National Green Building 

Standard Analysis 

NAHB Research Center

July 2012
This report received minimal editorial review at NREL.

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United 

States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor 

any of their employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process 

disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference 

herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. 

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect 

those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

National Green Building Standard Analysis

Prepared for: 

Building America

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Prepared by: 

NAHB Research Center

400 Prince George’s Boulevard

Upper Marlboro, MD 20774

June 2012
iv

[This page left blank]
v

Contents

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. viii

1 Background........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3

3 ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Background.............................................................................................. 4

4 Measurement of Energy Efficiency..................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Baseline Metrics...................................................................................................................5

4.2 Modeling Software and Analysis Methodology ..................................................................9

4.3 Results: Benchmark Source Energy Savings for the 40%–50% Case...............................11

4.4 Energy Efficiency Point Value Recommendations............................................................15

5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 19

References................................................................................................................................................. 20

Appendix A Cost Matrix: Electric and Gas............................................................................................. 21

Appendix B: Summary Matrix.................................................................................................................. 23
vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Multiyear Energy Savings* Goals for Existing Homes ............................................................. 1

Table 2. Multiyear Energy Savings* Goals for New Homes.................................................................... 2

Table 3. Characteristics of Reference Houses......................................................................................... 5

Table 4. Foundation Types Attributed to Reference Houses ................................................................. 5

Table 5. Locations Attributed to Reference Houses ............................................................................... 6

Table 6. Comparison of RESNET and BA Energy Usage Formulas ...................................................... 7

Table 7. Comparison of RESNET and BA Energy Usage........................................................................ 8

Table 8. Reference House Features Specified by the 2009 IECC........................................................... 9

Table 9. Simulation Protocols.................................................................................................................. 11

Table 10. Benchmark, Reference, and 40%–50% Source Energy Savings Case for Climate

Zones 1–3 ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 11. Benchmark, Reference, and 40%–50% Source Energy Savings Case for Climate 

Zones 4–8 ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Table 12. Initial 40%–50% Case Practices Analysis .............................................................................. 15

Table 13. Initial Matrix of Proposed Points With Comparison to ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Points, 

1 of 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 14. Initial Matrix of Proposed Points With Comparison to ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Points, 

2 of 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 15. Electric Rate Cost Matrix ......................................................................................................... 21

Table 16. Gas Rate Cost Matrix ............................................................................................................... 22

Table 17. Initial Normalized Percent Savings for Electric Fuel and Simulation Location ................. 23

Table 18. Initial Normalized Percent Savings for Gas Fuel and Simulation Location........................ 24
vii

Definitions

ANSI/NAHB ICC National Green Building Standard 700-2008

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BA DOE’s Building America Research Program

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration 

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

NAHB National Association of Home Builders

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

SEF Solar Energy Factor

RESNET Residential Energy Services Network
viii

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America (BA) Program is a research and 

development program to improve the energy performance of new and existing homes. The 

ultimate BA goal is to achieve examples of cost-effective, energy-efficient solutions for all U.S. 

climate zones. This goal will be met using a whole-house system engineering approach and by 

uniting segments of the industry that traditionally work independently of one another, including 

architects, engineers, builders, remodelers, trade contractors, manufacturers, material suppliers, 

community planners, and mortgage lenders.

One example of this type of collaboration is the National Green Building Standard (NGBS) 

(ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008, 2009). ICC 700 was developed by a balanced consensus 

committee of general interest, producers, and users and approved by the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) as an American National Standard on January 29, 2009. Periodic 

maintenance of an ANSI standard by review of the entire document and action to revise or 

reaffirm it on a schedule not to exceed five years is required by ANSI. In compliance, a 

consensus group has once again been formed and NGBS is currently being reviewed to comply 

with the periodic maintenance requirement of an ANSI standard.

There are two important considerations for the energy efficiency chapter update process. The 

first is the methodology for energy savings and the second is the new baseline for energy 

savings. The updated energy chapter is proposed to use a whole-house energy savings 

methodology and therefore further align with the BA methodology. In addition, the newly 

proposed baseline for energy savings is the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC). Therefore, in order to reach any level of certification, the building’s performance must 

exceed that of a similar building constructed to the 2009 IECC. Effectively, this results in the 

lowest level of certification, Bronze in the energy efficiency chapter, aligning with the 2012 

IECC. The savings for the other three levels, Silver, Gold, and Emerald, are even higher. The 

recommendations in this report are made with the goal of making the NGBS rating levels 

consistent with IECC 2012 and BA goals. Actual savings levels will depend on final decisions 

made by the consensus committee.

