A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Program Design Analysis 

using BEopt Building Energy 

Optimization Software: 

Defining a Technology Pathway 

Leading to New Homes with Zero 

Peak Cooling Demand 

Preprint 

R. Anderson and C. Christensen 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

S. Horowitz 

University of Colorado

To be presented at the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on 

Energy Efficiency in Buildings 

Pacific Grove, California 

August 13–18, 2006 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-550-39821 

August 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

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, 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
Program Design Analysis using BEopt Building Energy Optimization 

Software: Defining a Technology Pathway Leading to New Homes 

with Zero Peak Cooling Demand 

Ren Anderson, Craig Christensen, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Scott Horowitz, University of Colorado 

ABSTRACT 

An optimization method based on the evaluation of a broad range of different 

combinations of specific energy efficiency and renewable-energy options is used to determine 

the least-cost pathway to the development of new homes with zero peak cooling demand. The 

optimization approach conducts a sequential search of a large number of possible option 

combinations and uses the most cost-effective alternatives to generate a least-cost curve to 

achieve home-performance levels ranging from a Title 24-compliant home to a home that uses 

zero net source energy on an annual basis. By evaluating peak cooling load reductions on the 

least-cost curve, it is then possible to determine the most cost-effective combination of energy 

efficiency and renewable-energy options that both maximize annual energy savings and 

minimize peak-cooling demand. 

Introduction 

A growing number of “beyond-code” residential energy programs in the United States 

maximize whole-house energy savings by targeting all residential end uses rather than focusing 

energy-saving strategies on specific building components. Examples of programs that target 

whole-building energy savings include the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Zero 

Energy Home (ZEH) Program, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building America Program, 

and California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Zero Energy New Homes (ZENH) program. Figure 

1 compares the first costs of two different approaches to increasing source energy savings 

beyond Title 24 in a 2,592-ft2 two-story home in Sacramento. The upper cost curve in Figure 1 

represents costs for a program that only targets space-conditioning equipment options. The lower 

cost curve represents costs for a program that includes all energy-savings options. The benefits 

of the whole-buildings approach are clear from comparing the costs and energy savings 

associated with the two different curves. The program that only targets equipment options is 

limited to maximum source energy savings of about 18% relative to Title 24 and has first costs 

that are significantly higher than the program that is based on using all available energy-saving 

options. 

Programs that target whole-building energy savings are more cost effective for program 

providers and participants, but they also provide many challenges. One of these is the challenge 

of developing a consistent method for comparing the costs, energy savings, and interactions 

between the large number of different combinations of energy-savings options that can 

potentially be used to achieve whole-building energy savings. Researchers at the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have developed the BEopt analysis method as one 

approach to solving this analysis problem. The results from the BEopt analysis method provide a 

starting point for development of multi-year program targets that can then be updated over time 

based on actual program results. 

1
Figure 1. Comparison of Energy Saving Strategies for a Two-Story Home in Sacramento 

Energy Saving Strategies

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

First Cost

Equipment Only All Options

Summer cooling loads are a significant contributor to high energy generation and 

transmission and distribution (T&D) costs for California utilities. Significant incentives have 

been added to the Title 24 Code to encourage the development of construction approaches that 

minimize peak cooling loads in new homes (Heschong Mahone Group 2002, Pacific Gas and 

Electric 2002). The cost of building new power plants and T&D systems can be significantly 

reduced if new homes are designed with zero peak cooling loads. The objective of this paper is to 

evaluate the most cost-effective technology pathway for a program that has the goal of building 

new homes that minimize peak cooling loads. 

Technical Approach 

Christensen, Horowitz & Barker (2004) developed an analysis method (BEopt) to 

determine the least-cost path to Zero Net Energy (ZNE) homes, based on evaluating the marginal 

costs of different combinations of energy efficiency and renewable-energy options. This method 

has recently been applied to determine the most cost-effective approaches to achieve the nearterm and long-term performance targets for the DOE Building America Program (Anderson, 

Christensen & Horowitz 2006) 

 The BEopt analysis method uses an efficient sequential search-optimization technique to 

find optimal and near-optimal combinations of discrete energy efficiency options. The 

development of this analysis method was influenced by several factors. First, the method 

identifies intermediate optimal points all along the path of interest (i.e., minimum-cost building 

designs at different target energy-savings levels), not just the global optimum or the ZNE 

optimum. Second, the method allows discrete rather than continuous building options to be 

evaluated, reflecting realistic construction options. Third, an additional benefit of the search 

strategy is the identification of near-optimal alternative designs along the path, allowing for 

substitution of essentially equivalent solutions based on builder or contractor preferences. 

