi 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 14-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type 

and building design in the state.31 The reduction per m2 (ft2) is multiplied by the 

estimated m2 (ft2

) of new construction of each building type, and Table 14-11 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.32 

31 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.
 

32 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

115
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Mississippi
 

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 

-2.0 -0.6 

-2.0 -0.6 

-35.6 -11.3 

-35.8 -11.3 

-43.5 -13.8 

-43.1 -13.7 

-60.9 -19.3 

-61.6 -19.5 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-4.4 -1.4 

-7.0 -2.2 

-31.7 -10.0 

-40.1 -12.7 

-38.9 -12.3 

-52.5 -16.7 

-51.9 -16.5 

-72.3 -22.9 

HOTEL15 -1.6 -0.5 -37.4 -11.9 -40.8 -12.9 -56.2 -17.8 

HIGHS02 -1.2 -0.4 -23.6 -7.5 -36.7 -11.6 -58.2 -18.5 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-3.8 -1.2 

-3.6 -1.1 

-1.5 -0.5 

-19.5 -6.2 

-15.8 -5.0 

-19.7 -6.3 

-30.3 -9.6 

-18.9 -6.0 

-21.3 -6.7 

-48.1 -15.2 

-38.8 -12.3 

-41.1 -13.0 

RETAIL1 -3.8 -1.2 -29.7 -9.4 -46.0 -14.6 -61.3 -19.4 

RSTRNT1 -6.7 -2.1 -36.9 -11.7 -48.7 -15.5 -90.6 -28.7 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 14-11 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 1.8 GWh (6.0 GBtu), 17.3 GWh 

(59.2 GBtu), and 24.2 GWh (82.7 GBtu), respectively. The adoption of the LEC design 

as the state’s energy code would save energy for all building types and 35.5 GWh 

(121.3 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one year’s worth of new construction for 

these building types. 

Table 14-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Mississippi 

Building 

Type 

Subcat. 

Weight. 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 % 

13 

17 

145 

178 

-26 -90 

-33 -111 

-480 

-590 

-1638 

-2014 

-586 

-711 

-2000 

-2428 

-820 -2799 

-1016 -3470 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 96 1031 -158 -538 -3577 -12 214 -3902 -13 323 -5381 -18 374 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 149 1600 -183 -626 -2901 -9906 -4499 -15 362 -7142 -24 387 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

47 

51 

28 

508 

548 

302 

-181 -617 

-183 -626 

-42 -142 

-1113 

-805 

-552 

-3801 

-2748 

-1886 

-1733 

-960 

-596 

-5918 

-3279 

-2034 

-2749 -9385 

-1974 -6739 

-1152 -3934 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 233 2510 -889 -3036 -6924 -23 642 -10 717 -36 591 -14 290 -48 793 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 11 117 -73 -250 -403 -1374 -531 -1814 -988 -3374 

Total 645 6938 -1768 -6036 -17 345 -59 224 -24 235 -82 749 -35 513 -121 256 

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 51.5 % 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 

116
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

statewide savings from adopting the LEC design in new commercial buildings to be 

69.0 GWh (235.4 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 689.6 GWh (2354.5 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

would save 47.1 GWh (160.7 GBtu) annually or 470.6 GWh (1606.8 GBtu) over the 10­

year study period. 

The statewide change in energy use across the 9 building types with reported floor area 

data vary across and within building designs. As the building design becomes more 

energy efficient, the building types that represent the greatest amount of new floor area 

have a greater impact on aggregate reductions in energy use regardless of their relative 

percentage reduction. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs, the greatest total 

reductions are realized by retail stores and high schools because they represent 36.1 % 

and 23.1 %, respectively, of the combined new construction in the state for the building 

types in this study while all other building types represent 14.9 % or less. 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 for the LEC design -- retail stores 

and high schools -- rank 3rd and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 

building types, as reported in Table 14-2. 

14.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 14-12 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. 

Table 14-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$1.48 

-$1.49 

-$0.14 

-$0.14 

-$29.43 

-$29.43 

-$2.73 

-$2.73 

-$34.05 

-$33.85 

-$3.16 

-$3.14 

-$48.54 

-$49.63 

-$4.51 

-$4.61 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$3.35 

-$5.26 

-$0.31 

-$0.49 

-$25.29 

-$33.92 

-$2.35 

-$3.15 

-$28.83 

-$41.16 

-$2.68 

-$3.82 

-$39.82 

-$58.29 

-$3.70 

-$5.42 

HOTEL15 -$1.24 -$0.12 -$22.99 -$2.14 -$22.13 -$2.06 -$35.83 -$3.33 

HIGHS02 -$2.88 -$0.27 -$14.34 -$1.33 -$19.74 -$1.83 -$36.54 -$3.39 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$0.93 

-$2.71 

-$1.12 

-$0.09 

-$0.25 

-$0.10 

-$13.56 

-$11.33 

-$9.51 

-$1.26 

-$1.05 

-$0.88 

-$18.65 

-$12.50 

-$7.65 

-$1.73 

-$1.16 

-$0.71 

-$35.50 

-$27.56 

-$24.05 

-$3.30 

-$2.56 

-$2.23 

RETAIL1 -$2.87 -$0.27 -$20.40 -$1.89 -$27.76 -$2.58 -$39.43 -$3.66 

RSTRNT1 -$5.06 -$0.47 -$25.75 -$2.39 -$30.45 -$2.83 -$62.96 -$5.85 

117
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-13 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 the smallest reductions in 

energy costs ($1.3 million). ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and the LEC 

design realize decreases in energy costs of $11.7 million, $14.5 million, and 

$23.9 million, respectively. Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which 

represent 51.5 % 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 

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 $2.6 million, 

$22.6 million, $28.1 million, and $46.3 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

Table 14-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 13 145 -$19 902 -$396 430 -$458 723 -$653 813
 

APART06 55.1 % 17 178 -$24 547 -$485 560 -$558 513 -$818 906
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 96 1031 -$118 715 -$2 201 477 -$2 119 091 -$3 430 744 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 149 1600 -$138 131 -$2 016 077 -$2 771 504 -$5 276 822 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 47 508 -$136 126 -$676 833 -$931 896 -$1 725 280 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 51 548 -$138 091 -$576 697 -$636 276 -$1 403 016 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 28 302 -$31 348 -$266 445 -$214 305 -$673 758 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 233 2510 -$670 136 -$4 756 391 -$6 473 300 -$9 196 011 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 11 117 -$55 206 -$280 870 -$332 115 -$686 663 

Total 645 6938 -$1 332 203 -$11 656 780 -$14 495 721 -$23 865 012 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

14.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 14-14 reports the average reduction in energy-related carbon emissions over 

10 years, per m2 (ft2), by building type and building design. The carbon emissions 

estimation approach is defined in Section 5.3. 

118
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Mississippi
 

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 

APART06 

-14.9 -3.1 

-15.0 -3.1 

-297.5 -60.9 

-297.5 -60.9 

-343.7 -70.4 

-341.7 -70.0 

-490.2 -100.4 

-501.4 -102.7 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-33.8 -6.9 

-53.0 -10.9 

-255.4 -52.3 

-343.2 -70.3 

-290.5 -59.5 

-415.5 -85.1 

-401.7 -82.3 

-588.9 -120.6 

HOTEL15 -12.5 -2.6 -230.0 -47.1 -220.1 -45.1 -358.9 -73.5 

HIGHS02 -9.4 -1.9 -136.3 -27.9 -186.5 -38.2 -357.6 -73.3 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-29.1 -6.0 

-27.3 -5.6 

-11.3 -2.3 

-143.3 -29.4 

-114.0 -23.3 

-94.0 -19.3 

-196.2 -40.2 

-125.4 -25.7 

-74.2 -15.2 

-365.8 -74.9 

-277.2 -56.8 

-240.0 -49.2 

RETAIL1 -29.0 -5.9 -204.9 -42.0 -277.4 -56.8 -395.2 -80.9 

RSTRNT1 -51.0 -10.5 -258.9 -53.0 -304.8 -62.4 -632.8 -129.6 

Table 14-15 applies the Table 14-14 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 117 015 metric tons 

and 144 819 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 239 566 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 227 214 metric tons, 281 202 metric 

tons, and 465 176 metric tons over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

119
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Table 14-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Mississippi – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 13 145 -201 -4008 -4630 -6603
 

APART06 55.1 % 17 178 -247 -4909 -5638 -8273
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 96 1031 -1197 -22 021 -21 077 -34 367 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 149 1600 -1392 -20 264 -27 724 -53 156 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 47 508 -1372 -6767 -9264 -17 272 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 51 548 -1392 -5803 -6384 -14 114 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 28 302 -316 -2634 -2079 -6724 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 233 2510 -6755 -47 786 -64 699 -92 155 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 11 117 -556 -2823 -3324 -6902 

Total 645 6938 -13 429 -117 015 -144 819 -239 566 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

14.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 14-16 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. 

Table 14-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$0.16 -$0.02 -$29.19 -$2.71 -$34.53 -$3.21 -$31.73 -$2.95 

APART06 -$0.72 -$0.07 -$29.48 -$2.74 -$34.41 -$3.20 -$32.53 -$3.02 

DORMI04 $40.38 $3.75 -$4.29 -$0.40 -$9.31 -$0.86 -$16.49 -$1.53 

DORMI06 -$4.73 -$0.44 -$37.44 -$3.48 -$44.86 -$4.17 -$46.60 -$4.33 

HOTEL15 -$0.49 -$0.05 -$30.43 -$2.83 -$29.25 -$2.72 -$25.77 -$2.39 

HIGHS02 $1.60 $0.15 -$13.13 -$1.22 -$17.78 -$1.65 -$26.63 -$2.47 

OFFIC03 $45.25 $4.20 $26.40 $2.45 $13.07 $1.21 $3.26 $0.30 

OFFIC08 $45.93 $4.27 $27.11 $2.52 $23.71 $2.20 $8.45 $0.78 

OFFIC16 $0.12 $0.01 -$8.97 -$0.83 -$6.85 -$0.64 -$3.96 -$0.37 

RETAIL1 $22.47 $2.09 -$0.05 -$0.01 -$8.37 -$0.78 -$1.88 -$0.17 

RSTRNT1 $102.28 $9.50 $60.49 $5.62 $43.43 $4.04 -$23.39 -$2.17 

Table 14-17 applies the Table 14-16 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 

life-cycle costs over the 10-year study period vary across building designs. Adoption of 

120
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design results in an increase in life-cycle costs for 6 of 9 building 

types and increases total life-cycle costs by $11.0 million. The ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

and -2007 designs result in a decrease in life-cycle costs for 6 of 9 building types, and 

decrease total life-cycle costs by $2.7 million and $6.3 million, respectively. The LEC 

design decreases life-cycle costs for 7 of 9 building types, and decreases total life-cycle 

costs by $7.6 million. For a 10-year study period, it is cost-effective to adopt ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, -2007, and LEC designs as Mississippi’s state energy code for commercial 

buildings. 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 

$21.4 million, -$5.3 million, -$12.3 million, and -$14.8 million over the 10-year study 

period, respectively. 

Table 14-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Mississippi 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 13 145 -$2195 -$393 237 -$465 184 -$427 414 

APART06 55.1 % 17 178 -$11 871 -$486 406 -$567 761 -$536 740 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 96 1031 -$46 876 -$2 913 791 -$2 800 348 -$2 467 519 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 149 1600 $237 422 -$1 951 522 -$2 642 060 -$3 957 339 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 47 508 $2 136 492 $1 246 614 $617 131 $153 846 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 51 548 $2 338 314 $1 380 147 $1 207 215 $430 178 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 28 302 $3379 -$251 187 -$191 980 -$110 947 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 233 2510 $5 240 363 -$12 706 -$1 952 354 -$438 251 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 11 117 $1 115 583 $659 787 $473 737 -$255 104 

Total 645 6938 $11 010 611 -$2 722 302 -$6 321 605 -$7 609 290 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

14.3 State Summary 

Mississippi is one of three states in the South Census Region that has not yet adopted a 

state energy code for commercial buildings. 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, 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the state’s energy code for commercial 

buildings would lead to energy use savings of 470.6 GWh (1606.8 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $28.1 million, and 281 202 metric tons of carbon emissions reductions while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $12.3 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. Adopting the LEC design would lead to even greater impacts than adopting 

121
 
 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, with savings of 689.6 GWh (2354.5 GBtu), $46.3 million of energy 

costs, and 465 176 metric tons of carbon emissions while decreasing life-cycle cost by 

$14.8 million for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. Even though 

both cities in Mississippi simulated in this study are located in the same climate zone, 

there is significant variation in their results. 

122
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

15 North Carolina 

North Carolina is located in the South Atlantic Census Division and has adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings. North Carolina 

spans three climate zones with the southern portion of the state located in Zone 3A, the 

central and northeast portions in Zone 4A, and the northwest portion in Zone 5A. All 

cities simulated for this study are located in Zone 3A and Zone 4A. Table 15-1 provides 

an overview of North Carolina’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 78 kWh/m2 to 98 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 31 kBtu/ft2

) 

annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy at 146 kWh/m2 to 

163 kWh/m2 (46 kBtu/ft2 to 52 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

Table 15-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

North Carolina 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

129 41 

129 41 

112 35 

110 35 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

95 30 

141 45 

81 26 

121 38 

HOTEL15 129 41 110 35 

HIGHS02 163 52 146 46 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

101 32 

98 31 

135 43 

79 25 

78 25 

112 35 

RETAIL1 104 33 88 28 

RSTRNT1 148 47 104 33 

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. 

15.1 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 North Carolina. 

123
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

15.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 15-2 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 -10.5 % to -30.2 % with an 

average of -17.1 % relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design. The greatest reduction in 

energy use for the LEC design occurs for the restaurant while the smallest reductions 

occur for the high school. 

Table 15-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of a Newer Code, 10-Year, 

North Carolina 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -13.5 -17.0 -18.1 0.4 

APART06 -14.8 -19.2 -20.6 0.2 

DORMI04 -14.8 -17.7 -18.5 -0.7 

DORMI06 -14.7 -19.1 -20.4 -0.1 

HOTEL15 -14.9 -18.4 -19.4 0.3 

HIGHS02 -10.5 -16.2 -18.1 -1.1 

OFFIC03 -21.9 -23.3 -23.7 -2.1 

OFFIC08 -20.2 -20.9 -21.1 -1.9 

OFFIC16 -17.2 -19.1 -19.6 0.4 

RETAIL1 -15.8 -17.2 -17.6 0.1 

RSTRNT1 -30.2 -33.0 -33.8 -4.8 

Average -17.1 -20.1 -21.0 -0.9 

The LEC design realizes average changes in energy costs from -16.2 % to -33.0 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -20.1 % overall over 10 years of 

operation. The high school realizes the smallest average 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. 

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 32.3 % of the 

reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction in energy costs 

that is 1.5 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 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. 

124
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

The LEC design leads to average changes in carbon emissions ranging from -17.6 % 

to -33.8 % depending on the building type, with an average of -21.0 % 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 

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. As mentioned above, the energy efficiency 

measures decrease electricity consumption while increasing natural gas consumption for 

8 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 average change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design over a 10-year study period 

ranges from -4.8 % to 0.4 %. The 4-story apartment building and 16-story office building 

realize the largest increases in life-cycle costs while 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 6 of 11 buildings types realize an 

average percentage decrease in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective if 

the state adopted it as its state energy code for commercial buildings. 

15.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for six cities in North Carolina located across two climate zones: 

Cape Hatteras, Charlotte, and Wilmington located in Zone 3A and Asheville, 

Greensboro, and Raleigh located in Zone 4A. There are no significant population centers 

in the area of North Carolina located in Zone 5A. The results may vary across cities 

within North Carolina for three reasons. First, the cities in this study span 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, 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 20-3 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 vary across cities, ranging from -15.9 % to -18.0 %. 

There is variation within both zones while there is not a significant difference when 

comparing across climate zones. Cities located closer to the coast (Raleigh, Cape 

Hatteras, and Wilmington) tend to realize greater reductions than cities located further 

inland (Asheville, Charlotte, and Greensboro). 

125
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

Table 15-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, North Carolina 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Cape Hatteras 3A -17.8 -20.2 -21.2 -0.7 

Charlotte 3A -15.9 -19.1 -20.3 -0.6 

Wilmington 3A -17.3 -19.7 -20.7 -0.7 

Asheville 4A -16.6 -20.3 -21.7 -1.0 

Greensboro 4A -17.1 -20.4 -21.7 -1.1 

Raleigh 4A -18.0 -20.9 -22.1 -1.0 

Average -17.1 -20.1 -21.3 -0.9 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies across 

cities, ranging from -19.1 % to -20.9 % 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 

emissions for all building types also varies across cities, ranging from -20.3 % 

to -22.1 %. Cities located in Zone 4A realize slightly greater reductions in energy costs 

and carbon emissions than cities in Zone 3A. All cities realize average percentage 

reductions in life-cycle costs, ranging from -0.6 % to -1.1 %. Cities located in Zone 4A 

realize greater reductions in life-cycle costs than cities in Zone 3, which is likely driven 

by variation in local construction costs. 

15.2 Total Savings 

How much can North Carolina 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. 

15.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 15-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type for 

the LEC design in the state.33 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 15-5 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 

33 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. 

126
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

large office buildings) are based on the national average percentage of new building 

construction for the category that is represented by each subcategory.34 

Table 15-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, North Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -17.4 -5.5 

APART06 -19.2 -6.1 

DORMI04 -14.0 -4.4 

DORMI06 -20.8 -6.6 

HOTEL15 -19.2 -6.1 

HIGHS02 -22.1 -7.0 

OFFIC03 -17.0 -5.4 

OFFIC08 -19.8 -6.3 

OFFIC16 -23.2 -7.3 

RETAIL1 -16.5 -5.2 

RSTRNT1 -44.7 -14.2 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 15-5 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 53.2 GWh (181.8 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 64.3 % 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 82.8 

GWh (282.7 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 827.9 GWh (2826.8 GBtu) in energy 

use savings over the 10-year study period. 

34 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

127
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

Table 15-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

North Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 144 1555 -2 507 392 -8 561 315
 

APART06 55.1 % 177 1904 -3 392 978 -11 585 086
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 236 2536 -4 526 469 -15 455 313 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 684 7359 -11 607 850 -39 634 192 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 252 2714 -5 569 110 -19 015 336 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 272 2926 -5 382 197 -18 377 134 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 150 1610 -3 464 422 -11 829 028 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 894 9628 -14 722 109 -50 267 611 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 46 496 -2 061 248 -7 037 985 

Total 2855 30 727 -53 233 776 -181 763 001 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

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 the retail store followed by the high school. The smallest reductions are 

realized by the restaurant and 4-story apartment buildings. Building types that represent a 

greater amount of new floor area realize the largest changes in energy use. The greatest 

total reductions are realized by retail stores and high schools because they represent 

31.3 % and 24.0 %, respectively, of the combined new construction in the state for the 

building types in this study while all other building types represent 9.5 % or less. The 

amount of new construction overwhelms the relative percentage 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 5th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among 

the 11 building types, as reported in Table 15-2. 

15.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 15-6 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. 

128
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

Table 15-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, North Carolina
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$11.75 -$1.09 

APART06 -$13.34 -$1.24 

DORMI04 -$9.14 -$0.85 

DORMI06 -$14.44 -$1.34 

HOTEL15 -$12.60 -$1.17 

HIGHS02 -$14.25 -$1.32 

OFFIC03 -$13.33 -$1.24 

OFFIC08 -$12.68 -$1.18 

OFFIC16 -$15.12 -$1.40 

RETAIL1 -$10.52 -$0.98 

RSTRNT1 -$28.22 -$2.62 

Table 15-7 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, the reduction in energy costs totals $36.2 

million for adopting the LEC design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Assuming that the 

buildings considered in this study, which represent 64.3 % 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 $56.2 million over the 10-year study period. 

Table 15-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, North Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 144 1555 -$1 697 106
 

APART06 55.1 % 177 1904 -$2 360 570
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 236 2536 -$2 967 443 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 684 7359 -$9 114 778 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 252 2714 -$3 592 282 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 272 2926 -$3 446 037 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 150 1610 -$2 261 251 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 894 9628 -$9 409 644 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 46 496 -$1 301 041 

Total 2855 30 727 -$36 150 151 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

129
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

15.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 15-8 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 15-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, North 

Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -122.2 -25.0 

APART06 -139.6 -28.6 

DORMI04 -94.2 -19.3 

DORMI06 -151.0 -30.9 

HOTEL15 -130.0 -26.6 

HIGHS02 -143.0 -29.3 

OFFIC03 -146.5 -30.0 

OFFIC08 -130.1 -26.6 

OFFIC16 -155.9 -31.9 

RETAIL1 -107.9 -22.1 

RSTRNT1 -288.6 -59.1 

Table 15-9 applies the Table 15-8 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 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 376 144 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 584 982 metric tons 

over the 10-year study period. 

130
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

Table 15-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, North Carolina – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 144 1555 -17 645
 

APART06 55.1 % 177 1904 -24 695
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 236 2536 -30 626 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 684 7359 -97 737 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 252 2714 -36 932 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 272 2926 -35 365 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 150 1610 -23 314 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 894 9628 -96 525 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 46 496 -13 305 

Total 2855 30 727 -376 144 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

15.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 15-10 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 15-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, North Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $3.12 $0.29 

APART06 $1.89 $0.18 

DORMI04 -$6.04 -$0.56 

DORMI06 -$1.01 -$0.09 

HOTEL15 $2.41 $0.22 

HIGHS02 -$7.73 -$0.72 

OFFIC03 -$14.33 -$1.33 

OFFIC08 -$13.79 -$1.28 

OFFIC16 $2.38 $0.22 

RETAIL1 $0.50 $0.05 

RSTRNT1 -$56.27 -$5.23 

Table 15-11 applies the Table 15-10 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. The change in life-cycle costs varies widely across building types, 

with 4 of 9 building types realizing a reduction in life-cycle costs. High schools realize 

the greatest decrease in life-cycle costs ($5.3 million) followed by 8- and 3-story office 

131
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina 

buildings ($3.7 million and $3.6 million, respectively). The hotel realizes the greatest 

increase in life-cycle costs ($568 540). Adopting the LEC design leads to a reduction in 

statewide life-cycle costs of $13.1 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 $20.3 million over the 

10-year study period. 