This report details the proposed point structure for the prescriptive approach of the energy 

efficiency chapter of the NGBS update. This proposed point structure was developed with 

support from the BA house design and simulation protocols. The source energy was calculated 

for both the reference home and the proposed house in each specific climate. This analysis also 

compared the simulated energy performance of a home designed to meet the revised NGBS

Chapter 7 at the Gold level with reference to the 2010 BA Benchmark using the BA House 

Simulation Protocols. The results of modeling various houses in multiple climate zones indicate 

that the range of energy savings for the designs is 40%–50% for the Gold level. This range aligns 

well with BA program energy savings goals of 30%–50% whole-house energy savings.
1

1 Background

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America (BA) Program is a research and 

development program to improve the energy performance of new and existing homes. The 

ultimate BA goal is to achieve examples of cost-effective, energy-efficient solutions for all U.S. 

climate zones. This goal will be met using a whole-house system engineering approach and by 

uniting segments of the industry that traditionally work independently of one another, including 

architects, engineers, builders, remodelers, trade contractors, manufacturers, material suppliers, 

community planners, and mortgage lenders.

One example of this type of collaboration is the National Green Building Standard (NGBS)

(ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008, 2009, NAHB Research Center, 2009). ICC 700 was developed by 

a balanced consensus committee of general interest, producers, and users and approved by the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an American National Standard on January 29, 

2009. Periodic maintenance of an ANSI standard by review of the entire document and action to 

revise or reaffirm it on a schedule not to exceed five years is required by ANSI. In compliance, a 

consensus group has once again been formed and the NGBS is currently being reviewed to 

comply with the periodic maintenance requirement of an ANSI standard.

As part of the periodic maintenance the energy efficiency portion of the ICC 700, Chapter 7 

Energy Efficiency, is being updated. There are two important considerations for the energy 

efficiency chapter update process. The first is the methodology for energy savings and the 

second is the new baseline for energy savings. The updated energy chapter is proposed to use a 

whole-house energy savings methodology and therefore further align with the BA methodology.

In addition, the newly proposed baseline for energy savings is the 2009 International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) (IECC, 2009). Therefore, in order to reach any level of certification, 

the building’s performance must exceed that of a similar building constructed to the 2009 IECC.

Effectively, this results in the lowest level of certification, Bronze in the energy efficiency 

chapter, aligning with the 2012 IECC (IECC, 2012). The savings for the other three levels, 

Silver, Gold, and Emerald, are even higher. The recommendations in this report are made with 

the goal of making the NGBS rating levels consistent with IECC 2012 and BA goals (see Tables 

1 and 2). Actual savings levels will depend on final decisions made by the consensus committee.

Table 1. Multiyear Energy Savings* Goals for Existing Homes

Energy Savings Mixed/Hot-Dry 

and Marine

Mixed-Humid 

and Hot-Humid

Cold, Very Cold, 

and Subarctic

Current “Best in 

Class” (15% or above) 2011 2011 2011

30% 2012 2013 2014

50% 2015 2016 2017

*Savings based on the IECC 2009
2

Table 2. Multiyear Energy Savings* Goals for New Homes

Energy Savings Mixed/Hot-Dry 

and Marine

Mixed-Humid 

and Hot-Humid

Cold, Very Cold, 

and Subarctic

Current “Best in 

Class” (20% or above) 2010 2011 2011

30% 2011 2012 2013

50% 2014 2015 2016

*Savings based on the IECC 2009

The ICC 700 and BA link building science research and actual energy efficiency improvements 

implemented by builders and remodelers based on a whole-house systems approach. This 

relationship demonstrates that homes can be designed and constructed according to the principles 

developed by BA on a larger scale. The collaboration introduces builders and remodelers to 

certification programs including Builders Challenge through the dual certification process, and 

provides materials for the marketing and sales activities of high performance builders.
3

2 Introduction

NBGS is a system of rating the sustainability of the siting, construction practices and products, 

and expected performance of a residential building. Point thresholds determine the project’s 

compliance with the criteria that support progressively higher rating levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold 

and Emerald. By the ICC 700-2008, practices defined in the areas of site development, resource 

efficiency, energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and operation, 

maintenance, and education earn points toward an overall green rating level.

