1 2009 AND 2012 IECC AS COMPARED TO THE 2006 IECC

Arizona

Energy 

and Cost 

Savings

for New 

Single– and 

Multifamily 

Homes:

2009 and 2012 IECC 

as Compared to the 

2006 IECC

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
2 2009 AND 2012 IECC AS COMPARED TO THE 2006 IECC

Arizona Energy and Cost Savings 

for New Single– and Multifamily 

Homes: 2009 and 2012 IECC as 

Compared to the 2006 IECC

The 2009 and 2012 International 

Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) 

yield positive benefits for Arizona 

homeowners.

Moving to either the 2009 or 2012 IECC from the 2006 IECC 

is cost-effective over a 30-year life cycle. On average, Arizona 

homeowners will save $3,245 over 30 years under the 2009 

IECC, with savings still higher at $6,550 with the 2012 IECC.

Each year, the reduction to energy bills will significantly exceed 

increased mortgage costs. After accounting for up-front costs and 

additional costs financed in the mortgage, homeowners should 

see net positive cash flows (i.e., cumulative savings exceeding 

cumulative cash outlays) in 1 year for the 2009 and 2 years with 

the 2012 IECC. Average annual energy savings are $231 for 

the 2009 IECC and $486 for the 2012 IECC.

Figure 1. Arizona 

Climate Zones
2009 AND 2012 IECC AS COMPARED TO THE 2006 IECC 3

Highlights

Cost-effectiveness against a 2006 IECC baseline:

• Life-cycle cost savings, averaged across climate 

zones and building types, are $3,245 for the 2009 

IECC and $6,550 for the 2012 IECC

• Simple payback periods are 5.6 years for the 2009 

and 6.4 years for the 2012 IECC

Consumer savings compared to a 2006 IECC baseline:

• Households save an average of $231 per year in 

energy costs with the 2009 IECC

• Household savings rise significantly to an average 

of $486 per year with the 2012 IECC

• Net annual consumer savings, including energy 

savings, mortgage cost increases, and other 

associated costs in the first year of ownership, 

average $154 for the 2009 IECC and $303 for 

the 2012 IECC 

• Energy costs, on average, are 13.5% lower for the 

2009 IECC and 28.3% lower for the 2012 IECC

Cost-Effectiveness

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) evaluates the energy 

codes based on three measures of cost-effectiveness:

• Life-Cycle Cost: Full accounting over a 30-year 

period of the cost savings, considering energy 

savings, the initial investment financed through 

increased mortgage costs, tax impacts, and residual 

values of energy efficiency measures

• Cash Flow: Net annual cost outlay (i.e., difference 

between annual energy cost savings and increased 

annual costs for mortgage payments, etc.)

• Simple Payback: Number of years required for 

energy cost savings to exceed the incremental first 

costs of a new code

Life-cycle cost is the primary measure by which DOE 

assesses the cost-effectiveness of the IECC. These savings 

assume that initial costs are mortgaged, that homeowners 

take advantage of the mortgage interest deductions, and 

that long-lived efficiency measures retain a residual value 

after the 30-year analysis period. As shown in Table 1, 

life-cycle cost savings averaged across climate zones are 

$3,245 for the 2009 IECC and $6,550 for the 2012 IECC.

Life-Cycle Cost 

Savings ($)

Net Positive 

Cash Flow (Years)

Simple Payback 

(Years)

2009 IECC $3,245 1 5.6

2012 IECC $6,550 2 6.4

Table 1. Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings from Compliance with 2009 and 2012 IECC, Relative to the 2006 IECC
4 2009 AND 2012 IECC AS COMPARED TO THE 2006 IECC

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463)

www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter

April 2012 PNNL-21337

For information on Building Energy 

Codes, visit www.energycodes.gov

For more information on how these estimates were developed, visit the DOE Building Energy 

Codes website: www.energycodes.gov/development/residential

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides estimates of energy and cost savings from code adoption:

• National: Energy cost savings 

(only)

• Climate Zone: Energy cost 

savings, life-cycle cost savings, 

and consumer cash flows

• State: Energy cost savings, 

life-cycle cost savings, consumer 

cash flows, and simple paybacks

Consumer Savings

Annual consumer cash flows impact the affordability of 

energy-efficient homes. Based on this analysis, Arizona 

homeowners, on average, should see annual energy cost 

savings of $231 per year and achieve a net cumulative 

savings that accounts for an increased down payment 

in addition to energy costs, mortgage costs, and taxConsumers’ Cash Flow (Average) 2009 IECC 2012 IECC