Table 15-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, North Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 144 1555 $450 059 

APART06 55.1 % 177 1904 $333 549 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 236 2536 $568 540 

HIGHS02 67.5 % 684 7359 -$5 286 568 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 252 2714 -$3 612 534 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 272 2926 -$3 747 879 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 150 1610 $356 321 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 894 9628 $448 045 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 46 496 -$2 593 950 

Total 2855 30 727 -$13 084 418 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

15.3 State Summary 

North Carolina 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 827.9 GWh (2826.8 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $56.2 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 584 982 metric 

tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $20.3 million for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

132
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

16 Oklahoma 

Oklahoma is located in the West South Central Census Division and spans two climate 

zones, Zone 2A across most of the state and Zone 3B in the western “panhandle.” 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 16-1 provides an overview of Oklahoma’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

type and energy standard edition. Average energy use varies across building types and 

building designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 

85 kWh/m2 to 123 kWh/m2 (27 kBtu/ft2 to 39 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses 

the greatest amount of energy at 168 kWh/m2 to 198 kWh/m2 (53 kBtu/ft2 to 63 kBtu/ft2) 

annually. 

Table 16-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Oklahoma 

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 

174 55 

172 55 

172 55 

171 54 

149 47 

148 47 

144 46 

143 45 

126 40 

124 39 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

134 42 

191 61 

130 41 

185 59 

112 36 

161 51 

111 35 

154 49 

97 31 

134 43 

HOTEL15 156 50 154 49 132 42 144 46 125 40 

HIGHS02 198 63 197 62 189 60 186 59 168 53 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

127 40 

123 39 

149 47 

124 39 

119 38 

147 47 

113 36 

107 34 

135 43 

110 35 

104 33 

145 46 

88 28 

85 27 

123 39 

RETAIL1 141 45 138 44 123 39 114 36 98 31 

RSTRNT1 198 63 192 61 168 53 164 52 120 38 

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. 

16.1 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 Oklahoma. 

133
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

16.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 16-2 shows a small change in energy use from adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 with all 11 building types having reductions in energy use 

of 3.3 % or less. There is a decrease in energy use for all 11 building types for ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, with the percentage change in energy use ranging from -4.6 % to -16.4 % with 

an average of -13.0 %. The average change in energy use from constructing buildings 

using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -2.9 % to -19.3 %, with an overall 

average of -13.9 %. 

Table 16-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Oklahoma 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.0 -14.2 -17.4 -27.2 

APART06 -1.0 -14.4 -17.0 -28.1 

DORMI04 -3.1 -16.4 -16.8 -27.6 

DORMI06 -3.3 -15.7 -19.3 -29.9 

HOTEL15 -1.3 -15.3 -7.9 -19.7 

HIGHS02 -0.6 -4.6 -6.0 -15.0 

OFFIC03 -2.8 -11.3 -13.8 -30.8 

OFFIC08 -3.1 -13.2 -16.0 -31.2 

OFFIC16 -1.3 -9.7 -2.9 -17.3 

RETAIL1 -2.0 -12.9 -19.1 -30.5 

RSTRNT1 -3.1 -15.5 -17.3 -39.7 

Average -2.0 -13.0 -13.9 -27.0 

For the high-rise buildings (15-story hotel and 16-story office building), ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 is actually more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 because the 

maximum window SHGC requirement in Zone 2 and Zone 3 is increased from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for buildings with greater than 40 % window glazing, 

making the requirement less strict. Buildings in warmer climates benefit from decreasing 

solar heat gains. The 100 % glazing amplifies the heat gain from the higher SHGC, which 

increases electricity consumption enough to overwhelm the energy efficiency gains 

obtained from other measures that decrease electricity 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 -15.0 % to -39.7 % with an average 

of -27.0 %. 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 ratios due to 

the less strict 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. 

134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

16.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 16-3 shows a small change in energy costs over 10 years from adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2001 (-0.7 % to -3.6 %), 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 -8.2 % to -22.1 % depending on the building type, 

with an average of -17.0 %. The average chagne in energy costs from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -7.3 % to -25.8 %, with an 

overall average of -18.5 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest change in energy costs, 

with the average change by building type ranging from -22.8 % to -45.1 % with an 

average of -33.3 % overall. 

Table 16-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.1 -19.5 -23.5 -35.1 

APART06 -1.1 -19.6 -23.3 -36.5 

DORMI04 -3.4 -22.1 -24.2 -36.1 

DORMI06 -3.6 -21.0 -25.8 -38.5 

HOTEL15 -1.4 -21.5 -16.3 -29.9 

HIGHS02 -0.7 -8.2 -9.8 -22.8 

OFFIC03 -2.9 -13.4 -15.6 -33.7 

OFFIC08 -3.2 -14.7 -16.9 -32.9 

OFFIC16 -1.4 -12.2 -7.3 -23.0 

RETAIL1 -2.2 -15.3 -20.3 -32.6 

RSTRNT1 -3.3 -19.1 -21.0 -45.1 

Average -2.2 -17.0 -18.5 -33.3 

For all building designs, the average reductions in energy costs are greater than the 

reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is 

greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. For 10 of the 11 building types, 

adopting the LEC design increases natural gas consumption while decreasing electricity 

consumption. 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. 

16.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Minimal change in energy use leads to small changes (3.9 % or less) in cradle-to-grave 

energy-related carbon emissions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design across all building 

types. Table 16-4 shows a significant change in average energy-related carbon emissions 

135
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging from -11.4 % to -26.1 % with an 

average of -19.8 %. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design leads to slightly greater reductions 

than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, with the average change in carbon emissions ranging 

from -10.4 % to -30.5 % with an overall average of -21.9 %. The LEC design leads to the 

greatest average carbon emissions changes, ranging from -26.9 % to -48.8 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -37.9 % across all building types. 

Table 16-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Oklahoma 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.2 -23.4 -28.0 -40.8 

APART06 -1.2 -23.4 -27.9 -42.6 

DORMI04 -3.6 -26.1 -29.4 -42.2 

DORMI06 -3.9 -24.8 -30.5 -44.8 

HOTEL15 -1.6 -26.1 -22.5 -37.5 

HIGHS02 -0.8 -11.4 -13.1 -29.7 

OFFIC03 -3.0 -14.7 -16.8 -35.7 

OFFIC08 -3.3 -15.7 -17.4 -34.0 

OFFIC16 -1.5 -13.8 -10.4 -26.9 

RETAIL1 -2.3 -17.0 -21.1 -34.0 

RSTRNT1 -3.5 -21.7 -23.6 -48.8 

Average -2.3 -19.8 -21.9 -37.9 

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 consumption by a greater percentage than natural 

gas consumption. The greater relative reduction in electricity further decreases carbon 

emissions because electricity has a higher carbon emissions rate per unit of energy than 

natural gas in Oklahoma. 

16.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 16-5. 

Life-cycle costs increase for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design compared to ASHRAE 

90.1-1999 for 7 of 11 building types over a 10-year study period. ASHRAE 90.1-1999 is 

the lowest cost building design for three building types while ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 are the lowest cost building design for two and four building types, 

respectively. The change in life-cycle costs for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 range 

from -2.9 % to 4.7 % depending on building type. The LEC design is the lowest cost 

building design for 2 of 11 building types, with the percentage change in life-cycle costs 

ranging from -3.1 % to 2.0 %. Given that the adoption of the LEC design decreases life136
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

cycle costs for 7 of 11 building types, it may be cost-effective to adopt the LEC design as 

the state’s energy code for commercial buildings. 

Table 16-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 0.0 -1.6 -2.0 -1.3 

APART06 -0.0 -1.7 -2.1 -1.5 

DORMI04 4.5 1.0 -0.3 -0.0 

DORMI06 -0.3 -2.4 -2.9 -2.6 

HOTEL15 -0.1 -2.5 -1.8 -1.2 

HIGHS02 0.2 -0.5 -0.3 -1.3 

OFFIC03 6.1 3.1 2.6 2.0 

OFFIC08 6.3 3.2 2.4 0.9 

OFFIC16 -0.0 -1.2 -0.6 0.3 

RETAIL1 3.6 1.5 1.4 1.9 

RSTRNT1 7.3 4.7 4.2 -3.1 

Average 2.5 0.3 0.0 -0.5 

16.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for two cities located in Oklahoma: Oklahoma City and Tulsa in 

Climate Zone 2A. There are no significant population centers located in Zone 3B. While 

the two cities in Oklahoma selected for this study are located in the same climate zone, 

the results may still vary across cities within the state 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. 

As can be seen in Table 16-6, the average reduction in energy use for all building types 

from adopting newer energy standard editions varies minimally between cities. The 

difference in the percentage reductions is 0.4 percentage points. 

Table 16-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, Oklahoma 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Oklahoma City 3A -2.0 -13.2 -14.0 -27.1 

Tulsa 3A -2.1 -12.8 -13.9 -26.9 

Average -2.0 -13.0 -13.9 -27.0 

The variations in energy costs between cities are a result of two factors, the reduction in 

energy use and the fuel source of the reduction. Table 16-7 shows that the average 

reduction in energy costs for all building types varies minimally. The percentage change 

137
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

in energy costs is greater than the percentage change in energy use because the 

percentage reduction in electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural 

gas consumption. 

Table 16-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Oklahoma 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Oklahoma City 3A -2.2 -17.1 -18.6 -33.4 

Tulsa 3A -2.3 -16.8 -18.5 -33.1 

Average -2.2 -17.0 -18.5 -33.3 

Table 16-8 shows that the average percentage changes in energy-related carbon emissions 

vary minimally between cities. For both, the more stringent standard editions result in 

greater reductions in carbon emissions. The percentage change in carbon emissions is 

greater than the percentage change in energy use because the percentage reduction in 

electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. 

Table 16-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

Oklahoma 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Oklahoma City 3A -2.1 -19.2 -21.5 -37.9 

Tulsa 3A -2.2 -19.0 -21.3 -37.5 

Average -2.2 -19.1 -21.4 -37.7 

The data reported in Table 16-9 show that, over a 10-year period, average life-cycle costs 

increase for both cities for the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, and -2007 designs compared 

to ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Adopting the LEC design decreases average life-cycle costs for 

both cities, with Tulsa realizing slightly greater reductions. 

Table 16-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Oklahoma 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2001 2004 2007 LEC 

Oklahoma City 3A 2.5 0.3 0.0 -0.4
 

Tulsa 3A 2.5 0.3 0.0 -0.7
 

Average 2.5 0.3 0.0 -0.5 

138 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

16.2 Total Savings 

How much can Oklahoma 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. 

16.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 16-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type 

and building design in the state.35 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the 

estimated m2 (ft2

) of new construction of each building type, and Table 16-11 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.36 

Table 16-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Oklahoma 

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 

-1.7 -0.5 

-1.8 -0.6 

-24.6 -7.8 

-24.9 -7.9 

-30.1 -9.6 

-29.4 -9.3 

-47.3 -15.0 

-48.5 -15.4 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-4.2 -1.3 

-6.3 -2.0 

-21.9 -6.9 

-30.1 -9.6 

-22.5 -7.1 

-36.9 -11.7 

-36.9 -11.7 

-57.3 -18.2 

HOTEL15 -2.0 -0.6 -23.9 -7.6 -12.4 -3.9 -30.8 -9.8 

HIGHS02 -1.1 -0.4 -14.4 -4.6 -17.5 -5.6 -39.3 -12.5 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-3.5 -1.1 

-3.8 -1.2 

-1.9 -0.6 

-9.0 -2.9 

-16.3 -5.2 

-14.5 -4.6 

-11.9 -3.8 

-19.7 -6.2 

-4.3 -1.4 

-29.7 -9.4 

-38.4 -12.2 

-25.8 -8.2 

RETAIL1 -2.8 -0.9 -18.1 -5.7 -26.8 -8.5 -42.9 -13.6 

RSTRNT1 -6.1 -1.9 -30.7 -9.7 -34.3 -10.9 -78.8 -25.0 

The total annual reduction in energy use ranges widely across building designs, but the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs all 

decrease overall energy use across the state. Adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 result in annual decreases of 2.0 GWh (6.7 GBtu), 

13.3 GWh (45.3 GBtu), and 15.4 GWh (52.6 GBtu) annually, respectively. The adoption 

of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would save energy for all building types and 

35 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.
 

36 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

139
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

30.7 GWh (104.8 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one year’s worth of new 

construction for these building types. 

Table 16-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Oklahoma 

Building 

Type 

Subcat. 

Weight. 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 % 

10 

13 

112 

137 

-18 -61 

-22 -76 

-255 -872 

-316 -1080 

-312 -1067 

-373 -1275 

-490 -1674 

-616 -2105 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 102 1102 -206 -704 -2444 -8344 -1269 -4334 -3150 -10 754 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 236 2538 -264 -901 -2131 -7277 -2807 -9584 -7002 -23 909 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

57 

62 

34 

615 

663 

365 

-202 -690 

-235 -802 

-66 -225 

-825 -2817 

-1003 -3425 

-490 -1674 

-1002 -3420 

-1213 -4140 

-147 -501 

-2244 -7663 

-2367.5 -8084 

-876 -2990 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 273 2937 -770 -2629 -4938 -16 862 -7320 -24 993 -11 704 -39 963 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 305 -172 -588 -868 -2 963 -970 -3313 -2230 -7614 

Total 815 8774 -1956 -6677 -13 272 -45 315 -15 413 -52 628 -30 680 -104 756 

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 51.3 % 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 adopting the LEC design in new commercial buildings to be 

59.8 GWh (204.2 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 598.1 GWh (2042.0 GBtu) in 

energy use savings over the 10-year study period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

would save 30.0 GWh (102.6 GBtu) annually or 300.5 GWh (1025.9 GBtu) over the 10­

year study period. 

The statewide change in energy use varies across building types within a building design. 

Building types that represent a greater amount of new floor area realize the largest 

changes in aggregate energy use. The greatest total reductions are realized by retail stores 

and high schools because they represent 33.5 % and 29.0 %, respectively, of the 

combined new construction in the state for the building types in this study while all other 

building types represent 12.5 % or less. The amount of new construction overwhelms the 

relative percentage 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. For example, the building types that lead to the 

greatest estimated reductions in energy use for the LEC design -- retail stores and high 

schools -- rank 6th and 11th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building 

types, as reported in Table 16-2. 

140
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

16.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 16-12 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. 

Table 16-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$0.93 

-$0.94 

-$0.09 

-$0.09 

-$16.21 

-$16.32 

-$1.51 

-$1.52 

-$19.53 

-$19.40 

-$1.81 

-$1.80 

-$29.17 

-$30.38 

-$2.71 

-$2.82 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$2.23 

-$3.38 

-$0.21 

-$0.31 

-$14.48 

-$19.44 

-$1.35 

-$1.81 

-$15.86 

-$23.90 

-$1.47 

-$2.22 

-$23.71 

-$35.68 

-$2.20 

-$3.31 

HOTEL15 -$1.08 -$0.10 -$16.06 -$1.49 -$12.17 -$1.13 -$22.33 -$2.07 

HIGHS02 -$1.90 -$0.18 -$8.66 -$0.80 -$10.09 -$0.94 -$21.86 -$2.03 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$0.60 

-$2.04 

-$1.04 

-$0.06 

-$0.19 

-$0.10 

-$7.12 

-$9.38 

-$9.09 

-$0.66 

-$0.87 

-$0.84 

-$8.50 

-$10.76 

-$5.49 

-$0.79 

-$1.00 

-$0.51 

-$19.75 

-$20.98 

-$17.21 

-$1.84 

-$1.95 

-$1.60 

RETAIL1 -$1.51 -$0.14 -$10.60 -$0.99 -$14.06 -$1.31 -$22.59 -$2.10 

RSTRNT1 -$3.27 -$0.30 -$18.84 -$1.75 -$20.70 -$1.92 -$44.40 -$4.12 

Table 16-13 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. The ASHRAE 90.1-2001 design realizes the smallest 

reductions in energy costs ($1.0 million). ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and 

the LEC design realize decreases in energy costs of $8.5 million, $9.5 million, and 

$18.2 million, respectively. Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which 

represent 51.3 % 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 $2.0 million, 

$16.6 million, $18.6 million, and $35.4 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

141
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

Table 16-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Oklahoma 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 10 112 -$9600 -$168 182 -$202 620 -$302 589
 

APART06 55.1 % 13 137 -$11 979 -$207 388 -$246 445 -$385 931
 

HOTEL15 100 % 102 1102 -$110 602 -$1 644 061 -$1 245 807 -$2 286 560 

HIGHS02 100 % 236 2538 -$141 459 -$1 679 254 -$2 003 375 -$4 658 311 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 57 615 -$108 437 -$495 076 -$576 539 -$1 248 905 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 62 663 -$125 945 -$578 068 -$663 135 -$1 292 756 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 34 365 -$35 327 -$308 152 -$186 236 -$583 524 

RETAIL1 100 % 273 2937 -$412 876 -$2 893 448 -$3 837 337 -$6 164 769 

RSTRNT1 100 % 28 305 -$92 401 -$533 198 -$585 762 -$1 256 369 

Total 815 8774 -$1 048 625 -$8 506 828 -$9 547 255 -$18 179 715 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

16.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 16-14 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 16-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Oklahoma 

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 

APART06 

-16.8 -3.4 

-17.1 -3.5 

-326.9 -66.9 

-328.5 -67.3 

-391.1 -80.1 

-391.6 -80.2 

-570.5 -116.8 

-598.3 -122.5 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-40.4 -8.3 

-61.2 -12.5 

-292.5 -59.9 

-388.3 -79.5 

-329.2 -67.4 

-478.2 -97.9 

-472.9 -96.9 

-701.0 -143.6 

HOTEL15 -19.6 -4.0 -326.8 -66.9 -281.4 -57.6 -469.0 -96.1 

HIGHS02 -10.9 -2.2 -154.1 -31.6 -177.2 -36.3 -400.1 -81.9 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-34.4 -7.0 

-37.0 -7.6 

-18.9 -3.9 

-167.1 -34.2 

-177.1 -36.3 

-179.3 -36.7 

-190.3 -39.0 

-197.2 -40.4 

-134.6 -27.6 

-404.6 -82.9 

-384.0 -78.7 

-348.8 -71.4 

RETAIL1 -27.4 -5.6 -201.9 -41.4 -251.0 -51.4 -404.5 -82.8 

RSTRNT1 -59.1 -12.1 -367.7 -75.3 -400.4 -82.0 -827.6 -169.5 

Table 16-15 applies the Table 16-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction 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 169 419 metric tons 

142
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

and 187 059 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 348 290 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 designs can be extrapolated to 

estimate statewide reductions in carbon emissions of 330 251 metric tons, 364 637 metric 

tons, and 678 928 metric tons over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

Table 16-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Oklahoma – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 10 112 -174 -3390 -4057 -5917
 

APART06 55.1 % 13 137 -217 -4174 -4975 -7601
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 102 1102 -2002 -33 463 -28 816 -48 020 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 236 2538 -2561 -36 346 -41 791 -94 349 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 57 615 -1963 -9546 -10 874 -23 116 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 62 663 -2280 -10 911 -12 149 -23 663 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 34 365 -640 -6080 -4563 -11 827 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 273 2937 -7475 -55 104 -68 503 -110 379 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 305 -1673 -10 405 -11 330 -23 419 

Total 815 8774 -18 985 -169 419 -187 059 -348 290 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

16.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 16-16 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. 