Chapter 7 of the ICC 700-2008 covers the energy efficiency (EE) of residential buildings. To be 

useful to a broad spectrum of builders, the ICC 700-2008 allows a choice between a performance 

and a prescriptive approach to achieve the Energy Efficiency Chapter 7 point thresholds for the 

Bronze, Silver, and Gold levels. The highest level rating (Emerald), requires use of the 

performance compliance approach.

The proposed revisions to Chapter 7, Energy Efficiency, of the ICC 700-2008 are the subject of 

this analysis; specifically, the correlation of the points for individual prescriptive practices 

relative to the expected energy savings from that practice. 
4

3 ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Background

Chapter 7 of the 2008 version of the ICC 700 Standard (ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008, 2009) 

contains five sections titled:

701 – Minimum Energy Efficiency Requirements

702 – Performance Path

703 – Prescriptive Path 

704 – Additional Practices

705 – Innovative Practices

A standards Consensus Committee was convened in 2011 to update the 2008 version of the ICC 

700. As part of this process, task groups were developed to address specific topics and make 

recommendations to the Consensus Committee. Task Group 5 was assigned to Chapter 7 review.

A primary goal of Task Group 5 was to recommend changes to eliminate incongruities between 

various sections of Chapter 7. In particular, in practice it was recognized that the points available 

through the Prescriptive Path (Section 703) were often inconsistent with the points available 

from the Performance Path (Section 702). To avoid redundancies, Task Group 5 proposed that 

some of Section 704, Additional Practices points, be moved to the Prescriptive Path, Section 703, 

thereby aligning the chapter’s rating system for both compliance path approaches more closely 

with the effective whole-house energy savings results. A goal of the task group was to align the 

Prescriptive and Performance Path practices’ point values with the practices’ actual contribution 

to a building’s energy efficiency. 

Furthermore, Task Group 5 proposed to the Consensus Committee (which has since approved it) 

that a building meet the minimum requirements of the 2009 IECC. Because some of the 

provisions in the 2009 IECC had previously been awarded points in the ICC 700-2008, these 

incongruities had to be resolved in the updates to the standard through recommendations to the 

Consensus Committee. The task group also recommended redefined levels of merit within the 

ICC 700 Standard as 15%, 30%, 40%, and 50% better “whole-house” energy performance than 

the 2009 IECC. (ICC 700-2008 levels were 15%–60% over the 2006 IECC.)

Working in parallel with the recommendations proposed by Task Group 5, this report details the 

effort to review the Prescriptive Path approach (Section 703) of Chapter 7 and recommend a 

point structure that will support the stated energy savings thresholds that will be ultimately 

recommended to the Consensus Committee for approval.
5

4 Measurement of Energy Efficiency

4.1 Baseline Metrics

In order to establish a baseline metric consistent with the 2009 IECC, a standard house design 

was developed from statistics in annual builder surveys compiled by the NAHB Research Center.

The standard house design was used in the energy simulations undertaken to support point 

recommendations in Section 703 of Chapter 7. This standard house design was modeled on 

various foundations, again selected from statistical data by region. Climate zones and cities 

within the zones where each of these designs was modeled, were selected based on BA1 and 

other resources.

2 The climate zones extend from 1 through 8 (covering the United States) and the 

selected locations include moist and dry climates in each zone, as appropriate. Thirteen cities 

were selected to represent the eight climate zones in the country. Table 3 and Table 4 cover the 

house design details; Table 5 covers the location information used in the energy simulations.

Table 3. Characteristics of Reference Houses

House Characteristic Dimension

Above-Grade Conditioned Area 2,401 ft2

First Floor Area 1,801 ft2

Second Floor Area 600 ft2

Slab/Basement Area 1,801 ft2

Slab/Basement Perimeter 196 ft

First Floor Height 9.0 ft

Second Floor Height 8.5 ft

Basement Height 8.0 ft

Basement Wall Above Grade (2 ft Above Grade) 392 ft2

Window Area (Slab Foundation) 360 ft2

Window Area (Basement Foundation) 420 ft2

Above-Grade Wall Area 2,597 ft2

Basement Wall Area 1,568 ft2

Number of Bedrooms 3

Number of Bathrooms 2.5

Roof Overhang 1 ft

Table 4. Foundation Types Attributed to Reference Houses

Climate Zone 1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7 8

Foundation Type

Slab x x x x x x x

Vented Crawlspace x x

Inground Basement x x x x x x

 1 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/challenge/technical_resources.html