The sequential-search approach used by the analysis method involves searching all 

categories (wall type, ceiling type, window glass type, HVAC type, etc.) for the most costeffective combination at each sequential point along the path to ZNE. Starting with the base-case 

building, simulations are performed to evaluate all available options for improvement (one at a 

time) in the building envelope and equipment. Based on the results, the most cost-effective 

2
combination is selected as an optimal point on the path and put into a new building description. 

The process is repeated. At each step, the marginal cost of saved energy is calculated and 

compared with the cost of PV energy. From the point where further improvement in the building 

envelope or equipment has a higher marginal cost, the building design is held constant, and PV 

capacity is increased to reach ZNE. 

For the purposes of the current study, the BEopt method is applied to a two-story home in 

Sacramento, California, to determine the least-cost path to maximize annual source energy 

savings and minimize peak cooling demand. A home with a zero peak cooling demand is 

achieved by first determining the most cost-effective combination of envelope and equipment 

measures required to minimize source energy use. When the marginal cost reductions in source 

energy use through the use of energy efficiency measures is equivalent to the cost of using a 

grid-connected residential PV system, further investments in energy efficiency are stopped, and 

residential PV is added to the home until the remaining electric demand for cooling is directly 

offset by the site electricity provided by the PV system. Representative construction costs and 

utility rates were used in the current study to demonstrate the use of the BEopt analysis method 

to define technology pathways to specific energy-performance goals. All of the cost, 

performance, building-geometry, and building-operation inputs used in the present study can be 

modified as needed to reflect specific building types, construction costs, and utility rates. 

Building Characteristics Considered in This Study 

A simple two-story 2,592-ft2 home with an attached two-car garage was used for this 

study (Figure 2). The home has 1-ft eaves and a slab foundation. Window area was assumed to 

be 18% of floor area and was equally distributed among outside walls. Window distribution is a 

user input to the analysis and can be modified to reflect specific home designs as needed. The 

study was limited to one orientation (back facing west), allowing full exposure of the windows 

on the back of the home to afternoon sun. Adjacent homes 10 ft to the north and south provide 

shading of sidewalls. The energy options considered in the study include space-conditioning 

systems, envelope systems, hot-water systems (including tankless and solar hot water), lighting 

systems, major appliances, and grid-connected residential PV. No specific options that address 

miscellaneous electric loads other than major appliances were included in the study. The 

homeowner costs calculated in the study assume a 30-year mortgage at a 7% interest rate with a 

3% general inflation rate and a 5% real discount rate. The net present value of replacements for 

options with lifetimes less than 30 years were included in option costs. The specific descriptions 

of the energy efficiency and renewable-energy options considered in this study cannot be 

included within the space limitation for this paper and are summarized in the appendix of 

Anderson et al. 2004. 

Figure 2. Simple House Geometry Used in Current Study 

3
Occupancy/Operational Assumptions 

The occupancy and operational assumptions used in the study are defined in the Building 

America Research Benchmark (Hendron 2005) and include time-of-day profiles for occupancy, 

appliance and plug loads, lighting, domestic hot-water use, ventilation, and thermostat settings. 

Base-Case Building Characteristics 

Incremental energy savings and incremental home costs are calculated relative to a basecase building that meets Title 24 requirements for Sacramento (California climate zone 12; 

personal communication, Steve Vang). The base-case building includes low-leakage tested ducts 

with R-4.2 insulation, low solar-heat-gain windows, R-13 walls, R-38 ceiling insulation, and a 

SEER 13 air-conditioning (AC) system. 

Cost Assumptions 

Each option has an assumed first cost and lifetime. Costs used in the analysis represent 

retail costs and include national average estimated costs for hardware, installation labor, 

overhead, and profit. Construction costs (wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation 

insulation, etc.) are typically based on national average cost data (R. S. Means 1999). Window 

and HVAC costs are based on quotes from manufacturers’ distributors. Appliance costs are 

based on manufacturers’ suggested retail prices. 