143
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

Table 16-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Oklahoma
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2001 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $0.21 $0.02 -$14.59 -$1.36 -$18.24 -$1.69 -$11.97 -$1.11 

APART06 -$0.31 -$0.03 -$15.49 -$1.44 -$18.60 -$1.73 -$13.26 -$1.23 

DORMI04 $37.40 $3.47 $8.52 $0.79 -$2.47 -$0.23 -$0.27 -$0.02 

DORMI06 -$3.00 -$0.28 -$22.45 -$2.09 -$26.45 -$2.46 -$23.81 -$2.21 

HOTEL15 -$0.58 -$0.05 -$21.42 -$1.99 -$15.96 -$1.48 -$10.50 -$0.98 

HIGHS02 $1.50 $0.14 -$3.80 -$0.35 -$1.91 -$0.18 -$9.37 -$0.87 

OFFIC03 $42.20 $3.92 $21.15 $1.96 $17.69 $1.64 $13.49 $1.25 

OFFIC08 $45.19 $4.20 $23.03 $2.14 $16.90 $1.57 $6.63 $0.62 

OFFIC16 -$0.10 -$0.01 -$8.29 -$0.77 -$4.29 -$0.40 $2.11 $0.20 

RETAIL1 $20.46 $1.90 $8.77 $0.81 $7.96 $0.74 $10.83 $1.01 

RSTRNT1 $83.22 $7.73 $54.04 $5.02 $47.87 $4.45 -$35.05 -$3.26 

Table 16-17 applies the Table 16-16 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 reductions in 

life-cycle 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 6 of 9 building 

types and increases total statewide life-cycle costs by $13.4 million. The ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 and -2007 designs result in an increase in life-cycle costs for 4 of 9 building 

types, with total life-cycle costs increasing by $2.8 million for ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 

$2.9 million for ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The LEC design decreases life-cycle costs for 5 of 9 

building types, and decreases total life-cycle costs by $363 368. 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 90.1-2001, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs can be extrapolated to estimate 

statewide changes in life-cycle costs of $26.2 million, $5.5 million, $5.7 million, 

and -$708 320 over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

144
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma 

Table 16-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Oklahoma 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2001 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 10 112 $2203 -$151 345 -$189 229 -$124 201
 

APART06 55.1 % 13 137 -$3989 -$196 735 -$236 357 -$168 433
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 102 1102 -$59 008 -$2 193 613 -$1 634 180 -$1 075 136 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 236 2538 $352 687 -$895 760 -$449 264 -$2 210 012 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 57 615 $2 411 480 $1 208 267 $1 010 853 $770 658 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 62 663 $2 784 385 $1 419 248 $1 041 514 $408 420 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 34 365 -$3444 -$281 194 -$145 273 $71 518 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 273 2937 $5 581 905 $2 392 822 $2 171 871 $2 955 614 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 28 305 $2 354 890 $1 529 327 $1 354 595 -$991 795 

Total 815 8774 $13 421 108 $2 831 018 $2 924 530 -$363 368 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

16.3 State Summary 

Oklahoma is one of the three states in the South Census Region that has no state energy 

code for commercial buildings. Adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, and -2007 

designs lead to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and cradle-to-grave energy-related 

carbon emissions, but not in a life-cycle cost-effective manner, costing $26.2 million, 

$5.5 million, and $5.7 million, respectively. Oklahoma is one of the few states for which 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 is not life-cycle cost effective. On average, adopting the 

LEC design leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and cradle-to-grave energyrelated 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 300.5 GWh (1025.9 GBtu), energy cost savings of $29.1 million, 

and 502 267 metric tons of carbon emissions reductions while adding $5.7 million in 

life-cycle costs for one year’s worth of commercial building construction. Adopting the 

LEC design would lead to even greater impactsthan adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007, with 

savings of 598.1 GWh (2042.0 GBtu), $35.4 million of energy costs, 678 928 metric tons 

of carbon emissions while decreasing life-cycle costs by $708 320 for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

145
 
Oklahoma 

146
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

17 South Carolina 

South Carolina is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings, and is located in 

the South Atlantic Census Division and Climate Zone 3A. Table 17-1 provides an 

overview of South Carolina’s simulated energy use keyed to building type and energy 

standard edition. Average energy use varies across building types and building designs. 

The 4-story dormitory uses the least amount of energy at 78 kWh/m2 to 94 kWh/m2 

(25 kBtu/ ft2 to 30 kBtu/ft2) annually. The high school uses the greatest amount of energy 

at 133 kWh/m2 to 153 kWh/m2 (42 kBtu/ft2 to 49 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

Table 17-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

South Carolina 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 131 41 124 39 107 34 

APART06 130 41 125 40 105 33 

DORMI04 94 30 92 29 78 25 

DORMI06 144 46 136 43 115 36 

HOTEL15 114 36 123 39 105 33 

HIGHS02 153 49 151 48 133 42 

OFFIC03 103 33 101 32 79 25 

OFFIC08 101 32 98 31 79 25 

OFFIC16 123 39 130 41 108 34 

RETAIL1 110 35 104 33 88 28 

RSTRNT1 151 48 147 47 103 33 

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 codes. 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. 

17.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building type and 

location within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in more energy efficient designs in the state of South Carolina. 

147
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

17.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 17-2 shows a large variation in the percentage change in energy use for ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ranging from 7.4 % to -5.9 % with an average 

of -1.8 %. For the high-rise, 100 % glazed buildings (16-story office building and 

15-story hotel), ASHRAE 90.1-2007 is actually less energy efficient than ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 because the maximum window U-factor and SHGC requirements in Zone 3A 

for buildings with fenestration accounting for greater than 40 % of wall surface area is 

less stringent for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 than ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Buildings in warmer 

climate zones benefit from decreasing external heat gains through fenestration. The 

resulting higher heat gain through fenestration increases cooling load requirements. The 

100 % glazing amplifies the energy loss enough to overwhelm the energy efficiency 

gains obtained from other measures, such as increased insulation R-values. 

Table 17-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, South Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -4.7 -18.0 

APART06 -4.1 -18.9 

DORMI04 -2.0 -16.9 

DORMI06 -5.9 -20.2 

HOTEL15 7.4 -8.5 

HIGHS02 -1.7 -13.8 

OFFIC03 -2.6 -23.8 

OFFIC08 -2.6 -21.7 

OFFIC16 5.6 -12.1 

RETAIL1 -5.9 -20.2 

RSTRNT1 -2.8 -32.0 

Average -1.8 -18.7 

The LEC design realizes percentage changes in energy use relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, ranging from -8.5 % to -32.0 % with an average of -18.7 %. Similar to the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the smallest reductions in energy use for the LEC design 

occurs in the 16-story office building and hotel. 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. 

17.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 17-3 shows significant variation in the percentage changes in average energy costs 

for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ranging from 5.0 % to -8.0 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -2.7 %. As with energy use savings, 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in an increase in energy costs relative to ASHRAE 

148
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

90.1-2004 for the two high-rise buildings. The percentage reductions in energy costs are 

smaller than the reductions in energy use for 3 of 11 building types because adopting the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design decreases natural gas consumption by a greater percentage 

than electricity consumption. Since natural gas is cheaper than electricity on a per unit 

basis, the greater relative reduction in natural gas consumption leads to a smaller 

percentage reduction in energy costs, on average, than the percentage reduction in total 

energy use for these three building types. 

Table 17-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -6.1 -22.6 

APART06 -5.9 -24.4 

DORMI04 -4.4 -21.7 

DORMI06 -8.0 -26.0 

HOTEL15 5.0 -14.6 

HIGHS02 -2.0 -19.8 

OFFIC03 -2.4 -24.9 

OFFIC08 -2.1 -21.9 

OFFIC16 3.7 -15.5 

RETAIL1 -4.9 -20.5 

RSTRNT1 -2.8 -34.7 

Average -2.7 -22.4 

The LEC design realizes greater reductions in energy costs than the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

design, with the average percentage change by building type ranging from -14.6 % 

to -34.7 % with an overall average of -22.4 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

reductions in energy costs are greater than the reductions in energy use for all 11 building 

types. For these building types, the percentage reduction in electricity consumption is 

greater than the reduction in natural gas, which leads to additional reductions in energy 

costs. 

17.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 17-4 shows significant variation in the average percentage change in energy-related 

carbon emissions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design across building types, ranging from 

4.7 % to -8.2 % with an average of -2.9 %. The LEC design leads to significant changes 

in average carbon emissions, ranging from -15.4 % to -35.1 % depending on the building 

type with an average of -22.9 % across all building types. As would be expected, a more 

energy efficient building design results in greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

However, the carbon emissions reductions are smaller than the energy use reductions for 

3 of 11 building types for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design because natural gas 

consumption is decreased by a greater percentage than electricity consumption. 

149
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, South Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -6.3 -23.2 

APART06 -6.1 -25.1 

DORMI04 -4.7 -22.3 

DORMI06 -8.2 -26.8 

HOTEL15 4.7 -15.4 

HIGHS02 -2.1 -20.6 

OFFIC03 -2.4 -25.0 

OFFIC08 -2.1 -22.0 

OFFIC16 3.5 -15.9 

RETAIL1 -4.8 -20.5 

RSTRNT1 -2.8 -35.1 

Average -2.9 -22.9 

17.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 17-5. 

Based on the life-cycle costs over a 10-year study period, the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design 

realizes the lowest life-cycle costs for three building types while the LEC design has the 

lowest life-cycle costs for six building types. The current state energy code, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, results in the lowest life-cycle costs for the hotel and 16-story office building. 

For eight building types, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to percentage reductions in life-cycle 

costs. The high-rise buildings and the high school are the only buildings that realize 

increases in life-cycle costs. Given that eight building types realize a percentage decrease 

in life-cycle costs, it is possible that adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will decrease total lifecycle costs. 

The LEC design results in reductions in life-cycle costs for 8 of the 11 building types for 

a 10-year study period. The percentage change in life-cycle costs ranges from -4.2 % to 

1.0 %. Based on the overall average percentage change of -0.9 % in life-cycle costs, the 

LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state energy code for 

commercial buildings. 

150
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, South 

Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.6 -0.1 

APART06 -0.5 -0.2 

DORMI04 -0.5 -1.3 

DORMI06 -0.7 -0.7 

HOTEL15 0.6 0.9 

HIGHS02 0.2 -1.3 

OFFIC03 -0.6 -2.0 

OFFIC08 -0.7 -2.2 

OFFIC16 0.5 1.0 

RETAIL1 -0.1 0.2 

RSTRNT1 -0.5 -4.2 

Average -0.3 -0.9 

17.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for three cities located in South Carolina, all of which are located in 

Zone 3A: Charleston, Columbia, and Greenville. While the three 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. 

As can be seen in Table 17-6, the average reduction in energy use for all building types 

from adopting newer energy standard editions varies across cities. For the ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 design, the percentage change in average energy use ranges minimally 

from -1.3 % to -2.2 %. For the LEC design, the percentage change in average energy use 

ranges from -17.2 % to -20.2 %. The closer a city is to the coastline, the greater the 

percentage reduction in energy use. 

Table 17-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, South Carolina 

Cities Zone
 Standard Edition 

2007 LEC
 

Charleston 3A -2.2 -20.2 

Columbia 3A -1.8 -18.8 

Greenville 3A -1.3 -17.2 

Average -1.8 -18.7 

151
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

The variations in energy costs across cities are a result of two factors, the reduction in 

energy use and the fuel source of the reduction. Table 17-7 shows that the average 

reduction in energy costs for all building types varies marginally across cities. For the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the percentage change in average energy costs ranges 

from -2.4 % to -3.0 % with an average of -2.7 %. For the LEC design, the percentage 

change in average energy costs ranges from -21.6 % to -23.1 % with an average 

of -22.4 %. 

Table 17-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, South 

Carolina 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Charleston 3A -3.0 -23.1 

Columbia 3A -2.8 -22.5 

Greenville 3A -2.4 -21.6 

Average -2.7 -22.4 

Table 17-8 reports energy-related carbon emissions by city for the state. For all cities, the 

more energy efficient designs result in greater reductions in carbon emissions. The 

average percentage change in carbon emissions varies minimally across cities. 

Table 17-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, South 

Carolina 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Charleston 3A -3.1 -23.4 

Columbia 3A -3.3 -23.9 

Greenville 3A -2.8 -22.7 

Average -3.1 -23.3 

The data reported in Table 17-9 show that adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design 

decreases life-cycle costs across all cities, with changes in life-cycle costs ranging 

minimally from -0.2 % to -0.3 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest reduction in 

life-cycle costs across all cities in the state. Charleston realizes smaller reductions in 

life-cycle costs from adopting the LEC design than does Greenville or Columbia. 

152
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, South 

Carolina 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Charleston 3A -0.3 -0.6 

Columbia 3A -0.2 -1.1 

Greenville 3A -0.2 -1.0 

Average -0.3 -0.9 

17.2 Total Savings 

How much can South Carolina 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. 

17.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 17-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type 

and building design in the state.37 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the 

estimated m2 (ft2

) of new construction of each building type, and Table 17-11 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.38 

37 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.
 

38 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

153
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, South Carolina
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-6.1 -1.9 

-5.3 -1.7 

-23.5 -7.5 

-24.5 -7.8 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-1.9 -0.6 

-8.5 -2.7 

-15.9 -5.0 

-29.1 -9.2 

HOTEL15 8.4 2.7 -9.6 -3.1 

HIGHS02 -2.7 -0.8 -24.5 -7.8 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-2.6 -0.8 

-2.7 -0.8 

6.9 2.2 

-21.0 -6.7 

-21.9 -6.9 

-14.9 -4.7 

RETAIL1 -6.5 -2.1 -22.3 -7.1 

RSTRNT1 -4.3 -1.4 -48.4 -15.3 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 17-11 ranges widely across building 

designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs both decrease total statewide 

energy use. The adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design results in reductions of 6.2 

GWh (21.0 GBtu) annually. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 increases total energy use for the two 

high-rise buildings and decreases total energy use for the other seven building types with 

retail stores realizing the greatest reduction. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s 

energy code for commercial buildings would save 39.7 GWh (135.6 GBtu) of total 

statewide energy use annually for one year’s worth of new construction for these building 

types. 

Table 17-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

South Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC 

kWh kBtu kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 178 1917 -1 080 991 -3 690 967 -4 187 110 -14 296 595
 

APART06 55.1 % 218 2348 -1 165 791 -3 980 513 -5 352 445 -18 275 548
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 113 1211 947 358 3 234 687 -1 082 794 -3 697 126 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 444 4784 -1 175 449 -4 013 487 -9 326 327 -31 844 092 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 115 1240 -305 956 -1 044 666 -2 824 215 -9 643 083 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 124 1337 -332 088 -1 133 892 -2 717 279 -9 277 959 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 68 736 470 275 1 605 720 -1 016 146 -3 469 559 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 520 5597 -3 370 718 -11 509 082 -11 580 978 -39 542 437 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 362 -143 765 -490 876 -1 626 635 -5 554 033 

Total 1814 19 531 -6 157 126 -21 023 076 -39 713 929 -135 600 432 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

154
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 66.8 % 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 the 

statewide savings to be 9.2 GWh (31.5 GBtu) and 59.5 GWh (203.0 GBtu) per year for 

adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs, respectively. These savings imply 

92.2 GWh (314.7 GBtu) and 594.5 GWh (2029.9 GBtu) in energy use savings over the 

10-year study period. 

The relative reduction in energy use across building types is consistent across building 

designs. The greatest total reductions are realized by retail stores and high schools 

because they represent 28.7 % and 24.5 %, respectively, of the combined new 

construction in the state for the building types in this study while all other building types 

represent less than 12.0 %. The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative 

percentage changes in energy use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reductions in energy use for the LEC design -- retail stores and high schools -- rank 4th 

and 9th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported in 

Table 17-2. 

17.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 17-12 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. 

Table 17-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$4.80 -$0.45 

-$4.64 -$0.43 

-$17.76 -$1.65 

-$19.19 -$1.78 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$2.54 -$0.24 

-$6.93 -$0.64 

-$12.66 -$1.18 

-$22.63 -$2.10 

HOTEL15 $3.34 $0.31 -$9.82 -$0.91 

HIGHS02 -$1.67 -$0.15 -$17.02 -$1.58 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$1.74 -$0.16 

-$1.46 -$0.14 

$2.96 $0.28 

-$16.96 -$1.58 

-$14.93 -$1.39 

-$12.46 -$1.16 

RETAIL1 -$3.48 -$0.32 -$14.45 -$1.34 

RSTRNT1 -$2.68 -$0.25 -$33.18 -$3.08 

Table 17-13 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. Overall, reductions in energy costs are greater for the 

155
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

more energy efficient building designs: $4.3 million and $29.3 million for adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC, respectively. The increase in energy use for the high-rise 

buildings leads to an increase in energy costs for those buildings for ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design. The energy cost 

savings are highly correlated with the energy use savings. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study, which represent 66.8 % 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC design can be extrapolated to 

estimate the total statewide energy cost savings of $6.5 million and $43.8 million over the 

10-year study period, respectively. 

Table 17-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, South Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 178 1917 -$854 237 -$3 161 825 

APART06 55.1 % 218 2348 -$1 012 813 -$4 184 680 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 113 1211 $376 368 -$1 104 759 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 444 4784 -$771 184 -$7 538 010 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 115 1240 -$192 046 -$1 960 790 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 124 1337 -$181 043 -$1 854 863 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 68 736 $202 524 -$851 553 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 520 5597 -$1 809 081 -$7 515 956 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 362 -$90 132 -$1 115 740 

Total 1814 19 531 -$4 331 644 -$29 288 176 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

17.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 17-14 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. 

156
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, South 

Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-45.4 -9.3 

-44.4 -9.1 

-167.4 -34.3 

-181.5 -37.2 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-25.0 -5.1 

-65.8 -13.5 

-120.0 -24.6 

-214.0 -43.8 

HOTEL15 28.7 5.9 -95.0 -19.5 

HIGHS02 -16.1 -3.3 -161.0 -33.0 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-15.4 -3.2 

-13.2 -2.7 

25.8 5.3 

-159.1 -32.6 

-139.3 -28.5 

-118.7 -24.3 

RETAIL1 -31.5 -6.4 -134.0 -27.5 

RSTRNT1 -24.7 -5.1 -309.6 -63.4 

Table 17-15 applies the Table 17-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of more energy efficient codes. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs decrease 

carbon emissions for the state as a whole. The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 

40 540 metric tons over a 10-year study period. The adoption of the LEC design 

decreases carbon emissions by 275 489 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 90.1-2007 and LEC 

designs can be extrapolated to estimate the statewide reduction in carbon emissions of 

60 689 metric tons and 412 409 metric tons over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

157
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

Table 17-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, South Carolina – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 178 1917 -8091 -29 813
 

APART06 55.1 % 218 2348 -9676 -39 594
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 113 1211 3225 -10 691 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 444 4784 -7160 -71 548 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 115 1240 -1774 -18 324 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 124 1337 -1641 -17 302 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 68 736 1764 -8110 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 520 5597 -16 356 -69 696 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 362 -832 -10 413 

Total 1814 19 531 -40 540 -275 489 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

17.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 17-16 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. 

Table 17-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, South Carolina 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$5.05 

-$4.66 

-$0.47 

-$0.43 

-$0.64 

-$1.46 

-$0.06 

-$0.14 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$4.08 

-$6.54 

-$0.38 

-$0.61 

-$10.84 

-$6.81 

-$1.01 

-$0.63 

HOTEL15 $4.69 $0.44 $8.10 $0.75 

HIGHS02 $1.68 $0.16 -$9.48 -$0.88 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$4.54 

-$5.11 

$3.33 

-$0.42 

-$0.47 

$0.31 

-$14.73 

-$16.54 

$6.90 

-$1.37 

-$1.54 

$0.64 

RETAIL1 -$0.34 -$0.03 $1.20 $0.11 

RSTRNT1 -$6.12 -$0.57 -$51.43 -$4.78 

Table 17-17 applies the Table 17-16 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 more energy-efficient codes. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in total reductions in 

158
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina 

life-cycle costs of $2.0 million over the 10-year study period relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 for the building types considered in this study. 

The LEC design leads to a decrease in total statewide life-cycle costs of $8.1 million, 

while reducing life-cycle costs for 6 of 9 building types. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the 

LEC designs both lead to an increase in life-cycle costs for hotels and 16-story office 

buildings. The LEC design also increases life-cycle costs for retail stores. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC 

design can be extrapolated to estimate the total reductions in life-cycle costs of 

$2.9 million and $12.2 million over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

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

10-Year, South Carolina 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 178 1917 -$899 772 -$113 854
 

APART06 55.1 % 218 2348 -$1 015 642 -$319 135
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 113 1211 $528 024 $911 168 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 444 4784 $745 786 -$4 212 504 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 115 1240 -$523 144 -$1 696 577 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 124 1337 -$634 651 -$2 054 774 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 68 736 $227 732 $471 565 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 520 5597 -$178 253 $626 409 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 34 362 -$205 810 -$1 729 530 

Total 1814 19 531 -$1 955 729 -$8 117 233 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

17.3 State Summary 

South Carolina is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 as their current state energy code for commercial buildings. On 

average, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, 

and energy-related carbon emissions. 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 would lead to energy use savings of 92.2 GWh (314.7 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $6.5 million, carbon emissions reductions of 60 689 metric tons, 

and life-cycle cost savings of $2.9 million. The LEC design would lead to even greater 

impactswith savings of 594.5 GWh (2029.9 GBtu), energy cost savings of $43.8 million, 

carbon emissions reductions of 412 409 metric tons for one year’s worth of commercial 

building construction while decreasing life-cycle costs by $12.2 million. 

159
 
South Carolina 

160
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

18 Tennessee 

Tennessee is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings, is located in the East 

South Central Census Division, and spans two climate zones (Zone 3A and Zone 4A). 

Table 18-1 provides an overview of Tennessee’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

type and energy standard edition. Average energy use varies across building types and 

building designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 80 

kWh/m2 to 104 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ ft2 to 33 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the 

greatest amount of energy at 157 kWh/m2 to 180 kWh/m2 (50 kBtu/ ft2 to 57 kBtu/ft2

) 

annually. 

Table 18-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Tennessee 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 141 45 136 43 118 37 

APART06 139 44 135 43 115 37 

DORMI04 104 33 100 32 86 27 

DORMI06 152 48 148 47 127 40 

HOTEL15 127 40 135 43 115 37 

HIGHS02 180 57 175 55 157 50 

OFFIC03 109 35 104 33 81 26 

OFFIC08 104 33 100 32 80 25 

OFFIC16 131 42 139 44 115 36 

RETAIL1 118 37 108 34 90 29 

RSTRNT1 161 51 154 49 108 34 

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 codes. 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. 

18.1 Percentage Savings 

Changes in percentage terms allow for direct comparisons across building type and 

location within a state. This section discusses the average percentage changes from 

investing in more energy efficient designs in the state of Tennessee. 

161
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

18.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 18-2 shows a large variation in percentage changes in energy use for ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ranging from 6.4 % to -8.4 % with an average 

of -2.3 %. For the high-rise, 100 % glazed buildings (16-story office building and 

15-story hotel), ASHRAE 90.1-2007 is actually less energy efficient than ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 because the maximum window U-factor and SHGC requirements in Zone 3A 

and Zone 4A for buildings with fenestration accounting for greater than 40 % of wall 

surface area is less stringent for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. The 

100 % glazing amplifies the energy loss enough to overwhelm the energy efficiency 

gains obtained from other measures, such as increased insulation R-values. 