2 Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Small Office Buildings, Liu, B., et. Al. PNNL-19341, April 2010
6

Table 5. Locations Attributed to Reference Houses

Zone/Description City, State HDD 

(65)

CDD 

(65)

1A – Hot, Humid Miami, Florida 149 4,361

2A – Hot, Humid Houston, Texas 1,525 2,893

2B – Hot, Dry Phoenix, Arizona 1,125 4,189

3A – Hot, Humid Atlanta, Georgia 2,827 1,810

3B – Hot, Dry Las Vegas, Nevada 2,239 3,214

4A – Mixed, Humid Baltimore, Maryland 4,720 1,147

4C – Marine Seattle, Washington 4,797 173

5A – Cold, Humid Chicago, Illinois 6,498 830

5B – Cold, Dry Denver, Colorado 6,128 696

6A – Cold, Humid Minneapolis, Minnesota 7,876 699

6B – Cold, Dry Helena, Montana 7,975 277

7 – Very Cold Duluth, Minnesota 9,724 189

8 – Extreme Cold Fairbanks, Alaska 13,980 74

The 2009 IECC is the baseline energy code above which the energy efficiency of the pending 

version of ICC 700 was gauged based on the anticipated timing of the updated ICC 700 release 

in 2012. In order to perform representative simulations in BEopt,

3 the energy simulation 

software used by BA, a reference house was defined. The reference house represents minimum 

prescriptive compliance with the 2009 IECC, Section 402.1.

The BA and the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET)

4 guidelines are used as a basis 

for the analysis (Hendron, R; Engebrecht, C, 2010). Both of these approaches to energy savings, 

along with the software that is used to model house energy use, are important to provide better, 

more detailed analysis for the ICC 700, Chapter 7. Both are needed because the point system 

development for the ICC 700, as well as practical, commercially available modeling tools to 

verify compliance within the Standard, require use of multiple approaches. Both of these 

approaches are integrated in this analysis to provide the basis for the development of the point 

system in the Energy Efficiency chapter of the ICC 700.

BA and RESNET apply different procedures to simulate plug, appliance, and miscellaneous 

electric loads in houses, and these organizations’ simulation protocols back the two predominant 

residential energy simulation software programs. RESNET procedures for estimates of lighting 

and appliance energy5 were reflected in the reference house used in this analysis so that wholehouse simulation results might be similar from the two software programs when practices in the 

 3 NREL developed the BEopt, version 1.1 (Building Energy Optimization) software to provide capabilities to evaluate residential

building designs and identify cost-optimal efficiency packages at various levels of whole-house energy savings along the path to 

zero net energy. http://beopt.nrel.gov/ 4 Residential Energy Services Network, providers of energy audits and the software, REMRate, software that produces a HERs 

Index that is used to determine ENERGY STAR compliance. 5 RESNET Proposed Standards Revision, Date: 01/15/10 (as modified by Aux Energy Sub: 07/16/10) Amendment #2011 - As 

modified following resolution of public comments: April 11, 2011, Lighting, Appliance and Miscellaneous Energy Usage 

Profiles
7

ICC 700 are applied.

6 Table 6 and Table 7 highlight the differences between RESNET and BA

energy use estimates.