Building construction options (wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, 

windows, etc.) are assumed to have 30-year lifetimes. Equipment and appliance options 

typically have 10- or 15-year lifetimes. Lifetimes for lighting options (incandescent and compact 

fluorescent lamps) are modeled based on cumulative hours of use. 

Utility costs are assumed to escalate at the rate of inflation (i.e., to be constant in real 

terms). The onsite power option used for this study was a residential PV system with an installed 

cost of $7.50 per peak WattDC, including present value of future operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs. Natural gas is assumed to have an average cost of $1/Therm. Electricity was 

assumed to have an average cost of $0.127/kWh. The home is assumed to have a gas water 

heater (or solar hot water heater with gas backup), a gas furnace, a gas clothes dryer, and a gas 

stove. The impact of long-term increases in the cost of energy was not considered in the current 

study. All cost assumptions are user inputs that can be modified to reflect actual costs in specific 

projects. 

The cost estimates used in this study do not include the initial costs required to reengineer home designs,1

 state and local financial incentives and rebates, or other builder costs, 

such as warranty and call-back costs. All of these additional cost factors may have a significant 

impact on builder business decisions related to construction of new home designs and must be 

considered as part of the design of programs aimed at increasing the construction of highperformance homes. 

 

1

 Builder re-engineering costs include costs associated with renegotiating relationships with suppliers and 

contractors, costs required to advertise new home features, technical support required to pass code review, costs for 

third-party inspections, and costs for contractor training. These costs are largest for early adopters and market 

leaders who are among the first to try new systems and are proportionally smaller for best-practice builders and 

standard practice builders who wait before adopting new systems. 

4
Analysis Results 

The least-cost curve is shown as a function of source energy savings in Figure 3.2 At 

zero source energy savings, the cost on the curve at the vertical axis represents the annual utility 

bill for a homeowner with a Title 24 home. Each point in Figure 3 represents a different 

combination of equipment and envelope options for the home. The BEopt method conducts an 

annual energy simulation for a large number of possible option combinations in the vicinity of 

the least-cost curve. The least-cost curve represents the lower bound of these combinations of 

options. One of the benefits of the BEopt analysis method is the ability to identify a large number 

of option combinations represented by the points nearest the least-cost curve that have nearly 

equivalent cost and performance. 

The marginal cost of increased energy efficiency is equal to the marginal cost of 

electricity from residential PV when source energy savings reach about 44%. The straight line 

that begins at source energy savings of 44% represents the cost of using a net-metered, gridconnected PV system to meet remaining home energy needs. The neutral cost point where total 

energy-related homeowner costs for a high-performance home are equal to the initial utility costs 

for a Title 24 home occurs at source energy savings of about 50%. 

The first costs associated with achieving different levels of source-energy savings on the 

least-cost curve are shown in Figure 4. The data shown in Figure 4 is the same as the lower curve 

in Figure 1 but has been expanded to a broader range of source-energy savings. A home with 

40% in annual source-energy savings relative to Title 24 increases first costs by $5,000, a 50% 

home increases costs by $15,000, and a 60% home increases costs by $25,000. If the base home 

price for the Title 24 home is $500,000, the corresponding fractional increases in home cost 

required to achieve these higher performance levels are 1%, 3%, and 5%. 

Figure 3. Least-cost Curve for a Two-story, 2,592-ft2 Home in Sacramento 

 

2

 To provide a consistent basis of comparison, source energy savings will be used as the metric for the x-axis 

throughout this paper. 

5
Figure 4. Incremental First Costs Associated with Achieving 

Different Annual Source-Energy Saving Levels 

First Cost of Saved Energy

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

First Cost

Efficiency Savings PV Savings

The average 30-year cost of site energy savings are shown as a function of source energysavings level in Figure 5. The first cost required to achieve each savings level was divided by the 

total site energy savings for gas and electric end uses for the 30-year period of the current study 

to determine the average costs shown in Figure 5. The average cost of saved energy compares 

favorably with current residential energy costs out to a source energy-savings level of about 

50%-60%. The average cost of electricity provided by PV is shown in Figure 6 and is about 

$0.17/kWh. 