Table 18-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition
 

Type
 2007 LEC 

APART04 -3.7 -16.1 

APART06 -3.1 -17.3 

DORMI04 -3.6 -17.3 

DORMI06 -2.1 -16.1 

HOTEL15 5.8 -9.6 

HIGHS02 -3.1 -12.9 

OFFIC03 -4.6 -25.3 

OFFIC08 -4.0 -23.4 

OFFIC16 6.4 -12.3 

RETAIL1 -8.4 -23.1 

RSTRNT1 -4.4 -32.9 

Average -2.3 -18.8 

The LEC design realizes greater percentage changes in energy use relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, ranging from -9.6 % to -32.9 % with an average of -18.8 %. Similar to the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the smallest reductions in energy use for the LEC design 

occur in the 16-story office building and hotel. 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. 

18.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 18-3 shows significant variation in the percentage changes in average energy costs 

for ASHRAE 90.1-2007 relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ranging from 6.8 % to -5.3 % 

depending on the building type, with an average of -1.2 %. As with energy use savings, 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in an increase in energy costs relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 for the two high-rise buildings. For these two building types, the percentage 

increase in energy costs is larger than the increase in energy use because electricity 

162
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

consumption increases while decreasing natural gas consumption. The offset of natural 

gas with electricity increases energy costs because electricity is more expensive per unit 

of energy. Eight of the remaining nine building types realize smaller percentage 

reductions in energy costs than the reductions in energy use because adopting the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design decreases natural gas consumption by a greater percentage 

than electricity consumption. Only the 6-story dormitory realizes a slightly greater 

reduction in energy costs than its reduction in energy use because electricity consumption 

decreases by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. 

Table 18-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -3.4 -20.5 

APART06 -2.9 -22.9 

DORMI04 -2.8 -20.4 

DORMI06 -2.3 -21.9 

HOTEL15 6.7 -13.6 

HIGHS02 -2.5 -19.9 

OFFIC03 -2.6 -25.8 

OFFIC08 -1.8 -22.7 

OFFIC16 6.8 -15.0 

RETAIL1 -5.3 -22.6 

RSTRNT1 -2.9 -35.6 

Average -1.2 -21.9 

The LEC design realizes greater reductions in energy costs than the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

design, with the average percentage change by building type ranging from -13.6 % 

to -35.6 % with an overall average of -21.9 % for 10 years of building operation. The 

reductions in energy costs are greater than the reductions in energy use for 9 of 11 

building types. For these building types, electricity consumption is decreased by a greater 

percentage than natural gas consumption, which leads to additional reductions in energy 

costs. The remaining two building types see percentage reductions in energy costs that 

are marginally smaller than the reductions in energy use because adoption of the LEC 

design decreases natural gas consumption by a greater percentage than electricity 

consumption. 

18.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 18-4 shows significant variation in the average percentage change in energy-related 

carbon emissions for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design across building types, ranging from 

6.9 % to -4.9 % with an average of -1.0 %. The LEC design leads to significant changes 

in average carbon emissions, ranging from -14.3 % to -36.1 % depending on the building 

type with an average of -22.5 % across all building types. As would be expected, a more 

energy efficient building design results in greater reductions in carbon emissions. 

163
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

However, the carbon emissions reductions (increases) are smaller (larger) than the energy 

use reductions (increases) for 10 of the 11 building types for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

design. Similar to the reductions in energy costs, this result is due to the fuel source of the 

reductions in energy use. For the eight building types that realize smaller reductions in 

carbon emissions than energy use, the percentage reduction in natural gas consumption is 

greater than the reduction in electricity. For the two building types that realize a greater 

percentage increase in carbon emissions than energy use, natural gas consumption is 

decreased while electricity consumption is increased. Similarly, the LEC design realizes a 

greater percentage reduction in natural gas consumption than electricity consumption for 

2 of 11 building types. The remaining building type for the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design 

and 9 building types for the LEC design realize greater percentage reductions in 

electricity consumption than natural gas consumption. 

Table 18-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -3.3 -21.3 

APART06 -2.8 -23.9 

DORMI04 -2.7 -20.9 

DORMI06 -2.3 -22.9 

HOTEL15 6.9 -14.3 

HIGHS02 -2.3 -21.3 

OFFIC03 -2.3 -25.9 

OFFIC08 -1.5 -22.6 

OFFIC16 6.8 -15.4 

RETAIL1 -4.9 -22.5 

RSTRNT1 -2.6 -36.1 

Average -1.0 -22.5 

18.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 18-5. 

Based on the life-cycle costs over a 10-year study period, the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design 

realizes the lowest life-cycle costs for 3 building types while the LEC design has the 

lowest life-cycle costs for 6 building types. The current state energy code, ASHRAE 

90.1-2004, results in lower life-cycle costs for the hotel and 16-story office building. 

For 9 building types, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to small percentage reductions in lifecycle costs (-0.9 % or less). The high-rise buildings are the only buildings that realize 

increases in life-cycle costs. Given that 9 building types realize a percentage decrease in 

life-cycle costs, it is likely that ASHRAE 90.1-2007 will decrease total life-cycle costs. 

The LEC design results in reductions in life-cycle costs for 9 building types for a 10-year 

study period. The percentage change in life-cycle costs ranges from -7.7 % to 0.8 %. 

164
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Based on the overall average percentage change of -1.4 % in life-cycle costs, the LEC 

design is likely to be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state energy code for 

commercial buildings. 

Table 18-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 LEC 

APART04 -0.4 -0.1 

APART06 -0.3 -0.3 

DORMI04 -0.7 -1.1 

DORMI06 -0.2 -0.5 

HOTEL15 0.6 0.8 

HIGHS02 -0.4 -1.7 

OFFIC03 -0.4 -2.6 

OFFIC08 -0.8 -3.0 

OFFIC16 0.8 0.8 

RETAIL1 -0.4 -0.4 

RSTRNT1 -0.9 -7.7 

Average -0.3 -1.4 

18.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for 5 cities located in Tennessee: Memphis in Zone 3A and Bristol, 

Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Nashville in Zone 4A. The results vary across cities within 

the state for several reasons. First, the state is covered by two climate zones. The 

ASHRAE 90.1 building design requirements vary across climate zone, 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. 

As can be seen in Table 18-6, the average reduction in energy use for all building types 

from adopting newer energy standard editions varies little both across and within climate 

zones. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the percentage change in average energy use 

ranges from -1.4 % to -2.8 % with an average of -2.3 %. For the LEC design, the 

percentage change in average energy use ranges from -17.8 % to -19.4 % with an average 

of -18.8 %. Across both building design alternatives, the warmer climate zone (Zone 3A) 

realizes slightly lower reductions in energy use than the colder climate zone (Zone 4A). 

165
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, Tennessee 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Memphis 3A -1.4 -17.8 

Bristol 4A -2.8 -18.8 

Chattanooga 4A -2.3 -19.4 

Knoxville 4A -2.2 -19.3 

Nashville 4A -2.5 -18.5 

Average -2.3 -18.8 

The variations in energy costs across cities are a result of two factors, the reductions in 

energy use and the fuel source of the reduction. Table 18-7 shows that the average 

reduction in energy costs for all building types varies minimally across and within 

climate zones. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the percentage change in average 

energy costs ranges from -0.7 % to -2.6 % with an average of -1.2 %. The average 

percentage change in energy costs are greater in Zone 3A (-2.6 %) than Zone 4A 

(-0.8 %). For the LEC design, the percentage change in average energy costs ranges 

from -21.3 % to -22.1 % with an average of -21.9 %. Zone 3A realizes slightly greater 

changes in energy use (-22.1 %) than Zone 4A (-21.9 %). 

Table 18-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Tennessee 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Memphis 3A -2.6 -22.1 

Bristol 4A -0.9 -22.0 

Chattanooga 4A -0.8 -22.1 

Knoxville 4A -0.7 -22.1 

Nashville 4A -0.9 -21.3 

Average -1.2 -21.9 

Table 18-8 reports energy-related carbon emissions by city for the state. For all cities, the 

more energy efficient designs result in greater reduction in carbon emissions. The city in 

Zone 3A realizes a slightly greater average percentage change in carbon emissions than 

the cities in Zone 4A for ASHRAE 90.1-2007, -2.9 % versus -1.0 %. The average 

emissions reduction does not significantly vary across cities for the LEC design, ranging 

from 22.4 % to 23.3 %. 

166
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, Tennessee
 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Memphis 3A -2.9 -23.3 

Bristol 4A -1.0 -23.1 

Chattanooga 4A -1.0 -23.1 

Knoxville 4A -0.9 -23.2 

Nashville 4A -1.1 -22.4 

Average -1.0 -23.0 

The data reported in Table 18-9 show that the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design decreases 

life-cycle costs across all cities, with changes in life-cycle costs ranging minimally 

from -0.2 % to -0.4 %. The LEC design realizes the greatest reduction in life-cycle costs 

across all cities in the state. There is no significant difference between the average 

percentage changes in life-cycle costs across climate zones. 

Table 18-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, 

Tennessee 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2007 LEC 

Memphis 3A -0.4 -1.3 

Bristol 4A -0.3 -1.6 

Chattanooga 4A -0.2 -1.2 

Knoxville 4A -0.2 -1.5 

Nashville 4A -0.3 -1.5 

Average -0.3 -1.4 

18.2 Total Savings 

How much can Tennessee 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. 

18.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 18-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type 

and building design in the state.39 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the 

39 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. 

167
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

estimated m2 (ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 18-11 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.40 

Table 18-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-5.2 -1.6 

-4.3 -1.4 

-22.7 -7.2 

-24.1 -7.6 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-3.8 -1.2 

-3.2 -1.0 

-18.1 -5.7 

-24.5 -7.8 

HOTEL15 7.4 2.3 -12.2 -3.9 

HIGHS02 -5.0 -1.6 -27.6 -8.8 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-5.6 -1.8 

-4.2 -1.3 

8.3 2.6 

-23.1 -7.3 

-24.4 -7.8 

-16.1 -5.1 

RETAIL1 -9.8 -3.1 -27.2 -8.6 

RSTRNT1 -7.2 -2.3 -53.1 -16.8 

The annual reduction in energy use shown in Table 18-11 ranges widely across building 

designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs both decrease total statewide 

energy use across the state. The adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design results in 

reductions of 10.1 GWh (34.4 GBtu) annually. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 increases total energy 

use for the two high-rise buildings and decreases total energy use for the other 7 building 

types. 

40 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

168
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Tennessee 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC 

kWh kBtu kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 89 955 -458 546 -1 565 674 -2 010 540 -6 864 847
 

APART06 55.1 % 109 1169 -463 283 -1 581 847 -2 615 546 -8 930 598
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 136 1469 1 004 599 3 430 133 -1 669 894 -5 701 738 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 362 3895 -2 026 243 -6 918 463 -8 372 078 -28 585 875 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 172 1850 -865 790 -2 956 178 -4 739 500 -16 182 692 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 185 1995 -769 189 -2 626 341 -4 526 951 -15 456 957 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 102 1098 850 344 2 903 441 -1 645 100 -5 617 078 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 716 7710 -7 068 817 -24 135 982 -19 482 585 -66 521 922 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 429 -285 475 -974 734 -2 115 887 -7 224 547 

Total 1911 20 571 -10 082 399 -34 425 646 -47 178 081 -161 086 253 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction data. 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save 47.2 GWh (161.1 GBtu) of total statewide 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 58.4 % 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 statewide savings to be 80.8 GWh 

(275.8 GBtu) per year. These savings imply over 807.8 GWh (2758.3 GBtu) in energy 

savings over the 10-year study period. 

The relative reduction in energy use across building types is consistent across building 

designs. The greatest total reductions are realized by retail stores and high schools 

because they represent 37.5 % and 18.9 %, respectively, of the combined new 

construction in the state for the building types in this study while all other building types 

represent 9.7 % or less. The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative 

percentage changes in energy use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reductions in energy use for the LEC design -- retail stores and high schools -- only rank 

4th and 9th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as reported 

in Table 18-2. 

18.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 18-12 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. 

169
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$2.88 -$0.27 

-$2.47 -$0.23 

-$17.37 -$1.61 

-$19.35 -$1.80 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$1.83 -$0.17 

-$2.17 -$0.20 

-$13.12 -$1.22 

-$20.21 -$1.88 

HOTEL15 $5.11 $0.47 -$10.34 -$0.96 

HIGHS02 -$2.46 -$0.23 -$19.86 -$1.84 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$1.95 -$0.18 

-$1.37 -$0.13 

$6.06 $0.56 

-$19.65 -$1.83 

-$17.07 -$1.59 

-$13.46 -$1.25 

RETAIL1 -$4.16 -$0.39 -$17.60 -$1.63 

RSTRNT1 -$3.07 -$0.29 -$38.03 -$3.53 

Table 18-13 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. Overall, reductions in energy costs are greater for the 

more energy efficient building designs: $3.8 million and $34.3 million for adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC, respectively. The increase in energy use for the high-rise 

buildings leads to an increase in energy costs for those buildings for ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

All building types realize energy cost savings for the LEC design. The energy cost 

savings are highly correlated with the energy use savings. Assuming that the buildings 

considered in this study, which represent 58.4 % 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 90.1-2007 and LEC can be extrapolated to estimate the 

total statewide energy cost savings of $6.5 million and $58.7 million over the 10-year 

study period, respectively. 

170
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Tennessee 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 89 955 -$255 316 -$1 540 657
 

APART06 55.1 % 109 1169 -$268 637 -$2 102 662
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 136 1469 $697 170 -$1 410 958 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 362 3895 -$888 648 -$7 184 973 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 172 1850 -$335 849 -$3 377 105 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 185 1995 -$253 116 -$3 164 579 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 102 1098 $618 451 -$1 373 321 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 716 7710 -$2 981 169 -$12 603 521 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 429 -$122 325 -$1 515 615 

Total 1911 20 571 -$3 789 438 -$34 273 392 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

18.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 18-14 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 18-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Tennessee 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-29.4 -6.0 

-25.5 -5.2 

-186.9 -38.3 

-209.5 -42.9 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-18.2 -3.7 

-22.9 -4.7 

-140.1 -28.7 

-219.5 -45.0 

HOTEL15 54.2 11.1 -112.6 -23.1 

HIGHS02 -23.8 -4.9 -216.7 -44.4 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-18.3 -3.7 

-12.1 -2.5 

64.8 13.3 

-209.2 -42.9 

-181.3 -37.1 

-146.5 -30.0 

RETAIL1 -39.9 -8.2 -184.6 -37.8 

RSTRNT1 -29.5 -6.0 -405.3 -83.0 

Table 18-15 applies the Table 18-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of more energy efficient codes. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and LEC designs decrease 

carbon emissions for the state as a whole. The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 

171
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

35 084 metric tons over a 10-year study period. The adoption of the LEC design 

decreases carbon emissions by 366 027 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 90.1-2007 and LEC 

designs can be extrapolated to estimate statewide reduction in carbon emissions of 

60 076 metric tons and 626 759 metric tons over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

Table 18-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Tennessee – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 89 955 -2609 -16 580
 

APART06 55.1 % 109 1169 -2764 -22 757
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 136 1469 7394 -15 366 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 362 3895 -8602 -78 417 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 172 1850 -3140 -35 960 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 185 1995 -2237 -33 602 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 102 1098 6607 -14 940 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 716 7710 -28 557 -132 250 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 429 -1177 -16 154 

Total 1911 20 571 -35 084 -366 027 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

18.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 18-16 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. 

172
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Tennessee
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

-$3.45 

-$2.86 

-$0.32 

-$0.27 

-$0.99 

-$2.40 

-$0.09 

-$0.22 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

-$6.39 

-$2.18 

-$0.59 

-$0.20 

-$9.79 

-$5.01 

-$0.91 

-$0.47 

HOTEL15 $5.47 $0.51 $7.09 $0.66 

HIGHS02 -$2.68 -$0.25 -$12.57 -$1.17 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

-$3.18 

-$6.44 

$5.66 

-$0.30 

-$0.60 

$0.53 

-$18.90 

-$23.22 

$5.78 

-$1.76 

-$2.16 

$0.54 

RETAIL1 -$2.67 -$0.25 -$2.38 -$0.22 

RSTRNT1 -$11.42 -$1.06 -$96.02 -$8.92 

Table 18-17 applies the Table 18-16 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 more energy-efficient codes. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in total reductions in 

life-cycle costs of $4.4 million over the 10-year study period relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 for the building types considered in this study. The LEC design leads to a 

decrease in total statewide life-cycle costs of $16.4 million, while reducing life-cycle 

costs for 7 of 9 building types. The ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the LEC designs lead to an 

increase in life-cycle costs for hotels and 16-story office buildings. 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 90.1-2007 and LEC 

designs can be extrapolated to estimate the total reductions in life-cycle costs of 

$7.5 million and $28.1 million over the 10-year study period, respectively. 

173
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee 

Table 18-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Tennessee 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2007 LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 89 955 -$306 372 -$87 633 

APART06 55.1 % 109 1169 -$310 942 -$260 597 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 136 1469 $747 205 $967 430 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 362 3895 -$968 977 -$4 548 170 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 172 1850 -$547 253 -$3 248 330 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 185 1995 -$1 193 900 -$4 305 144 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 102 1098 $577 169 $589 230 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 716 7710 -$1 913 574 -$1 703 531 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 429 -$455 105 -$3 827 052 

Total 1911 20 571 -4 371 749 -16 423 797 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the 

construction data. 

18.3 State Summary 

Tennessee is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 as their current state energy code for commercial buildings. On average, 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energyrelated carbon emissions. 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 would lead to energy savings of 172.6 GWh (589.5 GBtu), energy cost 

savings of $6.5 million, carbon emissions reductions of 66 072 metric tons, and life-cycle 

cost savings of $7.5 million. The life-cycle cost savings are greater than the energy cost 

savings. The relaxation of the U-factor and SHGC requirements from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 decreases the costs of construction by a greater amount 

than the other energy efficiency measures increase construction costs, while still reducing 

total energy costs. The LEC design would lead to even greater impactswith savings of 

807.8 GWh (2758.3 GBtu), energy cost savings of $58.7 million, and carbon emissions 

reductions of 689 317 metric tons while decreasing life-cycle costs by $28.1 million for 

one year’s worth of commercial building construction. 

174
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

19 Texas 

Texas has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial buildings, 

is located in the West South Central Census Division, and spans three climate zones 

(Zone 2, Zone 3, and Zone 4). Table 19-1 provides an overview of Texas’s simulated 

energy use keyed to building types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across 

building types and building designs. The 4-story dormitory uses the least amount of 

energy at 80 kWh/m2 to 95 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 30 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high 

school uses the greatest amount of energy at 122 kWh/m2 to 142 kWh/m2 (39 kBtu/ft2 to 

45 kBtu/ft2

) annually. 

Table 19-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Texas 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

124 39 

125 40 

106 34 

105 33 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

95 30 

134 43 

80 25 

112 36 

HOTEL15 118 37 100 32 

HIGHS02 142 45 122 39 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

106 34 

104 33 

131 41 

83 26 

83 26 

109 35 

RETAIL1 107 34 91 29 

RSTRNT1 153 48 107 34 

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. 

19.1 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 Texas. 

19.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 19-2 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. 

175
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

There is significant variation in the change in energy use for the LEC design relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -14.7 % to -29.8 % depending on the building type 

with an overall average of -17.8 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy 

use while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 19-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard 

Editions, 10-Year, Texas 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -15.0 -18.6 -18.6 0.0 

APART06 -16.3 -20.6 -20.6 -0.2 

DORMI04 -15.5 -18.6 -18.7 -0.9 

DORMI06 -16.3 -20.9 -20.9 -0.6 

HOTEL15 -14.9 -19.6 -19.6 0.0 

HIGHS02 -14.7 -21.0 -21.1 -1.7 

OFFIC03 -21.7 -23.1 -23.1 -1.9 

OFFIC08 -19.9 -20.5 -20.5 -2.6 

OFFIC16 -16.8 -19.1 -19.1 -0.1 

RETAIL1 -15.3 -16.5 -16.5 0.0 

RSTRNT1 -29.8 -33.2 -33.2 -5.9 

Average -17.8 -21.0 -21.1 -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 -16.5 % to -33.2 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -21.0 % 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, adopting the LEC design leads to an increase in natural gas 

consumption and a decrease in electricity consumption for all 11 building types. The shift 

is most prevalent for the high school, where the increase in natural gas consumption 

offsets 20.4 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage 

reduction in energy costs that is 42.9 % greater than the percentage reduction in energy 

use. The LEC design incorporates daylighting and overhangs into the building design for 

cities in Zone 2 through 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 -16.5 % to -33.2 % with an average of -21.1 %. 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 

176
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

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 -5.9 % to 0.0 % 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 -1.3 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective for the state to adopt as its state 

energy code. 

19.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for nineteen cities located in Texas: Austin, Brownsville, Corpus 

Christi, Houston, Lufkin, Port Arthur, San Antonio, Victoria, and Waco in Zone 2A, Del 

Rio in Zone 2B, Fort Worth and Wichita Falls in Zone 3A, Abilene, El Paso, Lubbock, 

Midland, and San Angelo in Zone 3B, and Amarillo in Zone 4B. The results vary across 

cities within the state for several reasons. First, the state is covered by three climate zones 

and six climate subzones (five of which are represented by the cities selected for this 

study). 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 19-3 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 varies across cities, ranging from -16.6 % to -19.5 % 

with an overall average of -17.8 %. The minimal variation occurs within each climate 

zone while there is no distinct variation across climate zones. 