Table 6. Comparison of RESNET and BA Energy Usage Formulas

Appliance/Device RESNET

Estimate1

BA

Benchmark Estimate2

RESNET 

Use 

Estimate10

Benchmark 

Use 

Estimate10

Interior Lighting 455+(0.80*CFA3

) 2,376

Interior Lighting 

(Hardwired) 0.8*(FFA4

*0.542+334) 1,308

Interior Plug-In 

Lighting 0.2*(FFA*0.542+334) 327

Exterior Lighting 100+(0.05*CFA) FFA*0.145 220 348

Garage Lighting 100 (GA5

*0.08)+8.0 100 40

Refrigerator 637+(18*Nbr

6

) 434 691 434

Electric Range/Oven 331+(39*Nbr) 250+(83* Nbr) 448 499

Gas Range/Oven (Gas) 22.6+(2.7*Nbr) 14.3+(4.8* Nbr) 31 29

Gas Range/Oven 

(Electric) 22.6+(2.7*Nbr) 40+(13.3* Nbr) 31 80

Dishwasher 78+(31*Nbr) 87.6+(29.2* Nbr) 171 175

Clothes Washer 38+(10.0*Nbr) 38.8+(12.9* Nbr) 78 68

Electric Clothes Dryer 524+(149*Nbr) 538.2+(179.4*Nbr) 971 1,076

Gas Clothes Dryer 

(Gas) 18.8+(5.3*Nbr) 19.5+(6.5*Nbr) 35 39

Gas Clothes Dryer 

(Electric) 41+(11.7*Nbr) 43+(14.3*Nbr) 76 86

Televisions 413+(69*Nbr) 620 0

Miscellaneous 

(Electric)7 0.91*CFA 1703+(266*Nbr)+(0.454*

FFA) 2,185 3,591

Miscellaneous 

(Electric)8 0.91*CFA 1595+(248*Nbr)+(0.426*

FFA) 2,185 3,362

Miscellaneous (Gas)8 3.7+(0.6*Nbr)+(0.001*FF

A) 0.0 7.9

Ventilation Fan 

Energy9

(0.03942*CFA) +

(29.565*Nbr) 0.5 W/cfm 212 237

1 Proposed revisions to the 2006 Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating System Standards

2 BA House Simulation Protocols (Hendron, R; Engebrecht, C. (2010) 3 CFA (conditioned floor area) 

4 FFA (finished floor area)

5 GA (garage area)

6 Nbr (number of bedrooms)

7 All electric home 8 Gas/electric home 9 Ventilation fan rate calculated at 54 cfm

10 Based on a 3 bedroom, 2,401-ft2 home (CFA = FFA) with a 400-ft2 garage

 6 At this writing, only REMrate software is available that can provide both a reference 2009 IECC house design and a 

performance approach that includes federal minimum equipment efficiencies for a whole-house energy savings analysis.
8

Table 7. Comparison of RESNET and BA Energy Usage

Load

All Electric

Load

Gas/Electric

RESNET BA 

Benchmark RESNET BA Benchmark

Lighting 2,696 2,023 Lighting 2,696 2,023

Refrigerator 691 434 Refrigerator 691 434

Range (Gas) 31 29

Range 448 499 Range 

(Electric) 31 80

Dishwasher 171 175 Dishwasher 171 175

Clothes 

Washer 68 78 Clothes Washer 68 78

Dryer (Gas) 35 39

Clothes Dryer 971 1,076 Dryer 

(Electric) 76 86

Miscellaneous 2,805 3,591 Misc. (Electric) 2,805 3,362

Misc. (Gas) 0 8

Ventilation 

Fan 212 237 Ventilation Fan 212 237

Total 

Electricity, 

Kwh

8,062 8,113

Total 

Electricity, 

Kwh

6,750 6,474

Total Gas, 

Therms 65 76

Total Site Btu 27,508,347 27,682,255 Total Site Btu 29,571,120 29,650,674

As shown in the last row of Table 7, there is a minor difference (less than 1%) between the 

aggregate energy usage estimates underlying each of the software models; however, there are 

significant differences within categories (some of which are prescriptive practices in the ICC 

700). This reinforces the decision that was made for this analysis to create a reference house in 

addition to the BEopt baseline benchmark house for the point value analyses that follow. The 

reference house also contains features consistent with the IECC 2009, such as Section 404.1 

requiring 50% of the hardwired fixtures in the reference house to be high efficacy. Table 8

covers reference house features specified by the 2009 energy code for an energy simulation. 
9

Table 8. Reference House Features Specified by the 2009 IECC

Feature Quantity

Duct Leakage 6%–12%7

Infiltration (Maximum) SLA = 0.000368

Interior Shading – Heat 0.85

Interior Shading – Cool 0.70

Lighting, High Efficiency (Minimum) 50%

Set Point, Heating 72°

Set Point, Cooling 75°

Thermostat Heat Set Point 70°

Thermostat Cool Set Point 78°

Window Area 15%

Winter Interior Shade 0.85

Summer Interior Shade 0.70

4.2 Modeling Software and Analysis Methodology 

BEopt version 1.1, developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),

9 was used to 

simulate the reference house and each new design that incorporated one practice from section 

703. As an initial step in the analysis, the whole-house energy cost (and savings relative to the 

reference house) for each individual practice in the ICC 700 was calculated. The whole-house 

approach to savings was used, as it is deemed most representative of assumptions held by 

consumers and many builders and is in alignment with the BA and ENERGY STAR approaches 

to reporting the energy efficiency of homes. The approach allows for a simple and as factual as 

possible comparison between a defined baseline and the anticipated actual usage that may be 

observed, e.g., by periodic utility bills in an occupied green certified home.