A Down payment and other up-front 

costs

$140 $332

B Annual energy savings (year one) $231 $486

C Annual mortgage increase $76 $180

D Net annual cost of mortgage interest 

deductions, mortgage insurance, and 

property taxes (year one)

$1 $3

E = [B-(C+D)] Net annual cash flow savings (year one) $154 $303

F = [A/E] Years to positive savings, including 

up-front cost impacts

1 2

related costs and benefits in 1 year when comparing the 

2009 IECC to the 2006 IECC. When moving to the 2012 

IECC from the 2006 IECC, the average annual savings 

increase substantially to $486 per year, and it is 2 years 

before cumulative savings exceed cumulative costs. 

Table 2 summarizes these results. 

Table 2. Impacts to Consumers’ Cash Flow from Compliance with 2009 and 2012 IECC Compared to the 2006 IECC
A.1 April 2012

Technical Appendix A

Methodology

An overview of the methodology used to calculate these impacts is provided below. Further information as to 

how these estimates were developed is available at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building Energy 

Codes website.1

Cost-Effectiveness

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) calculated three cost-effectiveness metrics in comparing the 2009 

and 2012 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) to the 2006 IECC. These are:

• Life-Cycle Cost (LCC): Full accounting over a 30-year period of the cost savings, considering energy 

savings, the initial investment financed through increased mortgage costs, tax impacts, and residual 

values of energy efficiency measures

• Cash Flow: Net annual cost outlay (i.e., difference between annual energy cost savings and increased 

annual costs for mortgage payments, etc.)

• Simple Payback: Number of years required for energy cost savings to exceed the incremental first costs 

of a new code

LCC is a robust cost-benefit metric that sums the costs and benefits of a code change over a specified time 

period. LCC is a well-known approach to assessing cost-effectiveness. DOE uses LCC for determining the costeffectiveness of code change proposals, and for the code as a whole, because it is the most straightforward 

approach to achieving the desired balance of short- and long-term perspectives.

The financial and economic parameters used for these calculations are as follows: 

• New home mortgage parameters:

o 5.0% mortgage interest rate (fixed rate)

o Loan fees equal to 0.7% of the mortgage amount

o 30-year loan term 

o 10% down payment

• Other rates and economic parameters:

o 5% nominal discount rate (equal to mortgage rate)

o 1.6% inflation rate

o 25% marginal federal income tax and 4.24% marginal state income tax

o 0.9% property tax

o Insulation has 60-year life with linear depreciation resulting in a 50% residual value at the end of 

the 30-year period

o Windows, duct sealing, and envelope sealing have a 30-year life and hence no residual value at 

the end of the analysis period

o Light bulbs have a 6-year life and are replaced four times during the 30-year analysis period

 

1 www.energycodes.gov/development/residential 
A.2 April 2012

Energy and Economic Analysis

This analysis determined the energy savings and economic impacts of the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared to the 

2006 IECC. Energy usage was modeled using DOE’s EnergyPlusTM software for two building types:

1. Single-Family: A two-story home with a 30-ft by 40-ft rectangular shape, 2,400 ft2 of floor area excluding 

the basement, and windows that cover 15% of the wall area, equally distributed on all sides of the house

2. Multifamily: A three-story building with 18 units (6 units per floor), each unit having conditioned floor 

area of 1,200 ft2 and window area equal to approximately 10% of the conditioned floor area, equally 

distributed on all sides of the building

Each of these building types, single-family and apartment/condo in a multifamily building, have four unique 

foundation types: 

1. Slab on grade

2. Heated basement

3. Unheated basement

4. Crawlspace

Each building type also has four unique heating system types: 

1. Natural gas

2. Heat pump

3. Electric resistance

4. Oil

This results in 32 unique scenarios (2 x 4 x 4) for each of the four climate zones.

PNNL incorporated the prescriptive requirements of the 2006, 2009, and 2012 IECC when modeling the impacts 

of changes to the code. Whenever possible, PNNL uses DOE’s EnergyPlus model software to simulate changes 

to code requirements. However, in some cases, alternative methods are employed to estimate the effects of a 

given change. As an example, in order to give full consideration of the impacts of the 2012 IECC requirement for 

insulating hot water pipes (or shortening the pipe lengths), a separate estimate was developed for hot water 

pipe insulation requirements in the 2012 IECC, which results in a 10% savings in water heating energy use (Klein 

2012). 

