**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** **3 2009 AND 2012 IECC**  **AS COMPARED TO THE 2006 IECC** 

# Highlights

Cost-effectiveness against a 2006 IECC baseline:

• Lif e-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 pa yback 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 sa ve an average of $231 per year in energy costs with the 2009 IECC

• Household sa vings rise significantly to an average of $486 per year with the 2012 IECC

• Net annual c onsumer 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

• Ener gy 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:

• **Lif e-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 Flo w**  : Net annual cost outlay (i.e., difference between annual energy cost savings and increased annual costs for mortgage payments, etc.)

• **Simple P ayback**  : 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:

**• Na**  **tional** : Energy cost savings

(only) **• Clima**  **te Zone** : Energy cost savings, life-cycle cost savings, and consumer cash flows **• S**  **tate** : 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 paymentin 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 Code s ( 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
value s of energy efficiency measures

• Cash Flow : Net a nnual 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 determ ining the cost

effectiveness 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 L oan 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 f ederal 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 EnergyPlus TM software for two building types:

1. Single

- Family: A two

- story home with a 30

- ft by 40

- ft rectangular s hape, 2,400 ft 2 

### 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 wi th 18 units (6 units per floor), each unit having conditioned floor

area of 1,200 ft 2 

### 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 b asement
3. Unheated b asement
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 ea ch 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 separ ate 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 building s , 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 deter mine 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 Ar izona 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 G rade 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 zone s , and other requirements that vary by climate zone. Highlights of the mandatory requirements across all buildings include:

• Building envelope must be caulked and sealed. T he 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 a nd 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 c ertificate listing insulation levels and o ther 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 requirement s for pressure testing of the building envelope and duct s/ air handlers, and for insulati ng 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 f ederal 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 test ed

, or all
ducts must be inside

building envelope Sealed

, verified by visual inspection

, and pressure test ed 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** (R

- value) U- factor SHGC

1 2006
30 0.75 NR 0.4
13 3/4 13 NR NR

NR NR 2009 0.3 NR
2012 0.25 5

2 2006 30 0.75 0.75 0.4
13 4/6 13 NR NR

NR NR 2009 30 0.75 0.65 0.3 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
NR 5/13 2009 30 0.65 0.5 0.3 13 5/8 5/13   NR
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 i nsulation (i.e.,
if there is a furred

- out wall built against the foundation wall). Only one of these two has to be met.

*** The fi rst 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 = sola r 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 ft 2 

### 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 Cost s
Table A.6 shows the costs of implementing the prescriptive measures of th e 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 200 6 IECC to the 2012 IECC. The costs derive from estimates assembled by Faithful + Gould (201 2) 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 (201 1 ).

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

2,400 ft 2 House 1,200 ft 2 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 t he 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 availa ble 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 sh own in t he 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 includ e 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 in cludes all costs and benefits, including the down payment and other up

front costs.

As shown in Table A.8 , on average, there is a net positive cash flow to the cons umer 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 savin gs 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 i s 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 first

year energy cost savings. This calculation yields the number of years required for the ener gy cost savings to pay
back the initial investment. S imple 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 year s.

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 $1.3 06 /therm. Electricity prices were set to $0.0 99 /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 2012 d ).

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 ty pe (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 , e nergy cost savings per year for the 2009 IECC compared to the 2006 IECC range from $ 117 in Zone 5 to $ 240 in Z one 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/Download s

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. Wash ington, 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). 2012 c

. Petroleum Marketing Monthly

. DOE/EIA -0 380 . Washington, D.C. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/marketing/monthly/

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2012 d

. Annual Energy Outlook . DOE/EIA

- 0383. Washington, D.C.