Where software models did not provide options that match directly with the prescriptive 

provisions but do result in energy savings, the following methodologies were used:

• REScheck software10 was used to establish UA percent levels for building envelope 

features.

• Air and ground source heat pump energy use estimates are based on HVAC performance 

estimates of energy savings over standard equipment applied to the heating and cooling 

portion of the whole house estimates.

• Whole-house energy savings estimates for the whole-house fan were based on percent 

energy savings calculated from REMrate models for that feature.

 7 Maximum acceptable leakage threshold varies by level and timing of testing performed. Reference house set up with 6% 

leakage.

8 7ACH50

9 NREL developed the BEopt software to provide capabilities to evaluate residential building designs and identify cost-optimal 

efficiency packages at various levels of whole-house energy savings. http://www.nrel.gov/buildings/energy_analysis.html 10 REScheck software, refer to www.energycodes.gov, Build Version 4.4.1.6.
10

• Energy estimates for the ductless heating and cooling systems were based on total energy 

savings results from BEopt and apportioned based on the heating and cooling energy 

estimates for the location.

• Whole-house energy savings estimates for the desuperheater were based on percent 

energy savings calculated from REMrate11 models for that feature.

• Programmable thermostat savings estimated at 1% of whole-house savings (2%–3% of 

heating and cooling energy) due to the inconsistent reports on energy savings.

12

• Energy use estimates for solar water heaters are based on the methodology outlined in the 

Solar Rating & Certification Corporation (SRCC) documentation for calculating savings 

based on the fuel and tank backup to the solar hot water system for the stated solar energy 

factor (SEF) and including locality cost of fuel.

Both the original and the proposed versions of the ICC 700 Standard stipulate an energy cost

approach for the performance analysis, thus, that is the simulation approach used in this analysis.

Utility costs used in each location were developed through an analysis of the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) cost data relative to the climate zone(s) of each state. The first step in the 

analysis was to determine the EIA 2010 state average cost of the utility without service 

charges.13 Next the climate zone or zones for each state were correlated with the EIA cost data.

Finally, the average cost was determined for each climate zone, weighting each state and climate 

zone equally. The result was an average cost for electricity and natural gas for the climate zone.

The local average annual costs which were used for the modeling are very close to the national 

average cost for electricity and natural gas published by EIA. Furthermore, for each climate zone 

using averaged state utility cost data, the ratio of the electricity cost to the natural gas cost was 

the same or nearly the same as the ratio of national average cost data. The cost analysis matrix is 

shown in Appendix A. 

The 15 reference houses were simulated as either all electric houses or gas and electric houses, 

thus, 30 reference house cases were examined in the analysis. Fuel switching was not modeled.

In the gas house, all of the equipment that could be fueled with natural gas was modeled with 

gas. The energy cost difference between the house employing a green practice and the reference 

house was converted to a percentage (energy) savings for the practice in a matrix.

For the next step, a 40%–50% whole house energy savings case was modeled for each reference 

house based on the available practices in the prescriptive approach (Section 703). Forty percent 

marks the threshold (Gold) that can be obtained using the prescriptive practices outlined in 

Section 703, as the 50% efficiency level of the ICC 700 (Emerald) requires that a performance 

analysis (Section 702) of the building support the points claimed. Selected 40%–50% cases were 

also modeled in REM/Rate version 12.96, to provide a test of energy savings attributed to a 

combination of practices and the results provided through the software. Results from the two 

 11 REM/Rate software is used by organizations which operate home energy rating systems (HERS).

http://www.archenergy.com/products

12 Refer to EPA (www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/thermostats/ 

Spec_Suspension_Memo_May2009.pdf) and http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=1453ea21-3702-4631-

9579-858c5e55897c 13 U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/fig7p5.html

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PRS_DMcf_m.htm
11

software programs were similar and the BEopt output was recorded in the matrix for each of the 

30 simulations. Again, the maximum cost savings outcomes were interpreted as the percentage 

of energy savings over the reference house.