Energy and economic impacts were determined separately for each unique scenario, including the single-family 

and multifamily buildings, the four unique foundation types, and the four unique heating system types. 

However, the cost-effectiveness results are reported as a single average for each climate zone and as an overall 

state average. To determine this average, first the results were combined across foundation types and heating 

system types for single-family and multifamily prototypes as shown in Table A.1 and Table A.2 (single-family and 

multifamily have the same shares for foundation types). For example, the primary heating system type in new 

residential units in Arizona is a natural gas furnace. Therefore, the combined average energy usage calculations 

were proportionally weighted to account for the predominance of natural gas heating. Then single-family and 

multifamily results were combined for each climate zone in the state and the climate zone results were

combined to determine a state average weighted by housing starts from 2010 U.S. Census data as shown in 

Table A.3. 
A.3 April 2012

Table A.1. Heating Equipment Shares 

Heating System

Percent Share

Single-Family Multifamily

Natural gas 77.8 97.2

Heat pump 19.4 2.8

Electric resistance 2.6 0

Oil 0.2 0

Table A.2. Foundation Type Shares 

Foundation Type Slab on Grade Heated Basement Unheated Basement Crawlspace

Percent share 90.7 0.6 3.1 5.6

Table A.3. Construction by Building Type and Climate Zone

Climate Zone Housing Starts

Single-Family Multifamily

2 9,409 719

3 696 28

4 307 58

5 343 88

Differences Between the 2006 IECC, the 2009 IECC, and the 2012 IECC

All versions of the IECC have requirements that apply uniformly to all climate zones, and other requirements 

that vary by climate zone. Highlights of the mandatory requirements across all buildings include:

• Building envelope must be caulked and sealed. The 2012 IECC adds a requirement that the building 

must be tested and a level of leakage that is no more than a maximum limit must be achieved.

• Ducts and air handlers must be sealed. Testing against specified maximum leakage rates is required in 

the 2009 and 2012 IECC if any ducts pass outside the conditioned space (e.g., in attics, unheated 

basements). The 2012 IECC leakage requirements are more energy efficient. 

• Supply and return ducts in attics, and all ducts in crawlspaces, unheated basements, garages, or 

otherwise outside the building envelope must be insulated.

• For the 2009 and 2012 IECC, a minimum percentage of the lighting bulbs or fixtures in the dwelling must 

be high-efficacy lighting. 

• A certificate listing insulation levels and other energy efficiency measures must be posted on or near the 

electric service panel.

A comparison of significant IECC requirements that do not vary by climate zone is contained in Table A.4. Of 

these, the most significant changes in the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared to the 2006 IECC are the requirements 

for pressure testing of the building envelope and ducts/air handlers, and for insulating service hot water pipes 

(2012 IECC only). The requirement for high-efficacy lamps, while significant, is somewhat abated by a 
A.4 April 2012

superseding federal regulation banning the manufacture or import of less efficient lamps at common watt levels 

that takes effect in 2012 to 2014. 

Table A.4. Comparison of Major Requirements That Do Not Vary by Climate Zone

Requirement 2006 IECC 2009 IECC 2012 IECC

Building envelope sealing

Caulked and sealed, 

verified by visual 

inspection

Caulked and sealed,

verified by visual 

inspection against a 

more detailed checklist

Caulked and sealed, verified by visual 

inspection and a pressure test against 

a leakage requirement

Ducts and air handlers Sealed, verified by 

visual inspection

Sealed, verified by 

visual inspection, and 

pressure tested, or all 

ducts must be inside 

building envelope

Sealed, verified by visual inspection, 

and pressure tested against a leakage 

requirement, or all ducts must be 

inside building envelope

Supply ducts in attics R-8 R-8 R-8

Return ducts in attics and all ducts 

in crawlspaces, unheated 

basements, garages, or otherwise 

outside the building envelope

R-8 R-6 R-6 

Insulation on hot water pipes for 

service water heating systems None None

R-3 except where pipe run length is 

below a diameter-dependent 

threshold

Insulation on hot water pipes for 

hydronic (boiler) space heating 

systems

R-3 R-3 R-3 

High-efficacy lamps (percent of 

lighting in the home) None 50% of lamps 75% of lamps or 75% of fixtures

Certificate of insulation levels and 

other energy efficiency measures Yes Yes Yes

Requirements such as insulation levels and fenestration (window, door, and skylights) U-factors can vary by the 

eight zones in the United States. Table A.5 shows these requirements. Arizona has four climate zones (Zones 2, 