177
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

Table 19-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Texas 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Austin 2A -17.2 -20.3 20.6 -1.0 

Brownsville 2A -19.2 -20.1 20.4 -1.5 

Corpus Christi 2A -19.5 -20.7 21.0 -1.2 

Houston 2A -17.5 -20.3 20.6 -1.1 

Lufkin 2A -17.3 -20.7 21.1 -1.4 

Port Arthur 2A -17.9 -20.4 20.8 -1.1 

San Antonio 2A -18.0 -21.0 21.4 -1.1 

Victoria 2A -18.9 -20.7 21.0 -1.3 

Waco 2A -16.6 -20.4 20.8 -1.0 

Del Rio 2B -17.6 -20.0 20.3 -1.6 

Fort Worth 3A -18.1 -21.2 21.5 -1.2 

Wichita Falls 3A -16.6 -20.7 21.0 -1.2 

Abilene 3B -18.1 -21.8 22.1 -1.3 

El Paso 3B -19.4 -22.9 23.2 -1.4 

Lubbock 3B -16.6 -21.5 21.9 -1.3 

Midland 3B -18.0 -22.0 22.4 -1.4 

San Angelo 3B -17.8 -21.7 22.0 -1.4 

Amarillo 4B -16.8 -22.5 22.8 -1.1 

Average -17.8 -21.0 21.4 -1.3 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -20.1 % to -22.9 % 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 

emissions for all building types also varies minimally across cities, ranging from -20.3 % 

to -23.2 %. Cities located in colder climate zones tend to realize slightly greater 

percentage reductions in energy costs and carbon emissions. The change in life-cycle 

costs for all building types range from –1.0 % to -1.6 %. There is no trend across climate 

zones in percentage changes in life-cycle costs. 

19.2 Total Savings 

How much can Texas 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. 

178
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

19.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 19-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.41 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 19-5 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.42 

Table 19-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Texas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -18.6 -5.9 

APART06 -20.3 -6.4 

DORMI04 -14.7 -4.7 

DORMI06 -21.9 -6.9 

HOTEL15 -17.4 -5.5 

HIGHS02 -23.1 -7.3 

OFFIC03 -20.5 -6.5 

OFFIC08 -20.7 -6.6 

OFFIC16 -21.9 -7.0 

RETAIL1 -16.3 -5.2 

RSTRNT1 -45.5 -14.4 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 173.0 GWh (590.7 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 61.1 % 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 283.2 GWh (966.8 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 2.8 TWh (9.7 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. The greatest total reductions are realized by high schools 

and retail stores because they represent 28.8 % and 29.7 %, respectively, of the combined 

new construction in the state for the building types in this study while all other building 

41 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.
 

42 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

179
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

types represent 8.1 % or less. The amount of new construction overwhelms the relative 

percentage changes in energy use. The building types that lead to the greatest estimated 

reductions in energy use for the LEC design -- high schools and retail stores -- only rank 

11th and 8th in percentage reduction, respectively, among the 11 building types, as 

reported in Table 19-2. 

Table 19-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Texas 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 499 5369 -9 280 450 -31 687 447
 

APART06 55.1 % 611 6576 -12 401 563 -42 344 267
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 714 7687 -12 459 650 -42 542 602 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 2539 27 326 -51 932 945 -177 321 406 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 623 6710 -14 376 078 -49 086 112 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 672 7236 -13 906 567 -47 483 001 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 370 3982 -8 116 630 -27 713 666 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2624 28 248 -42 806 401 -146 159 461 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 170 1828 -7 732 107 -26 400 737 

Total 8822 94 962 -173 012 391 -590 738 700 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

19.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 19-6 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. 

180
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

Table 19-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Texas
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$15.32 -$1.42 

APART06 -$17.06 -$1.58 

DORMI04 -$11.97 -$1.11 

DORMI06 -$18.52 -$1.72 

HOTEL15 -$14.76 -$1.37 

HIGHS02 -$18.03 -$1.68 

OFFIC03 -$18.53 -$1.72 

OFFIC08 -$15.92 -$1.48 

OFFIC16 -$17.70 -$1.64 

RETAIL1 -$12.61 -$1.17 

RSTRNT1 -$35.39 -$3.29 

Table 19-7 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 $143.3 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 61.1 % 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 $234.5 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

Table 19-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Texas 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 499 5369 -$7 639 249 

APART06 55.1 % 611 6576 -$10 419 606 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 714 7687 -$10 538 466 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 2539 27 326 -$47 049 343 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 623 6710 -$11 242 491 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 672 7236 -$10 703 434 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 370 3982 -$6 548 979 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2624 28 248 -$33 098 893 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 170 1828 -$6 011 319 

Total 8822 94 962 -$143 251 781 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

181
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

19.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 19-8 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 19-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Texas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -171.8 -35.2 

APART06 -191.4 -39.2 

DORMI04 -134.3 -27.5 

DORMI06 -207.9 -42.6 

HOTEL15 -165.6 -33.9 

HIGHS02 -208.1 -42.6 

OFFIC03 -202.2 -41.4 

OFFIC08 -178.5 -36.6 

OFFIC16 -198.6 -40.7 

RETAIL1 -141.4 -29.0 

RSTRNT1 -396.8 -81.3 

Table 19-9 applies the Table 19-8 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 1.6 million 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 2.6 million metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

182
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

Table 19-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Texas – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 499 5369 -85 703 

APART06 55.1 % 611 6576 -116 917 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 714 7687 -118 258 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 2539 27 326 -528 288 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 623 6710 -126 064 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 672 7236 -120 000 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 370 3982 -73 457 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2624 28 248 -371 102 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 170 1828 -67 402 

Total 8822 94 962 -1 607 192 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

19.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 19-10 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 19-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Texas 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $0.09 $0.01 

APART06 -$1.50 -$0.14 

DORMI04 -$7.55 -$0.70 

DORMI06 -$4.98 -$0.46 

HOTEL15 $0.46 $0.04 

HIGHS02 -$12.18 -$1.13 

OFFIC03 -$14.09 -$1.31 

OFFIC08 -$19.60 -$1.82 

OFFIC16 -$0.41 -$0.04 

RETAIL1 $0.25 $0.02 

RSTRNT1 -$72.31 -$6.72 

Table 19-11 applies the Table 19-10 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 types, with 6 of 9 building types realizing reductions in life-cycle costs. 

Overall, the LEC design results in a decrease of $65.2 million in statewide life-cycle 

183
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas 

costs relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. High schools, 8-story office buildings, and 

restaurants realize the greatest statewide decreases in life-cycle costs ($30.9 million, 

$13.2 million, and $12.3 million, respectively) while retail stores and hotels realize the 

greatest increases in life-cycle costs ($646 364 and $327 534, 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 $106.8 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

Table 19-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Texas 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 499 5369 $42 775
 

APART06 55.1 % 611 6576 -$916 202
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 714 7687 $327 534 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 2539 27 326 -$30 931 583 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 623 6710 -$8 784 412 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 672 7236 -$13 174 568 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 370 3982 -$151 888 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 2624 28 248 $646 364 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 170 1828 -$12 283 188 

Total 8822 94 962 -$65 225 168 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

19.3 State Summary 

Texas 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 2.8 TWh (9.7 TBtu), energy cost savings 

of $234.5 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 2.6 million metric tons while 

decreasing life-cycle costs by $106.8 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. 

184
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

20 Virginia 

Virginia has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code for commercial 

buildings, and is located in the South Atlantic Census Division and Climate Zone 4A. 

Table 20-1 provides an overview of Virginia’s simulated energy use keyed to building 

types and energy codes. Average energy use varies across building types and building 

designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 78 kWh/m2 to 

98 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 31 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses the greatest 

amount of energy at 162 kWh/m2 to 179 kWh/m2 (52 kBtu/ft2 to 57 kBtu/ft2) annually. 

Table 20-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

Virginia 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

135 43 

135 43 

118 37 

116 37 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

98 31 

149 47 

84 27 

128 41 

HOTEL15 137 44 117 37 

HIGHS02 179 57 162 52 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

102 32 

98 31 

141 45 

79 25 

78 25 

115 37 

RETAIL1 106 34 89 28 

RSTRNT1 151 48 105 33 

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. 

20.1 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 Virginia. 

20.1.1 Statewide Building Comparison 

Table 20-2 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 

185
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007, ranging from -9.2 % to -30.3 % depending on the building type with 

an overall average of -17.0 %. High schools realize the lowest reduction in energy use 

while restaurants realize the greatest reduction in energy use. 

Table 20-2 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard 

Editions, 10-Year, Virginia 

Building LEC 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -12.6 -17.0 -18.1 0.5 

APART06 -14.4 -20.0 -21.3 0.3 

DORMI04 -14.3 -17.9 -18.7 -0.7 

DORMI06 -14.2 -19.6 -20.8 0.0 

HOTEL15 -14.9 -18.8 -19.8 0.4 

HIGHS02 -9.2 -16.4 -18.3 -0.6 

OFFIC03 -22.1 -24.1 -24.5 -2.2 

OFFIC08 -20.8 -21.7 -21.9 -2.2 

OFFIC16 -18.0 -20.6 -21.1 0.4 

RETAIL1 -16.1 -18.2 -18.7 0.5 

RSTRNT1 -30.3 -34.0 -34.8 -5.4 

Average -17.0 -20.8 -21.6 -0.8 

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 -34.0 % depending 

on the building type with an average of -20.8 % 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 

37.0 % of the reduction in electricity consumption, and results in a percentage reduction 

in energy costs that is 78.3 % 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 -18.1 % to -34.8 % with an average of -21.6 %. 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 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. The greater relative 

186
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

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 -5.4 % to 0.5 % for a 10-year study period. Five of the 11 building types realize 

reductions in life-cycle costs. Based on the overall average percentage change of -0.8 % 

in life-cycle costs, the LEC design may be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state 

energy code for commercial buildings. 

20.1.2 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for four cities located in Virginia, all of which are located in 

Zone 4A: Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, and Roanoke. While the four 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 20-3 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 change in energy use for all building 

types from adopting the LEC design varies minimally across cities, ranging from -16.5 % 

to -17.6 %. Any variation in local climate appears to have minimal effects on energy 

consumption. 

Table 20-3 Average Percentage Change from Adoption of Newer Standard Editions 

by City, 10-Year, Virginia 

Cities Zone LEC 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

Lynchburg 4A -16.5 -20.7 -21.9 -0.9 

Norfolk 4A -17.6 -20.8 -21.9 -0.7 

Richmond 4A -16.8 -20.5 -21.6 -0.6 

Roanoke 4A -17.0 -20.9 -22.1 -1.1 

Average -17.0 -20.8 -21.9 -0.8 

The average percentage change in energy costs for all building types also varies 

minimally across cities, ranging from -20.5 % to -20.9 % for 10 years of operation. 

Repeating the pattern, the average percentage change in carbon emissions across cities 

187
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

ranges only from -21.6 % to -22.1 %. For all cities, reductions in energy costs and carbon 

emissions are greater than reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in 

electricity consumption is greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. The 

percentage change in life-cycle costs for all building types ranges from -1.1 % to -0.6 %, 

driven by variation in local construction costs across the state. 

20.2 Total Savings 

How much can Virginia 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. 

20.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 20-4 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type and 

building design in the state.43 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the estimated m2 

(ft2) of new construction of each building type, and Table 20-5 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.44 

Table 20-4 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -17.0 -5.4 

APART06 -19.4 -6.2 

DORMI04 -14.0 -4.4 

DORMI06 -21.2 -6.7 

HOTEL15 -20.4 -6.5 

HIGHS02 -22.5 -7.1 

OFFIC03 -16.4 -5.2 

OFFIC08 -20.5 -6.5 

OFFIC16 -25.3 -8.0 

RETAIL1 -17.1 -5.4 

RSTRNT1 -45.9 -14.5 

43 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.
 

44 State-level subcategory data are not available.
 

188
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code for commercial buildings 

would save energy for all building types and 54.8 GWh (187.1 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 62.9 % 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 87.1 GWh (297.5 GBtu) per year. These savings imply 871.3 GWh (2975.0 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. The greatest total reductions are 

realized by retail stores and high schools because they represent 21.3 % and 16.8 %, 

respectively, of the combined new construction in the state for the building types in this 

study while all other building types represent 13.6 % or less. The amount of new 

construction overwhelms the relative percentage changes in energy use. 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 20-2. 

Table 20-5 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

Virginia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 44.9 % 315 3388 -5 348 319 -18 261 461
 

APART06 55.1 % 386 4150 -7 489 535 -25 572 492
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 272 2929 -5 554 997 -18 967 147 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 477 5138 -7 810 316 -26 667 776 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 276 2976 -6 226 565 -21 260 171 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 298 3209 -6 100 040 -20 828 159 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 164 1765 -4 145 554 -14 154 706 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 603 6488 -10 298 916 -35 164 927 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 430 -1 831 391 -6 253 157 

Total 2831 30 473 -54 805 632 -187 129 994 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported 

in the construction data. 

189
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

20.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 20-6 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 20-6 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$11.77 -$1.09 

APART06 -$13.91 -$1.29 

DORMI04 -$9.26 -$0.86 

DORMI06 -$15.02 -$1.39 

HOTEL15 -$13.39 -$1.24 

HIGHS02 -$14.81 -$1.38 

OFFIC03 -$13.93 -$1.29 

OFFIC08 -$13.26 -$1.23 

OFFIC16 -$16.89 -$1.57 

RETAIL1 -$11.16 -$1.04 

RSTRNT1 -$29.24 -$2.72 

Table 20-7 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 $38.1 million for 10 years of building operation. 

Assuming that the buildings considered in this study, which represent 62.9 % 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 $60.5 million over the 10-year study 

period. 

190
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

Table 20-7 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Virginia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 315 3388 -$3 705 986 

APART06 55.1 % 386 4150 -$5 361 561 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 272 2929 -$3 643 721 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 477 5138 -$6 649 179 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 276 2976 -$4 093 791 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 298 3209 -$3 953 594 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 164 1765 -$2 769 954 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 603 6488 -$6 725 227 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 430 -$1 167 500 

Total 2831 30 473 -$38 070 512 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

20.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 20-8 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 20-8 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -135.1 -27.7 

APART06 -160.4 -32.9 

DORMI04 -105.4 -21.6 

DORMI06 -173.0 -35.4 

HOTEL15 -152.2 -31.2 

HIGHS02 -164.8 -33.8 

OFFIC03 -168.5 -34.5 

OFFIC08 -150.5 -30.8 

OFFIC16 -192.6 -39.5 

RETAIL1 -126.8 -26.0 

RSTRNT1 -330.8 -67.7 

Table 20-9 applies the Table 20-8 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 

191
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

results in savings of 437 139 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 694 975 metric tons over the 

10-year study period. 

Table 20-9 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, Virginia – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s)
 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 315 3388 -42 536 

APART06 55.1 % 386 4150 -61 864 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 272 2929 -41 432 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 477 5138 -78 664 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 276 2976 -46 568 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 298 3209 -44 860 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 164 1765 -31 598 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 603 6488 -76 410 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 430 -13 208 

Total 2831 30 473 -437 139 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is 

reported in the construction data. 

20.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 20-10 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. 

192
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

Table 20-10 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, Virginia
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 $4.74 $0.44 

APART06 $2.99 $0.28 

DORMI04 -$6.28 -$0.58 

DORMI06 -$0.11 -$0.01 

HOTEL15 $3.71 $0.34 

HIGHS02 -$4.65 -$0.43 

OFFIC03 -$16.56 -$1.54 

OFFIC08 -$17.55 -$1.63 

OFFIC16 $2.83 $0.26 

RETAIL1 $2.98 $0.28 

RSTRNT1 -$68.04 -$6.32 

Table 20-11 applies the Table 20-10 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 $8.8 million in statewide life-cycle costs 

relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Eight-story office buildings ($5.2 million) and 3-story 

office buildings ($4.6 million) realize the greatest reductions in life-cycle costs. Retail 

stores realize the greatest increase in life-cycle costs ($1.8 million). 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 $14.0 million over the 10-year 

study period. 

193
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia 

Table 20-11 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, Virginia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition
 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) LEC
 

APART04 44.9 % 315 3388 $1 491 533
 

APART06 55.1 % 386 4150 $1 154 253
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 272 2929 $1 008 641 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 477 5138 -$2 217 770 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 276 2976 -$4 576 972 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 298 3209 -$5 231 828 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 164 1765 $464 086 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 603 6488 $1 794 940 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 40 430 -$2 716 793 

Total 2831 30 473 -$8 829 909 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category 

is reported in the construction data. 

20.3 State Summary 

Virginia 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 871.3 GWh (2975.0 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $60.5 million, and carbon emissions reductions of 694 975 metric 

tons while decreasing life-cycle costs of $14.0 million for one year’s worth of 

commercial building construction. 

194
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

21 West Virginia 

West Virginia is one of two states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as their state energy code for commercial buildings, is located in the 

South Atlantic Census Division, and spans two climate zones (Zone 4A and Zone 5A). 

Table 21-1 provides an overview of West Virginia’s simulated energy use keyed to 

building type and energy standard edition. Average energy use varies across building 

types and building designs. The 8-story office building uses the least amount of energy at 

79 kWh/m2 to 113 kWh/m2 (25 kBtu/ft2 to 36 kBtu/ft2

) annually. The high school uses 

the greatest amount of energy at 192 kWh/m2 to 221 kWh/m2 (61 kBtu/ft2 to 70 kBtu/ft2

) 

annually. 

Table 21-1 Average Annual Energy Use by Building Type and Standard Edition, 

West Virginia 

Building 

Type 

Standard Edition 

2001 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 

APART06 

173 55 

170 54 

150 48 

148 47 

145 46 

144 46 

129 41 

126 40 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

129 41 

184 58 

114 36 

161 51 

108 34 

159 50 

95 30 

139 44 

HOTEL15 160 51 142 45 149 47 130 41 

HIGHS02 221 70 213 68 206 65 192 61 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

120 38 

113 36 

147 47 

111 35 

102 32 

138 44 

104 33 

98 31 

146 46 

84 27 

79 25 

123 39 

RETAIL1 139 44 125 40 112 36 97 31 

RSTRNT1 188 60 170 54 156 49 114 36 

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 codes. 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. 

21.1 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 West Virginia. 

195
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

21.1.1 Energy Use 

Table 21-2 shows that the average percentage changes in energy use from adopting the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 design relative to ASHRAE 90.1-2001 range from -3.4 % to -13.0 % 

depending on the building type, with an overall average of -9.9 %. The average 

percentage change in energy use from constructing buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

requirements ranges from -0.8 % to -19.5 %, with an overall average of -12.6 %. 

Table 21-2 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions, West Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -12.9 -15.9 -25.3 

APART06 -13.0 -15.4 -26.2 

DORMI04 -12.3 -16.2 -26.7 

DORMI06 -12.5 -13.8 -24.4 

HOTEL15 -11.4 -6.7 -18.9 

HIGHS02 -3.4 -6.7 -13.3 

OFFIC03 -7.9 -13.5 -30.4 

OFFIC08 -9.8 -13.3 -30.1 

OFFIC16 -6.1 -0.8 -16.9 

RETAIL1 -10.0 -19.5 -30.7 

RSTRNT1 -9.5 -17.2 -39.3 

Average -9.9 -12.6 -25.7 

For the high-rise buildings (15-story hotel and 16-story office building), ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 is actually more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 because the 

maximum window SHGC requirement in Zone 4 and Zone 5 is increased from ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for buildings with greater than 40 % window glazing, 

making the requirement less strict. Buildings in warmer climates benefit from decreasing 

solar heat gains. The 100 % glazing amplifies the heat gain from the higher SHGC, which 

increases electricity 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 percentage change in energy use relative to 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001, with a range of -13.3 % to -39.3 % and an overall average 

of -25.7 %. Similar to the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design, the smallest reduction in energy 

use for the LEC design occurs in the buildings with the greatest window-to-wall ratios. 

The smallest percentage reduction is realized by the high school because of its occupancy 

pattern. Schools are used primarily during the school year with minimal use during the 

summer. Since some of the additional energy efficiency measures (daylighting and 

overhangs) adopted in the LEC design reduce solar heat gains, cooling loads are 

decreased while heating loads are increased. The increase in heating loads is greater than 

196
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

the reduction in cooling loads because the building has a low occupancy during the 

warmest months of the year and the West Virginia climate requires significant heating 

during the coldest months. 

21.1.2 Energy Costs 

Table 21-3 shows a significant variation in the average change in energy costs over 10 

years of operation from adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 design relative to ASHRAE 

90.1-2001, ranging from -4.9 % to -16.5 % depending on the building type, with an 

overall average of -12.2 %. The average change in energy costs from constructing 

buildings using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements ranges from -1.5 % to -19.4 %, with an 

overall average of -14.2 %. As with energy use savings, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

results in greater reductions in energy costs than adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for the two 

high rise buildings (16-story office building and 15-story hotel) because of the 100 % 

glazing in the buildings and the relaxed window SHGC requirements. For three building 

types, adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 leads to a slightly smaller percentage reduction in 

energy costs than the reduction in energy use because the percentage reduction in natural 

gas consumption is greater than the reduction in electricity consumption. 

Table 21-3 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -16.4 -19.0 -29.8 

APART06 -16.5 -18.6 -31.2 

DORMI04 -16.2 -19.4 -31.0 

DORMI06 -16.1 -17.2 -29.6 

HOTEL15 -14.6 -9.7 -23.4 

HIGHS02 -4.9 -7.9 -17.1 

OFFIC03 -8.8 -13.1 -31.4 

OFFIC08 -10.4 -12.8 -30.4 

OFFIC16 -7.1 -1.5 -19.1 

RETAIL1 -11.7 -19.4 -31.6 

RSTRNT1 -11.5 -17.8 -41.8 

Average -12.2 -14.2 -28.8 

The LEC design realizes the greatest percentage changes in energy costs, with the 

average reduction by building type ranging from -17.1 % to -41.8 % and an overall 

average of -28.8 %. For all building designs, the average reductions in energy costs are 

greater than the reductions in energy use because the percentage reduction in electricity 

consumption is greater than the reduction in natural gas consumption. Adopting the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, -2007, and LEC designs increase natural gas consumption while 

decreasing electricity consumption for 11, 7, and 7 building types, respectively. 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 

197
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

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. 