Figure 5. Average Cost of Total Site Energy Savings 

Average Cost of Total Site Energy Savings

-0.05

0.45

0.95

1.45

1.95

0 10 20 30 40 44 50 60 70 80

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

$/Therm

-0.002

0.008

0.018

0.028

0.038

0.048

0.058

$/kWh

6
Figure 6. Average Cost of Site PV Electric 

Average Cost of Site PV Electric

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

$/kWh

Changes in peak cooling loads and peak cooling demand are shown as a function of 

source energy savings in Figure 7. Improvements in home energy efficiency reduce peak 

cooling loads by over 40% (lower curve in Figure 7) and peak cooling demand by 50% (upper 

curve in Figure 6). The additional reduction in demand relative to loads is the result of the 

increase of AC SEER from 13 to 15 at the 44% source energy-savings level. In the current study, 

which assumes installed PV costs of $7.50/Wattppc, the marginal cost of electric savings from PV 

is less than the marginal cost of electric savings from high-SEER AC systems for source-energy 

savings levels greater than 44%. 

Figure 7. Impact of Energy Efficiency Improvements on 

Peak Cooling Loads and Peak Cooling Demand 

% Reduction in Peak Cooling Load and Demand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

% Reduction Relative to T24

50

Reduction in Cooling Load Reduction in Cooling Demand

7
Reductions in peak-cooling demand in dimensional units (kW) resulting from the 

combination of energy efficiency and PV are shown in Figure 8. The nominal EER of the SEER 

13 AC system was assumed to be 11 in Figure 8. At the 60% savings level, a 2-kWpDC PV array 

with 25% derate factor provides the 1.5 kW required to meet peak cooling demand. 

Figure 8. Impact of Energy Efficiency and PV on Peak Cooling Demand 

 Peak Cooling Demand Reduction with PV

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% Source Energy Savings Relative to T24

Peak Cooling 

Demand (kW)

Efficiency Savings PV Savings

The relative efficiencies of different new residential building program targets are shown 

in Figure 9. The relative savings shown in Figure 9 do not include the additional source energy 

savings that occur when PV systems are added to the homes. Building America’s near-term 

national research targets are referenced to a fixed benchmark that represents the average 

Figure 9. Comparison of Annual Source Energy Savings without PV 

Annual Source Energy Savings From Efficiency 

Options Relative to T24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

BA 30%

Target Home

BA 40%

Target Home

SMUD/

Premier ZEH

BA 50%

Target Home

Zero Peak

Cooling

Performance Target

% Savings Relative to T24

8
performance of 1990s homes and provide efficiency savings ranging from 10%-35% relative to 

2005 T24. SMUD’s Premier Homes project provides source energy savings of about 25% 

relative to 2005 T24 for the two-story home considered in the current study when PV savings are 

not included.3 

The distribution of annual energy end uses in the home at the point (44% savings relative 

to T24) where the incremental cost of additional energy efficiency savings are equal to the cost 

of PV is shown in Figure 10. The right-hand side of Figure 10 also includes a summary of the 

options used to increase the efficiency of the home relative to the base Title 24 home. 

Figure 10. Distribution of Annual Energy End Uses 

at the 44% Source Energy-savings Level 

In Figure 114

, the cooling electric demand for the Title 24 reference house is compared to 

the house with 44% annual source energy savings relative to Title 24 for a peak cooling day with 

a thermostat set point of 76°F. Even without added PV, the energy efficiency options that have 

been implemented in the 44% house reduce peak cooling demand by about 1.5 kW. 

In addition to the reductions in peak cooling demand shown in Figure 11, the energy 

efficiency upgrades in the 44% house also reduce total annual heating energy use by 70% and 

annual cooling energy use by 60% (Figure 12). 

 

3

 SMUD’s Premier Homes Project was originally targeted relative to 2002 T24. Requirements for 2005 T24 are 

about 15% more stringent than 2002. 

4

 Figures 11, 13 and 14 show electric cooling demand only. Additional miscellaneous electric demand totaling about 

1kW are not shown in these figures. 