3, 4, and 5) as defined in the IECC. 
A.5 April 2012

Table A.5. Comparison of Major Requirements That Vary by Climate Zone

Components

Climate 

Zone IECC Ceiling

(R-value)

Skylight

(U-factor)

Fenestration (Windows 

and Doors) Wood 

Frame 

Wall

(R-value)

Mass 

Wall*

(R-value)

Floor

(R-value)

Basement 

Wall**

(R-value)

Tested Max 

Air Leakage 

Rate

(air changes 

per hour)

Slab***

(R-value 

and depth)

Crawl 

Space**

U-factor SHGC (R-value)

1 

2006

30 0.75 NR

0.4

13 3/4 13 NR

NR

2009 0.3 NR NR NR

2012 0.25 5

2 

2006 30 0.75 0.75 0.4

13 4/6 13 NR

NR

2009 30 0.75 0.65 0.3 NR NR NR

2012 38 0.65 0.4 0.25 5

3 

2006 30 0.65 0.65 0.4 13 5/8

19

0 NR

2009 30 0.65 0.5 0.3 13 5/8 5/13  NR NR 5/13

2012 38 0.55 0.35 0.25 20 8/13 5/13** ** 3

4 

2006 38 0.6 0.4 NR 13 5/13

19

10/13 NR

10, 2 ft

10/13

2009 38 0.6 0.35 13 5/10 10/13 NR 10/13

2012 49 0.55 0.35 0.4 20 8/13 10/13 3 10/13

5 

2006 38 0.6 0.35

NR

19 13/19

30

10/13 NR

10, 2 ft

10/13

2009 38 0.6 0.35 20 13/17 10/13 NR 10/13

2012 49 0.55 0.32 20 15/19 15/19 3 15/19

6 

2006

49

0.6 0.35

NR

19 10/13

30

10/13 NR

10, 4 ft

10/13

2009 0.6 0.35 20 15/19 15/19 NR 10/13

2012 0.55 0.32 20+5 15/19 15/19 3 15/19

7 and 8

2006

49

0.6 0.35

NR

21

19/21

30 10/13 NR

10, 4 ft

10/13

2009 0.6 0.35 21 38 15/19 NR 10/13

2012 0.55 0.32 20+5 38 15/19 3 15/19

* The second number applies when more than half the insulation is on the interior side of the high mass material in the wall.

** The first number is for continuous insulation (e.g., a board or blanket directly on the foundation wall) and the second number is for cavity insulation (i.e., 

if there is a furred-out wall built against the foundation wall). Only one of these two has to be met.

*** The first number is R-value. The second value refers to the vertical depth of the insulation around the perimeter.

**** Basement wall insulation is not required in the warm-humid region of Zone 3 in the southeastern United States. 

NR = not required

SHGC = solar heat gain coefficient
A.6 April 2012

While exemptions or allowances in the code in are not included in this analysis, the code does allow for some of

these depending on the compliance path. Examples include the following: 

• One door and 15 ft2 of window area are exempt

• Skylight U-factors are allowed to be higher than window U-factors

• Five hundred square feet or 20% of ceiling area of a cathedral ceiling, whichever is less, is allowed to 

have R-30 insulation in climate zones where more than R-30 is required for other ceilings

Incremental First Costs 

Table A.6 shows the costs of implementing the prescriptive measures of the new codes. Costs are provided for 

both the reference home and apartment/condo, and for the cost of moving from the 2006 to the 2009 IECC, as 

well as from the 2006 IECC to the 2012 IECC. The costs derive from estimates assembled by Faithful + Gould 

(2012) and a number of other sources.2

 The original cost data were based on a national average. The costs are 

adjusted downwards by 7.2% (multiplied by 0.928) to reflect local construction costs based on location factors 

provided by Faithful + Gould (2011).

Table A.6. Total Construction Cost Increase for the 2009 and 2012 IECC Compared to the 2006 IECC 

2,400 ft2 House 1,200 ft2 Apartment/Condo

Slab, Unheated 

Basement, or 

Crawlspace

Heated Basement

Slab, Unheated 

Basement, or 

Crawlspace

Heated Basement

2009 IECC

Zone 2 $1,405 $1,405 $613 $613

Zone 3 $1,405 $1,869 $613 $680

Zone 4 $584 $584 $341 $341

Zone 5 $871 $871 $447 $447

2012 IECC

Zone 2 $3,256 $3,256 $1,521 $1,521

Zone 3 $3,751 $4,215 $1,698 $1,766

Zone 4 $2,472 $2,472 $1,275 $1,275

Zone 5 $2,325 $2,561 $1,224 $1,258

Results

Life-Cycle Cost

Table A.7 shows the LCC savings (discounted present value) of the new codes over the 30-year analysis period. 