21.1.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 21-4 shows significant changes in average energy-related carbon emissions for 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for all building types, ranging from -8.5 % to -23.5 % with an 

average of -16.6 %. The average change in carbon emissions from constructing buildings 

using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements is -17.2 % overall with the average change in 

carbon emissions varying across building types from -2.7 % to -25.3 %. The LEC design 

leads to the greatest average percentage changes in carbon emissions, ranging 

from -23.0 % to -45.3 % depending on the building type with an overall average 

of -34.6 % across all building types. 

Table 21-4 Average Percentage Change in Energy-related Carbon Emissions, 10­

Year, West Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -23.5 -25.3 -38.9 

APART06 -23.4 -24.8 -41.0 

DORMI04 -23.5 -25.1 -38.8 

DORMI06 -22.8 -23.5 -39.1 

HOTEL15 -21.0 -15.8 -32.3 

HIGHS02 -8.5 -10.7 -26.4 

OFFIC03 -10.2 -12.1 -32.4 

OFFIC08 -10.9 -11.8 -30.3 

OFFIC16 -8.9 -2.7 -23.0 

RETAIL1 -14.7 -19.0 -32.9 

RSTRNT1 -14.9 -18.3 -45.3 

Average -16.6 -17.2 -34.6 

As would be expected, a more energy efficient building design results in greater 

reductions in carbon emissions. For the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and LEC designs, the 

percentage reduction in carbon emissions is greater than the percentage reduction in 

energy use because the adopted energy efficiency measures decrease electricity 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. Since electricity 

production in West Virginia generates greater emissions per unit of energy consumed 

than natural gas, the greater relative reduction in electricity consumption leads to greater 

percentage reductions in carbon emissions relative to the reductions in energy use. The 

adoption of the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 design leads to a percentage reduction in carbon 

emissions that is smaller than the reduction in energy use for three building types because 

198
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

the percentage reduction in natural gas consumption is greater than the reduction in 

electricity consumption. 

21.1.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

The most cost-effective building design for each building type is bolded in Table 21-5. 

The ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs realize the lowest 

life-cycle costs for two, four, and five building types, respectively. Both ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 realize lower life-cycle costs than ASHRAE 90.1-2001 

for all 11 building types. The LEC design results in reductions in life-cycle costs for 10 

of 11 building types. The change in life-cycle costs for the LEC design ranges 

from -6.4 % to 0.9 %. Based on the overall average change of -2.2 % in life-cycle costs, 

the LEC design is likely to be cost-effective if the state adopted it as its state energy code 

for commercial buildings. 

Table 21-5 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 -1.4 -1.7 -0.8 

APART06 -1.4 -1.6 -0.8 

DORMI04 -2.2 -2.2 -3.3 

DORMI06 -1.8 -1.9 -1.4 

HOTEL15 -1.9 -1.4 -0.6 

HIGHS02 -0.6 -1.0 -1.3 

OFFIC03 -1.6 -2.1 -4.3 

OFFIC08 -2.3 -2.8 -4.8 

OFFIC16 -0.7 -0.2 0.9 

RETAIL1 -1.9 -2.6 -1.8 

RSTRNT1 -1.9 -3.5 -6.4 

Average -1.6 -1.9 -2.2 

21.1.5 City Comparisons 

Simulations are run for three cities located in West Virginia: Charleston and Huntington 

in Climate Zone 4A and Elkins in Climate Zone 5A. The results vary across cities within 

the state for three 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, 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. 

As can be seen in Table 21-6, the average percentage reduction in energy use for all 

building types from adopting newer energy standard editions is greater for the cities 

located in Zone 4 than in Zone 5. For the LEC design, cities in Zone 4 realize an average 

199
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

change in energy use of -27.1 % compared to -22.8 % for Zone 5. There is minimal 

variation between cities within Zone 4. 

Table 21-6 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use from Adoption of Newer 

Standard Editions by City, West Virginia 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Charleston 4A -11.5 -13.9 -27.5 

Huntington 4A -10.1 -12.8 -26.7 

Elkins 5A -8.0 -11.2 -22.8 

Average -9.9 -12.6 -25.7 

The variations in energy cost changes across cities are a result of two factors, the size of 

the reductions in energy use and the fuel source of the reduction. Table 21-7 shows that 

average reduction in energy costs for all building types is greater for cities located in 

Zone 4 than for the city in Zone 5. The reductions in energy costs are greater than the 

reductions in energy use because the energy efficiency measures decrease electricity 

consumption by a greater percentage than natural gas consumption. Similar to energy use, 

there is minimal variation between cities within Zone 4. 

Table 21-7 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs by City, 10-Year, West 

Virginia 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Charleston 4A -13.5 -15.2 -30.3 

Huntington 4A -12.4 -14.3 -29.6 

Elkins 5A -10.7 -13.1 -26.5 

Average -12.2 -14.2 -28.8 

Table 21-8 reports changes in energy-related carbon emissions by city for the state. For 

all cities, the more energy efficient building designs result in greater reductions in carbon 

emissions. As with energy use, the cities in Zone 4 realize slightly lower average 

emission reductions than the cities in Zone 5 for all building designs. The LEC design 

realizes the greatest percentage reductions in carbon emissions, with the average 

percentage reduction ranging from -33.9 % to -35.4 % depending on the location. 

200
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

Table 21-8 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by City, 10-Year, 

West Virginia 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Charleston 4A -16.5 -17.4 -35.4 

Huntington 4A -15.8 -16.7 -34.6 

Elkins 5A -15.6 -16.8 -33.9 

Average -16.0 -17.0 -34.6 

The data reported in Table 21-9 show that, over a 10-year period, the LEC design results 

in the lowest average life-cycle costs for all cities in both Zone 4 and Zone 5. All building 

designs realize reductions in life-cycle costs for all cities in both climate zones. 

Reductions in life-cycle costs are similar across all cities in the state, with Charleston 

realizing slightly greater percentage reductions for all building designs. 

Table 21-9 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs by City, 10-Year, West 

Virginia 

Cities Zone Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

Charleston 4A -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 

Huntington 4A -1.7 -1.8 -2.2 

Elkins 5A -1.4 -1.8 -2.0 

Average -1.6 -1.9 -2.2 

21.2 Total Savings 

How much can West Virginia 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. 

21.2.1 Energy Use 

Table 21-10 reports the average per unit change in annual energy use by building type 

and building design in the state.45 The reduction per m2 (ft2

) is multiplied by the 

estimated annual m2 (ft2

) of new construction of each building type, and Table 21-11 

reports the estimated average annual floor area of new construction and the total annual 

45 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. 

201
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

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.46 

Table 21-10 Average Per Unit Change in Annual Energy Use, West Virginia
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

2007 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

LEC 

kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

APART04 -22.2 -7.0 -27.3 -8.7 -43.5 -13.8 

APART06 -22.1 -7.0 -26.2 -8.3 -44.6 -14.1 

DORMI04 -15.8 -5.0 -20.8 -6.6 -34.5 -10.9 

DORMI06 -23.0 -7.3 -25.4 -8.0 -45.0 -14.3 

HOTEL15 -18.1 -5.7 -10.6 -3.4 -30.1 -9.6 

HIGHS02 -9.5 -3.0 -16.2 -5.1 -36.5 -11.6 

OFFIC03 -7.3 -2.3 -14.7 -4.7 -29.0 -9.2 

OFFIC08 -11.1 -3.5 -15.0 -4.8 -34.0 -10.8 

OFFIC16 -9.0 -2.8 -1.2 -0.4 -24.8 -7.9 

RETAIL1 -13.9 -4.4 -27.1 -8.6 -42.6 -13.5 

RSTRNT1 -17.7 -5.6 -32.3 -10.2 -73.8 -23.4 

The total annual reduction in energy use ranges widely across building designs, but the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC designs all decrease overall energy 

use across the state. Adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004 results in annual reductions of 

3.9 GWh (13.4 GBtu) while adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 6.4 GWh (22.0 GBtu) 

annually. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy code would save energy 

for all building types and 11.8 GWh (40.4 GBtu) of total energy use annually for one 

year’s worth of new construction for these building types. 

46 State-level subcategory data are not available. 

202
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

Table 21-11 Statewide Change in Annual Energy Use for One Year of Construction, 

West Virginia 

Building 

Type 

Subcat. 

Weight. m 2 

(1000s) 

ft2 

(1000s) 

Standard Edition 

2004 

kWh kBtu 

2007 

kWh kBtu 

LEC 

kWh kBtu 

APART04 

APART06 

44.9 % 

55.1 % 

6 

7 

63 

77 

-129 146 -440 959 

-157 233 -536 862 

-159 121 -543 309 

-186 920 -638 224 

-253 198 -864 525 

-317 977 -1 085 710 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 30 318 -534 134 -1 823 765 -313 258 -1 069 597 -890 958 -3 042 113 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 97 1043 -711 898 -2 430 724 -1 426 267 -4 869 889 -2 808 660 -9 589 972 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 

40.4 % 

22.2 % 

14 

16 

9 

156 

168 

92 

-137 066 -468 003 

-173 511 -592 440 

-76 905 -262 587 

-234 320 -800 069 

-234 100 -799 319 

-10 154 -34 670 

-528 712 -1 805 249 

-531 019 -1 813 126 

-213 209 -727 988 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 134 1438 -1 855 765 -6 336 378 -3 615 214 -12 343 897 -5 696 712 -19 451 023 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 8 84 -138 775 -473 836 -252 758 -863 024 -577 427 -1 971 586 

Total 319 3439 -3 914 432 -13 365 555 -6 432 113 -21 961 998 -11 817 871 -40 351 293 

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 66.7 % 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 use savings to be 17.7 GWh (60.5 GBtu) annually. 

These savings imply 177.2 GWh (605.0 GBtu) in energy savings over the 10-year study 

period. In comparison, ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would save 5.9 GWh 

and 9.6 GWh annually, or 58.7 GWh and 96.4 GWh over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

The statewide change in energy use varies across the 9 building types with reported floor 

area data within a building design. Building types that represent a greater amount of new 

floor area realize the largest total 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 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 21-2. 

21.2.2 Energy Costs 

Table 21-12 reports the average per unit change in energy costs by building type and 

building design. Energy costs are calculated using the annual energy use, energy cost 

rates, and energy price escalation rates as defined in Section 3.2. 

203
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a a.

West Virginia 

Table 21-12 Average Per Unit Change in Energy Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia
 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$13.77 -$1.28 -$15.95 -$1.48 -$25.00 -$2.32 

APART06 -$13.70 -$1.27 -$15.45 -$1.44 -$25.94 -$2.41 

DORMI04 -$10.28 -$0.96 -$12.29 -$1.14 -$19.70 -$1.83 

DORMI06 -$14.47 -$1.34 -$15.44 -$1.43 -$26.59 -$2.47 

HOTEL15 -$11.32 -$1.05 -$7.52 -$0.70 -$18.15 -$1.69 

HIGHS02 -$5.37 -$0.50 -$7.99 -$0.74 -$19.19 -$1.78 

OFFIC03 -$4.89 -$0.45 -$7.94 -$0.74 -$17.21 -$1.60 

OFFIC08 -$6.08 -$0.56 -$7.54 -$0.70 -$17.89 -$1.66 

OFFIC16 -$5.27 -$0.49 -$1.09 -$0.10 -$14.19 -$1.32 

RETAIL1 -$8.09 -$0.75 -$13.44 -$1.25 -$21.90 -$2.03 

RSTRNT1 -$10.73 -$1.00 -$16.63 -$1.55 -$39.15 -$3.64 

Table 21-13 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. Overall, reductions in energy costs are greater for the 

more energy efficient building designs: $2.4 million, $3.4 million, and $6.4 million for 

adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and LEC, respectively. All building 

types realize energy cost savings for all three of these building designs. Assuming that 

the buildings considered in this study are generally representative of the entire new 

commercial building stock in the state, the results for ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, and LEC can be extrapolated to estimate total statewide energy cost savings 

of $3.6 million, $5.0 million, and $9.7 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

Table 21-13 Statewide Change in Energy Costs for One Year of Construction, 10­

Year, West Virginia 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 6 63 -$80 167 -$92 816 -$145 535 

APART06 55.1 % 7 77 -$97 712 -$110 144 -$184 947 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 30 318 -$334 770 -$222 395 -$536 802 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 97 1043 -$474 223 -$769 782 -$1 667 488 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 14 156 -$77 718 -$115 669 -$277 776 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 16 168 -$94 913 -$117 729 -$279 147 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 9 92 -$45 286 -$9 393 -$121 882 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 134 1438 -$1 081 113 -$1 796 377 -$2 925 965 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 8 84 -$83 967 -$130 122 -$306 235 

Total 319 3439 -$2 369 868 -$3 364 429 -$6 445 777 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction 

d t 

204 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

21.2.3 Energy-related Carbon Emissions 

Table 21-14 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 21-14 Average Per Unit Change in Carbon Emissions, 10-Year, West 

Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

2007 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

LEC 

kg/m2 lb/ft2 

APART04 -271.4 -55.6 -291.9 -59.8 -449.0 -92.0 

APART06 -270.4 -55.4 -286.4 -58.7 -473.1 -96.9 

DORMI04 -213.0 -43.6 -227.9 -46.7 -351.5 -72.0 

DORMI06 -289.0 -59.2 -297.8 -61.0 -495.3 -101.4 

HOTEL15 -225.4 -46.2 -168.8 -34.6 -345.6 -70.8 

HIGHS02 -103.7 -21.2 -130.5 -26.7 -322.0 -66.0 

OFFIC03 -94.7 -19.4 -112.5 -23.1 -302.1 -61.9 

OFFIC08 -101.9 -20.9 -110.0 -22.5 -281.8 -57.7 

OFFIC16 -97.7 -20.0 -29.4 -6.0 -253.1 -51.8 

RETAIL1 -147.9 -30.3 -191.7 -39.3 -331.8 -68.0 

RSTRNT1 -205.5 -42.1 -253.0 -51.8 -625.7 -128.2 

Table 21-15 applies the Table 21-14 results to one year’s worth of new building 

construction in the state to estimate statewide reduction in carbon emissions from 

adoption of more energy efficient codes. The total reduction in carbon emissions ranges 

widely across building designs, but the ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and 

LEC designs all decrease carbon emissions. The adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 results 

in savings of 45 392 metric tons while adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 saves 52 578 metric 

tons over a 10-year study period. The adoption of the LEC design as the state’s energy 

code decreases carbon emissions by 107 582 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, and LEC can be extrapolated to estimate statewide reductions in carbon 

emissions of 68 054 metric tons, 78 828 metric tons, and 161 292 metric tons over the 10­

year study period, respectively. 

205
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia 

Table 21-15 Statewide Change in Total Carbon Emissions for One Year of 

Construction, 10-Year, West Virginia – Metric Tons 

Building Subcategory m 2 ft2 Standard Edition 

Type Weighting (1000s) (1000s) 2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 44.9 % 6 63 -1580 -1699 -2614
 

APART06 55.1 % 7 77 -1928 -2042 -3373
 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 30 318 -6667 -4993 -10 224 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 97 1043 -10 051 -12 646 -31 201 

OFFIC03 37.4 % 14 156 -1371 -1629 -4373 

OFFIC08 40.4 % 16 168 -1591 -1717 -4398 

OFFIC16 22.2 % 9 92 -839 -253 -2173 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 134 1438 -19 758 -25 620 -44 331 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 8 84 -1607 -1979 -4895 

Total 319 3439 -45 392 -52 578 -107 582 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in 

the construction data. 

21.2.4 Life-Cycle Costs 

Table 21-16 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. 

Table 21-16 Average Per Unit Change in Life-Cycle Costs, 10-Year, West Virginia 

Building Standard Edition 

Type 2004 

$/m2 $/ft2 

2007 

$/m2 $/ft2 

LEC 

$/m2 $/ft2 

APART04 -$14.11 -$1.31 -$17.13 -$1.59 -$8.06 -$0.75 

APART06 -$14.10 -$1.31 -$16.46 -$1.53 -$8.21 -$0.76 

DORMI04 -$21.92 -$2.04 -$21.86 -$2.03 -$32.93 -$3.06 

DORMI06 -$18.78 -$1.75 -$19.97 -$1.86 -$14.57 -$1.35 

HOTEL15 -$18.49 -$1.72 -$14.38 -$1.34 -$6.12 -$0.57 

HIGHS02 -$4.93 -$0.46 -$8.33 -$0.77 -$10.76 -$1.00 

OFFIC03 -$13.22 -$1.23 -$17.26 -$1.60 -$35.68 -$3.31 

OFFIC08 -$20.14 -$1.87 -$24.73 -$2.30 -$42.06 -$3.91 

OFFIC16 -$5.53 -$0.51 -$1.74 -$0.16 $6.85 $0.64 

RETAIL1 -$13.07 -$1.21 -$17.97 -$1.67 -$12.05 -$1.12 

RSTRNT1 -$27.63 -$2.57 -$49.85 -$4.63 -$91.44 -$8.49 

Table 21-17 applies the Table 21-16 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 codes. Total reductions in life-cycle costs over the 10-year study 

period vary across building designs. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 result 

206
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

data.

West Virginia 

in a decrease in life-cycle costs for all 9 building types while the LEC design decreases 

life-cycle costs for 8 of 9 building types. The 16-story office building realizes an increase 

in life-cycle costs for the LEC design and the smallest total reductions for the other two 

designs. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 results in greater total reductions in life-cycle costs than the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and LEC designs for the building types considered in this study 

($4.9 million versus $3.7 million and $4.8 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2004, ASHRAE 

90.1-2007, and LEC designs can be extrapolated to estimate statewide changes in lifecycle costs of $5.6 million, $7.3 million, and $7.2 million over the 10-year study period, 

respectively. 

Table 21-17 Statewide Change in Life-Cycle Costs for One Year of Construction, 

10-Year, West Virginia 

Building 

Type 

Subcategory 

Weighting 

m 2 

(1000s) 

ft2 

(1000s) 

Standard Edition 

2004 2007 LEC 

APART04 

APART06 

44.9 % 6 63 -$82 161 -$99 684 -$46 945 

55.1 % 7 77 -$100 525 -$117 334 -$58 561 

HOTEL15 100.0 % 30 318 -$546 827 -$425 343 -$181 162 

HIGHS02 100.0 % 97 1043 -$478 187 -$807 446 -$1 042 613 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

37.4 % 14 156 -$191 378 -$249 808 -$516 341 

40.4 % 16 168 -$314 316 -$385 951 -$656 457 

22.2 % 9 92 -$47 471 -$14 944 $58 832 

RETAIL1 100.0 % 134 1438 -$1 746 322 -$2 401 432 -$1 610 309 

RSTRNT1 100.0 % 8 84 -$216 100 -$389 915 -$715 267 

Total 319 3439 -$3 723 287 -$4 891 859 -$4 768 825 

Note: Dormitories are excluded because no such floor area category is reported in the construction 

21.3 State Summary 

West Virginia is one of the two states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. On average, 

adopting a newer edition of ASHRAE 90.1 leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, 

and cradle-to-grave 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 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the state’s energy code for 

commercial buildings would lead to energy use savings of 96.4 GWh (329.3 GBtu), 

energy cost savings of $5.0 million, 78 828 metric tons of carbon emissions reductions, 

and life-cycle costs savings of $7.2 million for one year’s worth of commercial building 

construction. Adopting the LEC design would lead to even greater impactswith savings 

of 177.2 GWh (605.0 GBtu), $9.7 million in energy costs, and 161 292 metric tons of 

207
 
 

 

 

West Virginia 

carbon emissions. However, it leads to slightly lower life-cycle cost savings of 

$7.2 million. 

208
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

22 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 South 

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 life-cycle 

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 three states with no state energy code and the two states that 

have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 would realize greater benefits from adopting the LEC 

design relative to the other eleven states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

the more energy efficient ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

22.1 Total Savings Comparison 

By comparing the aggregate results from the detailed state-by-state analysis, some 

interesting trends emerge. Table 22-1 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 South 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 energy 

source fuel mix. 

209
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-1 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) 

AL 1999 2254 (24 266) 1050.6 84.9 908.8 37.0 

AR 2001 1186 (12 762) 426.1 28.6 372.7 20.4 

DE 2007 344 (3700) 60.1 6.5 45.1 4.5 

FL 2007 16 542 (178 061) 3790.5 333.0 3230.2 151.3 

GA 2007 7240 (77 934) 1348.0 102.5 1250.2 28.5 

KY 2007 1956 (21 050) 378.0 24.6 341.2 9.8 

LA 2007 1700 (18 294) 324.6 20.8 269.7 3.2 

MD 2007 3385 (36 433) 622.2 62.4 448.9 28.8 

MS 1999 1251 (13 465) 689.6 46.3 465.2 14.8 

NC 2007 4437 (47 758) 827.9 56.2 585.0 20.3 

OK 1999 1590 (17 115) 598.1 35.4 678.9 0.7 

SC 2004 2718 (29 257) 594.5 43.8 412.4 12.2 

TN 2004 3272 (35 219) 807.8 58.7 626.8 28.1 

TX 2007 14 446 (155 495) 2831.6 234.5 2630.4 106.8 

VA 2007 4499 (48 426) 871.3 60.5 695.0 14.0 

WV 2001 479 (5159) 177.2 9.7 161.3 7.1 

Total 67 299 (724 394) 16 426.9 1208.4 12 890.0 487.5 

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, Maryland and Tennessee. Tennessee realizes a greater amount of total reductions in 

energy use (807.8 GWh) than Maryland (622.2 GWh). Even though Maryland has 

slightly more new floor area of construction than Tennessee, Tennessee realizes greater 

total reductions because Tennessee has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 while Maryland has 

adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007. 