The maximum efficiency savings results from the 40%–50% cases compared to the arithmetic 

sum of individual practices that comprised the cases was however, not equal. This of course is 

expected, as often system interactions can account for different (and higher) energy use estimates 

as cumulative efficiency practices are employed, such as the effect of high-efficiency lighting on 

lower winter heat gain in buildings and higher heat energy demand. The sum of individual 

savings for each practice was higher than the 40%–50% packages for all of the cases that were 

analyzed. To compensate for what might otherwise be an overstatement of efficiency gains, a 

simple ratio between the sum of the individual practices and the combination maximum savings 

(of the selected efficiency features) was calculated and applied to the efficiency savings estimate 

for each individual practice in the matrix. This action reduced the individual practice percentage 

savings estimates by 4%–37%, varying by fuel source, location, and foundation type.

Once the efficiency savings of individual practices on the matrices were normalized for the 

cumulative effect, individual practices within each climate zone’s foundation types were 

averaged, followed by averaging practices by climate zones and then by fuel type. This 

postprocessing approach refined the simulated results to one matrix consisting of 8 climate zone 

columns and 83 practices, each with a recommended point assignment. Each cell of the matrix 

contains a normalized percentage of energy savings that should be representative of the wholehouse efficiency benefit when multiple practices are employed (refer to Appendix B for 

examples of these matrices).

4.3 Results: Benchmark Source Energy Savings for the 40%–50% Case

Results in the draft normalized energy savings matrix (Appendix B) were also verified by 

comparing the 40%–50% case to the BA Benchmark. The Benchmark complies with BA

simulation protocols (Hendron, R; Engebrecht, C, 2010), whereas the reference and savings 

cases comply with the 2009 IECC standard reference criteria (Table 405.5.2(1)) (IECC, 2009).

Table 9 lists differences in simulation assumptions between the methods. 

Table 9. Simulation Protocols

Feature Benchmark Reference and Savings Cases

Duct Leakage 10% 6%

Infiltration (Maximum) SLA = 0.00036 SLA = 0.00036

Interior Shading – Heat 0.70 0.85

Interior Shading – Cool 0.70 0.70

Lighting, High Efficiency (Minimum) 14% 50%

Overhang, Zones 1–-3 2 ft 2 ft

Overhang, Zones 4–8 2 ft 1 ft

Set Point, Heating 71° 72°F

Set Point, Cooling 76°F 75°F

Thermostat Heat Set Point 70°F

Thermostat Cool Set Point 77°F

Winter Interior Shade 0.70 0.85

Summer Interior Shade 0.70 0.70
12

Table 10 and Table 11 indicate the source energy use of the three cases – Benchmark, Reference 

(2009 IECC), and 40%–50% savings case (with the Benchmark serving as baseline). The 

comparison of the Benchmark to the 40%–50% case and the Benchmark to the reference 

indicates results are similar to those derived from the straight comparison of the reference to the 

40%–50% savings cases that were analyzed for point value recommendations.
13

Table 10. Benchmark, Reference, and 40%–50% Source Energy Savings Case for Climate Zones 1–3
14

Table 11. Benchmark, Reference, and 40%–50% Source Energy Savings Case for Climate Zones 4–8
15

The highlighted boxes in Table 12 describe the principal practices that comprise the 40%–50% 

EE cases that were analyzed. Under the proposed draft point scheme of one point being equal to 

1/2% energy savings, the range of savings suggested is 41%–51%, dependent on climate zone. 