These savings assume that initial costs are mortgaged, that homeowners take advantage of the mortgage 

interest tax deductions, and that efficiency measures retain a residual value at the end of the 30 years. As 

shown in Table A.7, life-cycle cost savings, averaged across climate zones, are $3,245 for the 2009 IECC and 

$6,550 for the 2012 IECC.

 

2 The Faithful +Gould cost data and other cost data for energy efficiency measures are available on the “BC3” website at 

http://bc3.pnnl.gov/. 
A.7 April 2012

Table A.7. Life-Cycle Cost Savings Compared to the 2006 IECC 

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 State Average

2009 IECC $3,386 $2,946 $2,017 $1,538 $3,245

2012 IECC $6,339 $9,353 $7,223 $5,727 $6,550

Cash Flow

Because most houses are financed, consumers will be very interested in the financial impacts of buying a home 

that complies with the 2009 or 2012 IECC requirements compared to the 2006 IECC. Mortgages spread the 

payment for the cost of a house over a long period of time (the simple payback fails to account for the impacts 

of mortgages). In this analysis, a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was assumed. It was also assumed that 

homebuyers will deduct the interest portion of the payments from their income taxes. 

Table A.8 and Table A.9 show the impacts to consumers’ cash flow resulting from the improvements in the 2009 

and 2012 IECC, respectively. Up-front costs include the down payment and loan fees. The annual values shown 

in the table are for the first year.

The savings from income tax deductions for the mortgage interest will slowly decrease over time while energy 

savings are expected to increase over time because of escalating energy prices. These tables also include 

increases in annual property taxes because of the higher assessed house values. The net annual cash flow 

includes energy costs, mortgage payments, mortgage tax deductions, and property taxes but not the up-front 

costs. The time to positive cash flow includes all costs and benefits, including the down payment and other upfront costs.

As shown in Table A.8 , on average, there is a net positive cash flow to the consumer of $154 per year beginning 

in year one for the 2009 IECC. Positive cumulative savings, including payment of up-front costs, are achieved in 

1 year. The positive cash flow is more significant with the 2012 IECC. Here state average net annual cash flow 

savings are $303, with only 2 years to positive cumulative savings after covering up-front costs (see Table A.9). 

Table A.8. Impacts to Consumers’ Cash Flow from Compliance with 2009 IECC Compared to the 2006 IECC

Cost/Benefit Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 State 

Average

A Down payment and other up-front costs $144 $147 $58 $84 $140

B Annual energy savings (year one) $240 $220 $131 $117 $231

C Annual mortgage increase $78 $80 $32 $46 $76

D Net annual cost of mortgage interest deductions, 

mortgage insurance, and property taxes (year one) $0 $1 $1 $1 $1

E

= 

[B-(C+D)]

Net annual cash flow savings (year one) $162 $139 $98 $70 $154

F

= 

[A/E]

Years to positive savings, including up-front cost 

impacts 1 2 1 2 1 

Note: Item D includes mortgage interest deductions, mortgage insurance, and property taxes for the first year. Deductions can partially 

or completely offset insurance and tax costs. As such, the "net" result appears relatively small or is sometimes even negative. 
A.8 April 2012

Table A.9. Impacts to Consumers’ Cash Flow from Compliance with 2012 IECC Compared to the 2006 IECC

Cost/Benefit Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 State 

Average

A Down payment and other up-front costs $335 $393 $244 $225 $332

B Annual energy savings (year one) $478 $650 $473 $391 $486

C Annual mortgage increase $182 $213 $132 $122 $180

D Net annual cost of mortgage interest deductions, mortgage 

insurance, and property taxes (year one) $3 $3 $2 $2 $3

E

= 

[B-

(C+D)]

Net annual cash flow savings (year one) $293 $434 $339 $267 $303

F

= 

[A/E]

Years to positive savings, including up-front cost impacts 2 1 1 1 2 

Simple Payback

Table A.10 shows the simple payback period, which consists of the construction cost increase divided by firstyear energy cost savings. This calculation yields the number of years required for the energy cost savings to pay

back the initial investment. Simple payback does not consider financing of the initial costs through a mortgage

or favored tax treatment of mortgages.