Table 22-2 shows the 10-year reduction in energy use per unit of newly constructed floor 

area by state. The reduction in energy use per unit of floor area is driven by the state’s 

adopted energy code for commercial buildings. The greatest reduction from adoption of 

the LEC design is realized by the three states that have no state energy code, ranging 

from 376 kWh/m2 (119 kBtu/ft2

) to 551 kWh/m2 (175 kBtu/ft2), followed by the states 

210
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 and realizes reductions of 359 kWh/m2 

(114 kBtu/ft2) to 370 kWh/m2 (117 kBtu/ft2). The states that have adopted ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 and -2007 realize reductions ranging from 175 kWh/m2 (56 kBtu/ft2) to 

247 kWh/m2 (78 kBtu/ft2

). 

Table 22-2 Energy Use Reduction per Unit of Floor Area for Adoption of the LEC 

Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code U.S. Floor 

Area Ranking 

Average Annual 

New Floor Area 

1000 m2 (1000 ft2

) 

Energy Use Reduction 

GWh kWh/m2 kBtu/ft2 

MS 

AL 

OK 

1999 

1999 

1999 

33 

25 

30 

1251 (13465) 

2254 (24266) 

1590 (17115) 

689.6 551 175 

1050.6 466 148 

598.1 376 119 

WV 

AR 

2001 

2001 

42 

34 

479 (5159) 

1186 (12762) 

177.2 370 117 

426.1 359 114 

TN 2004 18 3272 (35219) 807.8 247 78 

FL 2007 1 16542 (178061) 3790.5 229 73 

SC 2004 20 2718 (29257) 594.5 219 69 

KY 2007 26 1956 (21050) 378 193 61 

LA 2007 29 1700 (18294) 324.6 191 61 

TX 2007 3 14446 (155495) 2831.6 196 62 

VA 2007 10 4499 (48426) 871.3 194 62 

GA 2007 4 7240 (77934) 1348 186 59 

MD 2007 16 3385 (36433) 622.2 184 58 

NC 2007 11 4437 (47758) 827.9 187 59 

DE 2007 43 344 (3700) 60.1 175 56 

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 22-3 shows each state’s reduction in energy 

costs per unit of reduction in energy use, natural gas rate, electricity rate, and the fraction 

of reductions in energy use coming from electricity.47 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 to $0.05/kWh) and are always cheaper per unit of energy. 

There is some fluctuation in the results due to the fuel source of the reductions in energy 

use. For example, Georgia has a lower electricity rate than Tennessee and Mississippi. 

However, Georgia realizes a greater average energy cost savings per unit of energy use 

47 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. 

211
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

savings.

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

savings ($0.08) than Tennessee or Mississippi ($0.07 each) because Georgia realizes a 

shift in fuel consumption from electricity to natural gas, leading to additional savings. 

Meanwhile, Tennessee and Mississippi realize a reduction in both electricity and natural 

gas consumption, which lowers the average reduction in energy costs. 

Table 22-3 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) 

DE 2007 17.4 12.0 4.6 0.11 

MD 2007 13.3 12.0 3.2 0.10 

FL 2007 4.0 10.8 3.2 0.09 

AL 1999 1.8 10.1 4.4 0.08 

TX 2007 9.2 9.7 2.4 0.08 

GA 2007 10.4 8.9 3.4 0.08 

TN 2004 -9.4 9.6 3.1 0.07 

MS 1999 -20.7 9.5 2.8 0.07 

SC 2004 9.1 8.7 3.3 0.07 

VA 2007 12.4 8.1 3.0 0.07 

NC 2007 11.3 8.0 3.4 0.07 

KY 2007 11.1 7.6 3.2 0.07 

AR 2001 17.2 7.6 3.1 0.07 

LA 2007 7.7 7.7 3.1 0.06 

OK 1999 17.2 6.8 3.1 0.06 

WV 2001 3.9 6.8 4.2 0.05 

Note: The fraction of reductions in energy use is usually greater than 

100 % because natural gas use increases, reducing total energy use 

Table 22-4 shows the weighted average fraction of electricity consumption offset by a 

change in natural gas consumption, the average CO2 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 for the sixteen states in this study. There is a direct correlation 

between the CO2 emissions rate for electricity generation in a state and the reduction in 

carbon emissions per unit of reduction in energy use. However, the correlation is not 

perfect. For example, Kentucky realizes greater reductions in carbon emissions per unit 

of energy than Tennessee even though its electricity emissions rate is the same. Kentucky 

realizes a shift in fuel consumption from electricity to natural gas, leading to savings in 

addition to those from the reduction in total energy use alone. Meanwhile, Tennessee 

realizes a reduction in both electricity and natural gas consumption, which lowers the 

average reduction in carbon emissions. 

212
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-4 Carbon Reduction per GWh of Energy Use Reduction for Adoption of 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code Offset 

(%) 

CO2 

Emissions Rate 

for Electricity 

(t/GWh) 

CO2e 

Emissions Rate 

for Natural Gas 

(t/GWh) 

CO2e 

Reduction 

(t/GWh) 

OK 1999 17.2 970 241 1135 

TX 2007 9.2 858 241 929 

GA 2007 10.4 847 241 927 

WV 2001 3.9 875 241 910 

KY 2007 11.1 819 241 903 

AR 2001 17.2 756 241 875 

AL 1999 1.8 847 241 865 

FL 2007 4.0 826 241 852 

LA 2007 7.7 780 241 831 

VA 2007 12.4 723 241 798 

TN 2004 -9.4 819 241 776 

DE 2007 17.4 652 241 750 

MD 2007 13.3 652 241 721 

NC 2007 11.3 647 241 707 

SC 2004 9.1 647 241 694 

MS 1999 -20.7 759 241 675 

The relative change in life-cycle costs per unit of new floor area is shown in Table 22-5. 

There is no correlation between the energy cost savings (Table 22-3) and the life-cycle 

cost-effectiveness of adopting the LEC design because in order to obtain energy cost 

savings, additional construction costs are usually required. All Southern states realize an 

average decrease in life-cycle costs from adoption of the LEC design, with savings 

ranging from $0.44/m2 ($0.04/ft2

) to $17.20/m2 ($1.60/ft2). There is no correlation 

between the state energy code and the total statewide reduction in life-cycle costs per unit 

of floor area. 

213
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-5 Life-Cycle Cost Reductions per Unit of New Floor Area for Adoption of 

the LEC Design by State, 10-Year 

State Code Floor 

Area 

Ranking 

Energy 

Savings 

(kWh/m2

) 

LCC Reduction 

$million $/m2 $/ft2 

AR 2001 34 359 20.4 17.20 1.60 

AL 1999 25 466 37.0 16.42 1.52 

WV 2001 42 370 7.1 14.82 1.38 

DE 2007 43 175 4.5 13.08 1.22 

MS 1999 33 551 14.8 11.83 1.10 

FL 2007 1 229 151.3 9.15 0.85 

TN 2004 18 247 28.1 8.59 0.80 

MD 2007 16 184 28.8 8.51 0.79 

TX 2007 3 196 106.8 7.39 0.69 

KY 2007 26 193 9.8 5.01 0.47 

NC 2007 11 187 20.3 4.58 0.43 

SC 2004 20 219 12.2 4.49 0.42 

GA 2007 4 186 28.5 3.94 0.37 

VA 2007 10 194 14.0 3.11 0.29 

LA 2007 29 191 3.2 1.88 0.17 

OK 1999 30 376 0.7 0.44 0.04 

22.2 Percentage Change Comparison 

State comparisons are made based on the simple average changes for the cities analyzed 

in each state by building type.48 One building type is chosen to illustrate the detailed 

analysis possible with the powerful BIRDS database compiled for this study. Energy use, 

energy costs, energy-related 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 Appendix B. 

22.2.1 3-Story Office Building 

Table 22-6 summaries the percentage changes in energy use, energy costs, carbon 

emissions, and life-cycle costs from region-wide adoption of the LEC design for the 

3-story office building for a 10-year study period. 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 24 % each while reducing life-cycle costs by 

1.9 %. 

48 City-level data is not available to weight by amount of building construction in each city. 

214
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-6 Average Percentage Change by State from Region-wide Adoption of the 

LEC design, 3-Story Office Building, 10-Year 

Percentage Change 

State Energy Energy Carbon LCC 

Use Cost Emissions 

AL -36.3 -36.6 -36.8 -0.7 

AR -30.4 -33.0 -33.9 -3.8 

DE -20.0 -22.7 -23.2 -3.4 

FL -24.0 -24.3 -24.3 -2.3 

GA -21.6 -22.9 -23.3 -1.2 

KY -19.8 -22.4 -23.5 -2.4 

LA -21.9 -22.7 -23.0 -0.3 

MD -20.0 -23.4 -23.1 -3.0 

MS -41.9 -39.1 -39.0 0.4 

NC -21.9 -23.3 -23.7 -2.1 

OK -30.8 -33.7 -35.7 2.0 

SC -23.8 -24.9 -25.0 -2.0 

TN -25.3 -25.8 -25.9 -2.6 

TX -21.7 -23.1 -23.1 -1.9 

VA -22.1 -24.1 -24.5 -2.2 

WV -30.4 -31.4 -32.4 -4.3 

Avg. -24.5 -25.6 -25.9 -1.9 

These detailed results can be readily analyzed in mappings of the South Census Region. 

Figure 22-1, Figure 22-2, Figure 22-3, and Figure 22-4, display the average percentage 

energy use savings, energy cost savings, carbon emissions reduction, and life-cycle cost 

savings by state, respectively. The states that have no state energy code or have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 are shown with cross hatching and a bolded state border. Figure 22-1 

shows that the states that have not yet adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 realize the greatest 

reductions in energy use. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia 

realize energy use savings greater than 30 % by adopting the LEC design over their 

current code. Tennessee, which has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004, realizes reductions of 

25 % to 30 %. None of the nine Southern states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 or 

the other state that has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 (South Carolina) realizes energy use 

savings of greater than 25 %. 

215
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Figure 22-1 Average Energy Use Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 10-Year 

Figure 22-2 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 %. All three states that 

have no state energy code and both states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 realize 

energy cost savings of greater than 30 %. None of the nine states that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 have energy cost savings greater than 25 %. 

Figure 22-2 Average Energy Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 

10-Year 

Figure 22-3 shows the average reductions in energy-related carbon emissions by state 

from adopting the LEC design. Similar to energy cost savings, the five states that have no 

state energy code or have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 realize reductions in carbon 

emissions of greater than 30 %. The nine states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 

realize reductions between 20 % and 25 %. 

216
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Figure 22-3 Average Energy-related Carbon Emissions Reduction by State, 3-Story 

Office Building, 10-Year 

Figure 22-4 shows the average life-cycle cost savings over 10 years by state from 

adopting the LEC design. Two of the three states that have not adopted a state energy 

code realize increases in life-cycle costs while the third (Alabama) realizes a small 

reduction in life-cycle costs (0.7 %). Of the states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 

and -2007, three states realize reductions in life-cycle costs of less than 2 % while the 

other eight states realize reductions in life-cycle costs between 2 % and 4 %. The states 

that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001 realize the greatest reductions life-cycle costs. 

Figure 22-4 Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings by State, 3-Story Office Building, 

10-Year 

For a 3-story office building, as expected, the states that have no state energy code or 

have adopted an older edition of ASHRAE 90.1 have the most to gain in percentage terms 

in energy use, energy cost, and carbon emissions savings from adopting the LEC design. 

217
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

However, the benefits realized by states with no state energy code are either life-cycle 

cost-ineffective or marginally cost-effective. The other thirteen states would also realize 

significant benefits from the adoption of the LEC design for 3-story office buildings, and 

do so in a cost-effective manner. 

22.2.2 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. 

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 71 cities in the study ranges from 

14.7 % to 32.3 %, depending on the building type, with an overall regional average of 

20.1 %. Table 22-7 shows these results. 

Table 22-7 South Region Average Percentage Change in Energy Use by Building 

Type 

Building 

Type 

Percentage 

Change 

APART04 

APART06 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

HOTEL15 

HIGHS02 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

RETAIL1 

RSTRNT1 

Average 

-17.7 

-18.8 

-18.6 

-19.1 

-16.2 

-14.7 

-24.5 

-22.3 

-17.1 

-19.7 

-32.3 

-20.1 

As shown in Table 22-8, 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 ranges from 23.4 % for a 1-year study period to 

23.0 % for a 40-year study period. The minor variation within a building type is a result 

of some negative differential escalation rates used to adjust future energy prices, causing 

the percentage change in energy costs to decrease in magnitude as the study period 

218
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

lengthens. The regional average reduction ranges from 19.2 % to 35.4 %, depending on 

the building type, over all study periods. 

Table 22-8 South 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 -21.8 -21.6 -21.6 -21.5 -21.5 -21.4 -21.4 -21.3 -21.3 

APART06 -23.7 -23.5 -23.5 -23.4 -23.3 -23.3 -23.2 -23.2 -23.1 

DORMI04 -22.3 -22.1 -22.1 -22.0 -22.0 -21.9 -21.9 -21.8 -21.8 

DORMI06 -24.1 -23.9 -23.8 -23.8 -23.7 -23.7 -23.6 -23.6 -23.5 

HOTEL15 -20.9 -20.7 -20.7 -20.6 -20.5 -20.5 -20.4 -20.4 -20.4 

HIGHS02 -20.8 -20.6 -20.5 -20.4 -20.3 -20.3 -20.2 -20.1 -20.1 

OFFIC03 -25.7 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 

OFFIC08 -22.9 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 -22.8 

OFFIC16 -19.5 -19.4 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.2 -19.2 -19.2 

RETAIL1 -20.7 -20.7 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 

RSTRNT1 -35.4 -35.3 -35.3 -35.2 -35.2 -35.2 -35.1 -35.1 -35.1 

Average -23.4 -23.3 -23.3 -23.2 -23.2 -23.1 -23.1 -23.1 -23.0 

Since the regional average reduction in energy use is constant over all study periods, the 

average energy-related carbon emissions reductions are also constant at 24.2 %. The 

regional average reduction in carbon emissions ranges from 20.0 % to 36.0 % depending 

on the building type, as shown in Table 22-9. 

Table 22-9 South Region Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions by 

Building Type 

Building Percentage 

Type Change 

APART04 -22.9 

APART06 -24.9 

DORMI04 -23.2 

DORMI06 -25.3 

HOTEL15 -22.1 

HIGHS02 -22.2 

OFFIC03 -25.9 

OFFIC08 -23.0 

OFFIC16 -20.0 

RETAIL1 -20.9 

RSTRNT1 -36.0 

Average -24.2 

Table 22-10 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. 

219
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-10 South 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 0.6 0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.3 -1.2 

APART06 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 -1.3 -1.5 -1.4 

DORMI04 -5.2 -1.7 -1.4 -1.8 -1.7 -1.9 -2.0 -2.1 -2.0 

DORMI06 0.3 -0.6 -0.9 -1.4 -1.5 -1.7 -1.9 -2.1 -2.0 

HOTEL15 1.5 0.3 -0.1 -0.8 -1.0 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 -1.7 

HIGHS02 -1.0 -1.4 -1.6 -2.1 -2.1 -2.4 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 

OFFIC03 -7.1 -2.2 -1.9 -2.2 -2.0 -2.3 -2.5 -2.6 -2.5 

OFFIC08 -4.1 -2.4 -2.3 -2.7 -2.6 -2.9 -3.1 -3.2 -3.1 

OFFIC16 2.2 0.8 0.2 -0.6 -0.7 -1.0 -1.3 -1.5 -1.5 

RETAIL1 -5.6 -0.1 -0.1 -0.7 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.1 

RSTRNT1 -13.3 -6.8 -5.6 -6.5 -6.6 -7.1 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 

Average -2.9 -1.3 -1.3 -1.9 -1.9 -2.1 -2.4 -2.5 -2.4 

Figure 22-5 shows that four building types – the 4-story apartment building, 6-story 

dormitory, hotel, and 16-story office building -- are not cost-effective for a 1-year study 

period, with an average increase in life-cycle costs ranging from 0.3 % to 2.2 %. By a 

10-year study period, three of the four building types become cost-effective and by a 

15-year study period, all four are 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 

-14.0 

-16.0 

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Study Period 

APART04 

APART06 

DORMI04 

DORMI06 

HOTEL15 

HIGHS02 

OFFIC03 

OFFIC08 

OFFIC16 

RETAIL1 

RSTRNT1 

Figure 22-5 Average Change in Life-Cycle Costs by Building Type and Study
 

Period Length
 

220 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

22.2.3 Region-wide Results by Building Type 

For a 10-year study period length, Table 22-11 shows the simple average changes across 

all 71 cities in the South Census Region, in percentage terms, from adopting the LEC 

design. The building types that realize the smallest percentage reductions in energy use, 

energy costs, and energy-related carbon emissions are the high school, hotel, and 16-story 

office building while the greatest reductions are realized by the restaurant, 3-story office 

building, and 8-story office building. The percentage changes in energy costs and carbon 

emissions are greater than the percentage changes in energy use. Ten of 11 building types 

realize reductions in life-cycle costs. The restaurant, 8-story office building, and 3-story 

office building realize the greatest percentage reduction in life-cycle costs. The 16-story 

office building realizes the only increase in life-cycle costs. 

Table 22-11 South Region Percentage Change for LEC by Building Type, 10-Year 

Building Percentage Change 

Type Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

APART04 -17.7 -21.6 -22.9 -0.3 

APART06 -18.8 -23.5 -24.9 -0.4 

DORMI04 -18.6 -22.1 -23.2 -1.4 

DORMI06 -19.1 -23.8 -25.3 -0.9 

HOTEL15 -16.2 -20.7 -22.1 -0.1 

HIGHS02 -14.7 -20.5 -22.2 -1.6 

OFFIC03 -24.5 -25.6 -25.9 -1.9 

OFFIC08 -22.3 -22.8 -23.0 -2.3 

OFFIC16 -17.1 -19.3 -20.0 0.2 

RETAIL1 -19.7 -20.6 -20.9 -0.1 

RSTRNT1 -32.3 -35.3 -36.0 -5.6 

Average -20.1 -23.3 -24.2 -1.3 

22.2.4 Region-wide Results by Climate Zone 

Table 22-12 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. 

221
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-12 Average Percentage Change for LEC by Climate Zone
 

Climate Zone Energy Energy Carbon LCC 

Use Cost Emissions 

1 -21.2 -21.3 -22.0 -2.0 

2 -19.2 -21.4 -21.9 -1.2 

3 -21.8 -25.6 -26.9 -1.3 

4 -18.1 -21.7 -23.3 -1.3 

5 -22.8 -26.5 -33.9 -2.0 

Average -20.1 -23.3 -24.5 -1.3 

Table 22-13 shows the average percentage reduction in energy use from adopting the 

LEC design for all cities located in a climate zone while controlling for state energy 

codes. The region-wide average reduction in energy use is 20.1 % with Zone 5 realizing 

the greatest reduction (22.8 %) and Zone 4 the smallest (18.1 %). 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 (daylighting and overhangs) 

considered in the LEC design for cities located in Zone 1 through Zone 5. 

Table 22-13 Average Percentage Change in Energy Use for LEC by Climate Zone 

and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2001 2004 2007 All 

1 -21.2 -21.2 

2 -37.4 -18.2 -19.2 

3 -32.8 -27.4 -18.5 -17.5 -21.8 

4 -27.1 -19.0 -16.4 -18.1 

5 -22.8 -22.8 

Grand Total -33.4 -26.5 -18.8 -17.6 -20.1 

Table 22-14 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 23.3 % with Zone 5 realizing the greatest average reduction 

in energy costs and Zone 1 realizing the smallest reduction (21.3 %). Similar to energy 

use, after controlling for state energy codes, cities located in warmer climates tend to 

realize greater reductions in energy costs. 

222
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-14 Average Percentage Change in Energy Costs for LEC by Climate Zone 

and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2001 2004 2007 All 

1 -21.3 -21.3 

2 -39.1 -20.4 -21.4 

3 -36.8 -33.7 -22.3 -20.8 -25.6 

4 -29.9 -21.9 -20.4 -21.7 

5 -26.5 -26.5 

Grand Total -37.1 -31.2 -22.1 -20.5 -23.3 

Table 22-15 shows the average percentage reduction in energy-related carbon emissions 

for all cities located in a climate zone while controlling for state energy codes. Similar to 

energy use and energy costs, after controlling for state energy codes, cities located in 

warmer climates tend to realize greater reductions in the carbon emissions. However, 

there is some additional variation that is driven by a state’s average emissions rate. 

Table 22-15 Average Percentage Change in Carbon Emissions for LEC by Climate 

Zone and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2001 2004 2007 All 

1 -22.0 -22.0 

2 -39.9 -21.0 -21.9 

3 -38.8 -36.2 -23.3 -21.6 -26.9 

4 -35.0 -23.0 -21.6 -23.3 

5 -33.9 -33.9 

Grand Total -39.0 -35.4 -23.1 -21.4 -24.5 

Table 22-16 shows the average percentage change in life-cycle costs for all cities located 

in a climate zone while controlling for state energy codes. Given the same state energy 

code, cities in warmer climates tend to realize greater percentage reductions in life-cycle 

costs. The only exception is states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004. 

223
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comparisons for the Adoption of the Low Energy Case Design 

Table 22-16 Average Percentage Change in Life-Cycle Costs for LEC by Climate 

Zone and State Energy Code 

Climate Percentage Change 

Zone/Subzone 1999 2001 2004 2007 All 

1 -2.0 -2.0 

2 -2.2 -1.1 -1.2 

3 -1.5 -3.4 -1.0 -1.0 -1.3 

4 -2.3 -1.5 -1.0 -1.3 

5 -2.0 -2.0 

Grand Total -1.6 -2.8 -1.2 -1.1 -1.3 

224
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

23 Discussion 

This study analyzes the impacts of adopting new, more stringent state energy codes for 

71 cities located across the South Census Region. Results are summarized at the regional 

level as well as the state level for all sixteen Southern states. This section will discuss the 

key findings, limitations of the research, and recommended directions for future research. 