Table 12. Initial 40%–50% Case Practices Analysis 

Chapter 

Section Practice 

Proposed Point Table 

by Climate Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

15% to < 20% UA Improvement 0 13 14 14 15 14 13 13

≥ 20% UA Improvement 1 14 17 19 18 17 16 16

703.1.2 Insulation Installation Quality 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2ACH50 3 5 8 11 15 18 23 24

1ACH50 4 3 9 13 17 19 26 25

703.1.6.2b Fenestration Level 3 10 8 8 4 8 9 10 7

Fenestration Level 4 6 9 9 10 7

Gas Heater >98% 1 6 12 13 15 15 18 18

703.2.5 (1) SEER 14 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0

SEER 19 17 12 6 3 2 1 0 0

Any Type 24 EER 4.3 Coefficient of 

Performance 29 30 29 37 42 47 57 57

703.2.10 Programmable Thermostat 70/75 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

703.3.3 Duct Installation (Interior+) 17 11 11 8 4 3 3 23

6% in 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 3

703.4.1 (1) Water Heater Energy Factor ≥ 0.80 7 5 6 4 5 4 3 2

SEF 2.31 24 20 20 14 23 16 13 7

SEF 3.01 27 22 22 16 26 18 15 8

Hardwired Lighting 95% HE 7 6 4 5 5 4 3 3

703.6.1 Passive Solar Design 10 10 10 2 7 7 7 2

Total Points (1 point = 1/2% EE) 102 102 101 102 100 82 91 102

4.4 Energy Efficiency Point Value Recommendations

The final step in the analysis was conversion of the normalized savings estimates to the point 

scale used by ICC 700-2008 (ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008, 2009), which was one point for each 

half percent of energy savings. The normalized savings estimates were simply doubled and 

rounded to the nearest whole digit to convert the percentage of energy savings to suggested point 

values for the revised ICC 700. It is reasonable to keep the weight of the points similar from each 

version of the Standard to the next, thus, this analysis suggests the simplicity of the approach and 

presents a similar point scale for consideration based on the houses and practices described 

herein. In addition, where modeling was not feasible for some practices (e.g., insulation 

installation quality,) the extant point scale has been forwarded in this document. Table 13 and

Table 14 present the draft point scale suggested by the process outlined herein. The columns on 

the left represent the simulated, normalized points recommended by this analysis and the 
16

columns on the right allow comparison of points for the practice to the original ANSI/NAHB 

ICC 700-2008. Further modifications to the table will be made through the ANSI Standard 

revision process.
17

Table 13. Initial Matrix of Proposed Points With Comparison to ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Points, 1 of 2
18

Table 14. Initial Matrix of Proposed Points With Comparison to ANSI/NAHB ICC 700-2008 Points, 2 of 2
19

5 Summary

The proposed point structure for the prescriptive approach of the Energy Efficiency chapter of 

the NGBS was developed with support from BA house design and simulation protocols. The 

source energy was calculated for both the reference home and the proposed house in each 

specific climate. This analysis also compared the simulated energy performance of a home 

designed to meet the revised NGBS Chapter 7 at the Gold level with reference to the 2010 BA 

Benchmark using the BA House Simulation Protocols. The results of modeling various houses in 

multiple climate zones indicate that the range of energy savings for the designs is 40%–50% for 

the Gold level. This range aligns well with BA program energy savings goals of 30%–50% 

whole-house energy savings.

Additional BA quality criteria, such as water management and indoor environmental quality, are 

promoted in Chapters 8 and 9 of the NGBS as both mandatory and point-based provisions. This 

aligns with the goals of BA and Builders Challenge to build homes that are energy efficient, safe, 

comfortable, and durable.
20

References

Hendron, R; Engebrecht, C. (2010). Building America House Simulation Protocols. U.S. 

Department of Energy Building Technologies Program. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/

building_america/house_ simulation_revised.pdf.

ICC 700-2008. (2009). National Green Building Standard. National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB). Washington, D.C. 

IECC. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code, International Code Council (ICC), 

Country Club Hills, IL.

IECC. (2012). International Energy Conservation Code, International Code Council (ICC), 

Country Club Hills, IL.

NAHB Research Center. (2009). Contribution to Best Practice Case Studies (Green Building 

Standard/BA Joule Target Analysis: for New Home Construction, NREL Subcontract Number 

AXL-9-99208-01.

NAHB Research Center. (2009). Contribution to BA Best Practices Alignment of Builders 

Challenge with the National Green Building Standard, NREL Subcontract Number ADJ-6-

66256-01.
21

Appendix A Cost Matrix: Electric and Gas

Table 15. Electric Rate Cost Matrix 
22

Table 16. Gas Rate Cost Matrix 
23

Appendix B: Summary Matrix 

Table 17. Initial Normalized Percent Savings for Electric Fuel and Simulation Location 
24

Table 18. Initial Normalized Percent Savings for Gas Fuel and Simulation Location
DOE/GO-102012-3556 ▪ July 2012

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.