As Table A.10 shows, the simple payback period from moving to the 2009 IECC from the 2006 IECC averages 5.6

years across climate zones. The simple payback for the 2012 IECC is slightly longer, averaging 6.4 years. 

Table A.10. Simple Payback Period, Relative to the 2006 IECC (Years) 

Code Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 State Average

2009 IECC 5.6 6.3 4.2 6.7 5.6

2012 IECC 6.6 5.7 4.8 5.4 6.4

Energy Cost Savings

All fuel prices were obtained from the DOE Energy Information Administration and are recent residential prices 

specific to Arizona (DOE 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). For this analysis, natural gas fuel prices were set to 

$1.306/therm. Electricity prices were set to $0.099/kWh for space heating and $0.117/kWh for air conditioning. 

Oil prices were set to $23.7/MBtu. Energy prices are assumed to escalate at the rates published in DOE’s Annual 

Energy Outlook (DOE 2012d).

Table A.11 shows the estimated annual energy costs, including heating, cooling, water heating, and lighting per 

home that result from meeting the requirements in the 2006, 2009, and 2012 IECC. Table A.12 shows the total 
A.9 April 2012

energy cost savings as both a net dollar savings and as a percentage of the total energy use.

3

 Results are 

averaged across home type (single- and multifamily), foundation type, and heating system types. 

Table A.11. Annual Energy Costs for Different Versions of IECC 

2006 IECC 2009 IECC 2012 IECC

Heating Cooling Water 

Heating Lighting Total Heating Cooling Water Heating Lighting Total Heating Cooling Water Heating Lighting Total 

Zone 2 $216 $1,120 $194 $209 $1,739 $196 $935 $194 $174 $1,499 $126 $813 $175 $147 $1,261 

Zone 3 $622 $637 $251 $213 $1,723 $543 $530 $251 $179 $1,503 $268 $428 $226 $151 $1,073 

Zone 4 $636 $324 $276 $197 $1,433 $548 $313 $276 $165 $1,302 $298 $274 $248 $140 $960 

Zone 5 $574 $329 $273 $190 $1,366 $504 $313 $273 $159 $1,249 $298 $294 $246 $137 $975 

State 

Average $267 $1,036 $203 $209 $1,715 $240 $868 $203 $173 $1,484 $146 $753 $183 $147 $1,229 

As can be seen from Table A.12, energy cost savings per year for the 2009 IECC compared to the 2006 IECC range 

from $117 in Zone 5 to $240 in Zone 2. Annual energy cost savings rise significantly with the 2012 IECC, ranging 

from $391 per year for Zone 5, up to $650 per year in Zone 3. On a percentage basis, energy cost savings range 

from about 27% to 38% with the 2012 IECC depending on climate zone.

Table A.12. Total Energy Cost Savings Compared to the 2006 IECC

2009 IECC 2012 IECC

Savings ($/yr) Percent Savings Savings ($/yr) Percent Savings

Zone 2 $240 13.8 $478 27.5

Zone 3 $220 12.8 $650 37.7

Zone 4 $131 9.1 $473 33

Zone 5 $117 8.6 $391 28.6

State Average $231 13.5 $486 28.3

References

Faithful + Gould. 2012. Residential Energy Efficiency Measures – Prototype Estimate and Cost Data. Portland, 

Oregon. http://bc3.pnnl.gov/wiki/index.php/Downloads 

Faithful + Gould. 2011. Residential Energy Efficiency Measures – Locations Factors. Portland, Oregon. 

http://bc3.pnnl.gov/wiki/index.php/Downloads 

 

3 The percent savings is the annual energy cost savings for heating, cooling, water heating, and lighting divided by the total 

baseline annual energy cost for heating, cooling, water heating, and lighting. 
A.10 April 2012

Klein, G. 2012. Cost Estimation for Materials and Installation of Hot Water Piping Insulation. Affiliated 

International Management, LLC, Newport Beach, California.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2012a. Electric Power Monthly. DOE/EIA-0226. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2012b. Natural Gas Monthly. DOE/EIA-0130. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2012c. Petroleum Marketing Monthly. DOE/EIA-0380. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/marketing/monthly/

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2012d. Annual Energy Outlook. DOE/EIA-0383. Washington, D.C.