23.1 Key Findings 

Three states in the South Census Region have not yet adopted a state energy code for 

commercial buildings: Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. For these states, adoption of 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 leads to reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related 

carbon emissions, but not in a life-cycle cost-effective manner. The additional costs from 

implementing the energy efficiency measures overwhelm the future energy cost savings. 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and -2007 lead to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, and 

carbon emissions than ASHRAE 90.1-2001, and are life-cycle cost-effective to adopt in 

two of the three states, with only Oklahoma realizing an increase in life-cycle costs. 

Arkansas and West Virginia are the states in the South Census Region that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Both states 

would realize reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions while realizing reductions in life-cycle costs from adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2007 would lead to greater reductions in energy use, energy costs, carbon emissions, 

and life-cycle costs than adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2004. 

Tennessee and South Carolina are the states in the South Census Region that have 

adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 as their state energy code for commercial buildings. Both 

states would realize reductions in energy use, energy costs, and energy-related carbon 

emissions while realizing reductions in life-cycle costs from adopting ASHRAE 

90.1-2007. 

The adoption of the LEC design is analyzed for all sixteen 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 South 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 (20.1 %), energy costs (23.3 %), and 

carbon emissions (24.2 %), on average, while reducing life-cycle costs (1.3 %), on 

225
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

average, for a 10-year study period. Although the LEC design leads to reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions for all states, the magnitude of the 

reductions varies according to each state’s adopted energy code. The three states with no 

energy code realize the greatest percentage savings in energy use, energy costs, and 

carbon emissions. However, two of the three states realize percentage increases in lifecycle costs and the third state realizes a minimal percentage decrease. Meanwhile, the 

states that have already adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2001, -2004, or -2007 realize percentage 

reductions in life-cycle costs. 

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

period length increases from 5 years to 15 years, the number of building types that are 

cost-effective increases from eight to all eleven. The study period length is an important 

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

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 tend to realize greater average percentage reductions in these 

measures. 

Different building types realize different regional average percentage reductions in 

energy use, energy costs, and carbon emissions for a 10-year study period. 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 are 

also realized by restaurants and 3- and 8-story office buildings while the only percentage 

increase is realized by 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 Texas than 

in Delaware because the amount of newly constructed floor area from 2003 to 2007 was 

42 times greater in Texas. 

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

emissions: state energy codes, energy rates, and emissions rates. The greatest 10-year 

reduction in energy use per unit of floor area resulting from adoption of the LEC design 

is realized by the three states that have no state energy code, ranging from 376 kWh/m2 

(119 kBtu/ft2) to 551 kWh/m2 (175 kBtu/ft2), followed by the states that have adopted 

ASHRAE 90.1-2001, where the reduction ranges from 359 kWh/m2 (114 kBtu/ft2) to 

226
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

370 kWh/m2 (117 kBtu/ft2). The states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or -2007 

realize reductions ranging from 175 kWh/m2 (56 kBtu/ft2

) to 247 kWh/m2 (78 kBtu/ft2). 

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 tend to realize greater reductions in emissions per unit of 

energy consumption reduced. The greater the offset of electricity consumption reductions 

with natural gas consumption increases, the greater the reduction in both energy costs and 

carbon emissions per unit of energy consumption reduced. 

23.2 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 16 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 34 states will allow for analysis of nationwide impacts. 

Also, extensive analysis across census regions may show some additional variation in 

results revealing insights not captured in this study. 

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 

227
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

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 

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 South 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 

228
 
 

 

 

Discussion 

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. 

229
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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/. 

230
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

231
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

232
 
References 

233
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building and Energy Characteristics 

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 

234
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building and Energy Characteristics 

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

639 

(6876) 

RestaurantRetailSchoolWarehouseNoPrototype

1740 

(18 729) 

Total 

AL 801 

(8619) 

705 

(7587) 

853 

(9184) 

1504 

(16 191) 

169 

(1821) 

2485 

(26 748) 

1534 

(16 514) 

842 

(9060) 

11 272 

(121 329) 

AR 118 

(1272) 

465 

(5000) 

483 

(5198) 

647 

(6962) 

335 

(3611) 

77 (829) 1359 

(14 624) 

1295 

(13 936) 

335 

(3609) 

815 

(8768) 

5928 

(63 810) 

DE 70 (755) 155 

(1672) 

124 

(1330) 

224 

(2410) 

119 

(1282) 

16 (173) 237 

(2551) 

290 

(3126) 

160 

(1722) 

323 

(3480) 

1719 

(18 501) 

FL 21 397 

(230 315) 

3399 

(36 591) 

2979 

(32 071) 

9031 

(97 212) 

3124 

(33 622) 

678 

(7299) 

11 904 

(128 133) 

7760 

(83 524) 

9692 

(104 327) 

12 748 

(137 213) 

82 712 

(890 306) 

GA 3696 

(39 780) 

1551 

(16 699) 

1510 

(16 254) 

3630 

(39 076) 

1212 

(13 043) 

331 

(3563) 

5893 

(63 430) 

5580 

(60 062) 

7449 

(80 180) 

5350 

(57 586) 

36 202 

(389 672) 

KY 268 

(2888) 

757 

(8150) 

643 

(6922) 

1167 

(12 558) 

760 

(8185) 

138 

(1489) 

1667 

(17 941) 

1270 

(13 672) 

2001 

(21 538) 

1106 

(11 906) 

9778 

(105 248) 

LA 169 

(1823) 

650 

(7001) 

807 

(8689) 

1175 

(12 647) 

593 

(6386) 

135 

(1454) 

1736 

(18 681) 

842 

(9061) 

1011 

(10 886) 

1379 

(14 841) 

8498 

(91 469) 

MD 3341 

(35 967) 

813 

(8750) 

826 

(8888) 

2802 

(30 163) 

580 

(6242) 

109 

(1173) 

1549 

(16 672) 

1527 

(16 432) 

1989 

(21 414) 

3388 

(36 463) 

16 924 

(182 163) 

MS 150 

(1613) 

336 

(3618) 

479 

(5153) 

631 

(6789) 

411 

(4423) 

55 (587) 1166 

(12 551) 

743 

(7999) 

1593 

(17 146) 

692 

(7447) 

6255 

(67 326) 

NC 1607 

(17 294) 

1362 

(14 663) 

1178 

(12 678) 

3368 

(36 249) 

1119 

(12 044) 

230 

(2481) 

4472 

(48 139) 

3418 

(36 794) 

1910 

(20 559) 

3520 

(37 891) 

22 185 

(238 792) 

OK 115 

(1242) 

794 

(8547) 

512 

(5511) 

763 

(8216) 

878 

(9450) 

141 

(1523) 

1364 

(14 686) 

1179 

(12 691) 

932 

(10 032) 

1271 

(13 680) 

7950 

(85 577) 

SC 1981 

(21 321) 

746 

(8033) 

563 

(6056) 

1539 

(16 562) 

539 

(5801) 

168 

(1810) 

2600 

(27 984) 

2222 

(23 920) 

1101 

(11 848) 

2132 

(22 949) 

13 590 

(146 284) 

TN 987 

(10 621) 

1036 

(11 152) 

683 

(7347) 

2296 

(24 718) 

733 

(7891) 

199 

(2145) 

3581 

(38 548) 

1809 

(19 476) 

2698 

(29 045) 

2337 

(25 152) 

16 360 

(176 095) 

TX 5548 

(59 723) 

4508 

(48 519) 

3571 

(38 437) 

8328 

(89 641) 

3325 

(35 794) 

849 

(9142) 

13 121 

(141 238) 

12 693 

(136 629) 

10 609 

(114 193) 

9676 

(104 156) 

72 230 

(777 473) 

VA 3502 

(37 694) 

1011 

(10 887) 

1361 

(14 646) 

3693 

(39 749) 

1096 

(11 794) 

200 

(2149) 

3014 

(32 438) 

2387 

(25 691) 

1826 

(19 659) 

4406 

(47 422) 

22 495 

(242 129) 

WV 65 (697) 215 

(2314) 

148 

(1592) 

193 

(2081) 

117 

(1259) 

39 (421) 668 

(7191) 

484 

(5215) 

179 

(1930) 

288 

(3098) 

2397 

(25 797) 

Total 43 815 

(471 624) 

18 505 

(199 183) 

16 718 

(179 956) 

40 991 

(441 224) 

15 580 

(167 703) 

3536 

(38 059) 

56 815 

(611 555) 

45 034 

(484 742) 

44 329 

(477 148) 

51 169 

(550 781) 

33 6492 

(362 1971) 

235
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building and Energy Characteristics 

Table A-3 

Type 

New Commercial Building Construction Share by State and Building 

Percentage of Building Construction Floor Area 

ApartmentHealthcareHotelOfficePublicAssemblyRestaurantRetailSchoolWarehouseNoPrototypeTotalRep. byStudy 

State 

AL 7.1 % 6.3 % 7.6 % 13.3 % 5.7 % 1.5 % 22.0 % 13.6 % 7.5 % 15.4 % 100.0 % 65.2 % 

AR 2.0 % 7.8 % 8.1 % 10.9 % 5.7 % 1.3 % 22.9 % 21.8 % 5.7 % 13.7 % 100.0 % 67.1 % 

DE 4.1 % 9.0 % 7.2 % 13.0 % 6.9 % 0.9 % 13.8 % 16.9 % 9.3 % 18.8 % 100.0 % 55.9 % 

FL 25.9 % 4.1 % 3.6 % 10.9 % 3.8 % 0.8 % 14.4 % 9.4 % 11.7 % 15.4 % 100.0 % 65.0 % 

GA 10.2 % 4.3 % 4.2 % 10.0 % 3.3 % 0.9 % 16.3 % 15.4 % 20.6 % 14.8 % 100.0 % 57.0 % 

KY 2.7 % 7.7 % 6.6 % 11.9 % 7.8 % 1.4 % 17.0 % 13.0 % 20.5 % 11.3 % 100.0 % 52.7 % 

LA 2.0 % 7.7 % 9.5 % 13.8 % 7.0 % 1.6 % 20.4 % 9.9 % 11.9 % 16.2 % 100.0 % 57.2 % 

MD 19.7 % 4.8 % 4.9 % 16.6 % 3.4 % 0.6 % 9.2 % 9.0 % 11.8 % 20.0 % 100.0 % 60.0 % 

MS 2.4 % 5.4 % 7.7 % 10.1 % 6.6 % 0.9 % 18.6 % 11.9 % 25.5 % 11.1 % 100.0 % 51.5 % 

NC 7.2 % 6.1 % 5.3 % 15.2 % 5.0 % 1.0 % 20.2 % 15.4 % 8.6 % 15.9 % 100.0 % 64.3 % 

OK 1.5 % 10.0 % 6.4 % 9.6 % 11.0 % 1.8 % 17.2 % 14.8 % 11.7 % 16.0 % 100.0 % 51.3 % 

SC 14.6 % 5.5 % 4.1 % 11.3 % 4.0 % 1.2 % 19.1 % 16.4 % 8.1 % 15.7 % 100.0 % 66.8 % 

TN 6.0 % 6.3 % 4.2 % 14.0 % 4.5 % 1.2 % 21.9 % 11.1 % 16.5 % 14.3 % 100.0 % 58.4 % 

TX 7.7 % 6.2 % 4.9 % 11.5 % 4.6 % 1.2 % 18.2 % 17.6 % 14.7 % 13.4 % 100.0 % 61.1 % 

VA 15.6 % 4.5 % 6.0 % 16.4 % 4.9 % 0.9 % 13.4 % 10.6 % 8.1 % 19.6 % 100.0 % 62.9 % 

WV 2.7 % 9.0 % 6.2 % 8.1 % 4.9 % 1.6 % 27.9 % 20.2 % 7.5 % 12.0 % 100.0 % 66.7 % 

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

State CO2 CH4 N2O 

(t/GWh) (t/GWh) (t/GWh) 

AL 804.2 42.7 0.5 

AR 695.9 58.6 1.7 

DE 618.7 33.4 0.4 

FL 767.5 57.2 1.5 

GA 804.2 42.7 0.5 

KY 781.9 36.9 0.2 

LA 719.2 59.2 1.6 

MD 618.7 33.4 0.4 

MS 709.8 48.3 1.0 

NC 616.6 30.5 0.2 

OK 904.8 63.9 1.4 

SC 616.6 30.5 0.2 

TN 781.9 36.9 0.2 

TX 790.9 65.8 1.8 

VA 689.6 33.3 0.2 

WV 835.7 38.9 0.2 

236
 
Building and Energy Characteristics 

237
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

AL -35.2 -40.3 -42.9 -3.4 

AR -29.0 -36.6 -39.4 -1.8 

DE -10.4 -15.0 -16.0 -0.2 

FL -16.6 -17.7 -17.8 -0.3 

GA -14.3 -17.7 -18.8 0.4 

KY -11.5 -15.6 -17.9 0.7 

LA -15.4 -17.6 -18.3 0.5 

MD -10.9 -17.1 -16.4 0.2 

MS -35.7 -42.4 -42.6 -3.3 

NC -13.5 -17.0 -18.1 0.4 

OK -27.2 -35.1 -40.8 -1.3 

SC -18.0 -22.6 -23.2 -0.1 

TN -16.1 -20.5 -21.3 -0.1 

TX -15.0 -18.6 -18.6 0.0 

VA -12.6 -17.0 -18.1 0.5 

WV -25.3 -29.8 -38.9 -0.8 

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 

AL -35.6 -41.2 -44.1 -3.5 

AR -29.8 -37.9 -40.8 -1.9 

DE -11.2 -17.0 -18.2 -0.4 

FL -17.5 -18.9 -19.0 -0.4 

GA -15.5 -19.5 -20.9 0.3 

KY -13.4 -18.6 -21.4 0.5 

LA -16.5 -19.1 -20.0 0.4 

MD -12.1 -19.9 -19.0 0.0 

MS -36.2 -43.3 -43.5 -3.4 

NC -14.8 -19.2 -20.6 0.2 

OK -28.1 -36.5 -42.6 -1.5 

SC -18.9 -24.4 -25.1 -0.2 

TN -17.3 -22.9 -23.9 -0.3 

TX -16.3 -20.6 -20.6 -0.2 

VA -14.4 -20.0 -21.3 0.3 

WV -26.2 -31.2 -41.0 -0.8 

238
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

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

State Percentage Change 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

AL -36.7 -41.7 -44.2 -2.9 

AR -28.8 -37.1 -40.0 -4.9 

DE -12.3 -16.3 -17.2 -0.5 

FL -17.4 -18.4 -18.5 -2.1 

GA -15.1 -18.1 -19.1 -1.2 

KY -12.9 -16.4 -18.3 -1.0 

LA -15.5 -17.8 -18.5 -0.8 

MD -12.5 -17.8 -17.2 -0.2 

MS -39.0 -44.2 -44.4 -1.8 

NC -14.8 -17.7 -18.5 -0.7 

OK -27.6 -36.1 -42.2 0.0 

SC -16.9 -21.7 -22.3 -1.3 

TN -17.3 -20.4 -20.9 -1.1 

TX -15.5 -18.6 -18.7 -0.9 

VA -14.3 -17.9 -18.7 -0.7 

WV -26.7 -31.0 -38.8 -3.3 

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

State Percentage Change 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

AL -37.9 -43.7 -46.7 -4.9 

AR -30.8 -39.1 -42.1 -2.9 

DE -11.3 -16.9 -18.0 -0.8 

FL -18.4 -20.0 -20.1 -0.9 

GA -15.5 -19.7 -21.2 -0.1 

KY -12.9 -17.9 -20.6 0.2 

LA -16.7 -19.6 -20.6 0.0 

MD -12.0 -19.7 -18.8 -0.4 

MS -38.2 -45.6 -45.9 -4.7 

NC -14.7 -19.1 -20.4 -0.1 

OK -29.9 -38.5 -44.8 -2.6 

SC -20.2 -26.0 -26.8 -0.7 

TN -16.1 -21.9 -22.9 -0.5 

TX -16.3 -20.9 -20.9 -0.6 

VA -14.2 -19.6 -20.8 0.0 

WV -24.4 -29.6 -39.1 -1.4 

239
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

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 

AL -30.3 -36.2 -39.2 -3.0 

AR -21.5 -32.1 -36.0 -1.6 

DE -13.1 -17.6 -18.5 -0.6 

FL -16.7 -18.8 -19.0 -0.1 

GA -14.5 -18.5 -19.9 0.4 

KY -13.7 -17.6 -19.8 0.6 

LA -14.5 -18.1 -19.3 0.6 

MD -13.4 -19.4 -18.7 -0.1 

MS -34.4 -37.0 -37.1 -2.8 

NC -14.9 -18.4 -19.4 0.3 

OK -19.7 -29.9 -37.5 -1.2 

SC -8.5 -14.6 -15.4 0.9 

TN -9.6 -13.6 -14.3 0.8 

TX -14.9 -19.6 -19.6 0.0 

VA -14.9 -18.8 -19.8 0.4 

WV -18.9 -23.4 -32.3 -0.6 

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 

AL -23.6 -29.4 -32.7 -3.3 

AR -16.5 -25.0 -28.5 -1.8 

DE -6.4 -13.3 -14.8 -1.8 

FL -21.2 -23.4 -23.7 -1.9 

GA -12.6 -18.2 -20.3 -1.6 

KY -8.0 -14.1 -17.8 -0.9 

LA -15.4 -19.5 -21.0 -0.8 

MD -7.2 -16.9 -15.6 -1.7 

MS -26.7 -33.1 -33.4 -3.4 

NC -10.5 -16.2 -18.1 -1.1 

OK -15.0 -22.8 -29.7 -1.3 

SC -13.8 -19.8 -20.6 -1.3 

TN -12.9 -19.9 -21.3 -1.7 

TX -14.7 -21.0 -21.1 -1.7 

VA -9.2 -16.4 -18.3 -0.6 

WV -13.3 -17.1 -26.4 -1.3 

240
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

AL -31.7 -32.2 -32.4 -0.7 

AR -30.0 -31.4 -31.9 -5.2 

DE -19.7 -21.1 -21.3 -3.2 

FL -20.1 -20.2 -20.2 -2.6 

GA -19.5 -20.2 -20.4 -1.7 

KY -19.5 -20.8 -21.4 -2.4 

LA -19.9 -20.2 -20.3 -1.8 

MD -19.7 -21.4 -21.2 -2.9 

MS -32.4 -32.0 -31.9 1.1 

NC -20.2 -20.9 -21.1 -1.9 

OK -31.2 -32.9 -34.0 0.9 

SC -21.7 -21.9 -22.0 -2.2 

TN -23.4 -22.7 -22.6 -3.0 

TX -19.9 -20.5 -20.5 -2.6 

VA -20.8 -21.7 -21.9 -2.2 

WV -30.1 -30.4 -30.3 -4.8 

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 

AL -23.3 -25.1 -26.0 -1.0 

AR -18.2 -23.8 -25.7 0.0 

DE -16.0 -19.4 -19.9 -1.0 

FL -17.6 -18.5 -18.5 -0.2 

GA -16.5 -18.4 -19.1 0.5 

KY -16.2 -19.3 -20.7 0.7 

LA -16.6 -18.3 -18.8 0.7 

MD -16.0 -20.1 -19.7 -0.3 

MS -27.3 -24.8 -24.7 -0.5 

NC -17.2 -19.1 -19.6 0.4 

OK -17.3 -23.0 -26.9 0.3 

SC -12.1 -15.5 -15.9 1.0 

TN -12.3 -15.0 -15.4 0.8 

TX -16.8 -19.1 -19.1 -0.1 

VA -18.0 -20.6 -21.1 0.4 

WV -16.9 -19.1 -23.0 0.9 

241
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional BIRDS Database Results 

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 

AL -35.1 -35.6 -35.9 -0.9 

AR -29.8 -31.8 -32.5 -1.7 

DE -14.2 -16.7 -17.1 -0.8 

FL -17.9 -18.2 -18.2 -0.7 

GA -15.5 -16.5 -16.8 0.5 

KY -14.9 -17.2 -18.3 0.5 

LA -15.0 -15.5 -15.7 0.7 

MD -14.3 -17.3 -17.0 -0.1 

MS -40.6 -38.8 -38.8 -0.3 

NC -15.8 -17.2 -17.6 0.1 

OK -30.5 -32.6 -34.0 1.9 

SC -20.2 -20.5 -20.5 0.2 

TN -23.1 -22.6 -22.5 -0.4 

TX -15.3 -16.5 -16.5 0.0 

VA -16.1 -18.2 -18.7 0.5 

WV -30.7 -31.6 -32.9 -1.8 

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

Period 

Percentage Change State 

Energy Use Energy Cost Carbon LCC 

AL -43.9 -46.5 -47.7 -3.4 

AR -39.8 -44.8 -46.5 -10.3 

DE -27.7 -32.2 -33.0 -8.5 

FL -30.5 -31.5 -31.6 -5.3 

GA -30.0 -32.7 -33.6 -4.9 

KY -27.9 -32.3 -34.3 -5.4 

LA -29.3 -31.3 -31.9 -6.0 

MD -27.7 -33.5 -32.9 -9.0 

MS -46.0 -47.7 -47.7 -1.9 

NC -30.2 -33.0 -33.8 -4.8 

OK -39.7 -45.1 -48.8 -3.1 

SC -32.0 -34.7 -35.1 -4.2 

TN -32.9 -35.6 -36.1 -7.7 

TX -29.8 -33.2 -33.2 -5.9 

VA -30.3 -34.0 -34.8 -5.4 

WV -39.3 -41.8 -45.3 -6.4 

242