9
Figure 11. Comparison of Cooling Demand without PV 

Cooling Demand Without PV on August 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 6 12 18 24

Hour (Standard Time)

Hourly Electric Demand 

(kW)

Title 24 House 44% House

Figure 12. Reduction in Annual Heating and Cooling Source 

Energy Use without PV 

Annual Reductions in Heating and Cooling Loads

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Heating Cooling

Million Btu/yr Source Energy

T24 44% Savings

Because of the large reduction in the cooling load of the 44% house, a simple thermostat 

setback and set-up strategy can have a significant impact on cooling demand in the highperformance home. For the cooling demand results shown in Figure 13, the cooling set point was 

set to be 76°F from 10 pm to 10 am. The set point was reduced from 76°F to 72°F from 10 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. and then increased from 72°F to 78°F from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pre-cooling strategies 

have previously been shown to be cost effective alternatives for commercial buildings (Keeney 

and Braun 1997). This simple strategy shifts the cooling peak in the 44% house back from late 

afternoon to mid-morning (lower curve in Figure 13). The same strategy also provides a slight 

shift in the T24 house, but is insufficient to reduce the late afternoon peak cooling demand (see 

upper curve in Figure 13). 

10
Figure 13. Thermostat Setback and Setup Significantly Reduce Peak Cooling 

Demand in the 44% House 

Impact of Setback/Setup Thermostat Strategy on Cooling 

Demand During August 20 Peak Day

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

0 6 12 18 24

Hour

kW

T24 44%

The impact of adding a west-facing 2-kWpDC PV system in combination with a 

thermostat setback and setup strategy is shown in Figure 14. The net impact of the PV system (in 

combination with energy efficiency measures and the thermostat setback/setup strategy) is to 

reduce peak cooling demand to nearly zero throughout most of the day in the 44% house (lower 

curve in Figure 14). The 2-kW PV system reduces the peak-cooling demand in the T24 house in 

the late morning and early afternoon, but has little impact on the late afternoon peak (upper curve 

in Figure 14). 

 Figure 14. A 2-kW PV System has Little Impact on 

Peak Cooling Load in the T24 House 

Peak Cooling Demand with Setup/Setback and a 2 kW PV 

System during August 20 Peak Day

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

0 6 12 18 24

Hour

kW

T24+2kWPV 44%+2kWPV"

11
As can be seen in Figures 11 through 14, the efficiency savings provided by programs 

with whole-building energy targets provide significant benefits to utilities and consumers and are 

also important enablers of other advanced technologies and load-control strategies. By 

maximizing the investment in energy efficiency options before making investments in advanced 

options like PV, the size and, therefore, the cost of the investment in the advanced option is 

minimized. A 4-kWpDC array at a cost of $30,000 would be required to achieve a zero peak 

cooling demand home if no additional investments in energy efficiency beyond Title 24 were 

made. Not only would a PV-only approach cost more than the optimum found using the BEopt 

analysis method ($30,000 vs. $25,000), it would also provide significantly lower aggregate peak 

and off-peak energy savings than the integrated energy efficiency and renewable-energy 

approach that has been evaluated in the current paper. 

Conclusions 

The BEopt analysis method has been used to evaluate the costs and benefits of different 

combinations of energy efficiency and renewable-energy options targeting the development of 

homes with zero peak cooling demand. The results indicate that it is possible to build a 2,592-ft2

home in Sacramento at an incremental cost of about 5% relative to a standard Title 24 home that 

will achieve zero peak cooling demand, reduce total annual heating energy use by 70%, reduce 

annual cooling energy use by 60%, and reduce total source energy use by 60%. The examples 

presented in this study are representative of what can be accomplished using currently available 

materials, components, and equipment options. However, to achieve these benefits several 

energy-saving strategies must be done right and must also be done in the right combination. 

Residential energy programs that provide direct support to production builders and minimize the 

risks associated with changing current construction practices are required to maximize broader 

benefits to California, including reducing requirements for construction of additional energy 

generation, transmission, and distribution capacity. 

References 

Anderson, R., C. Christensen, S. Horowitz. In Press. “Analysis of Residential Systems Targeting 

Least-Cost Solutions Leading to Net Zero Energy Homes.” ASHRAE Annual Meeting, 

Quebec City, Canada, June 24-28, 2006. 

Anderson, R., C. Christensen, G. Barker, S. Horowitz, A. Courtney, T. Givler, and K. Tupper. 

2004. Analysis of System Strategies Targeting Near-Term Building America EnergyPerformance Goals for New Single-Family Homes: FY 2004 Fourth-Quarter Building 

America Milestone Report. NREL/TP-550-36920. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 

Christensen, C., S. Horowitz, and G. Barker. “A Sequential Search Technique for Identifying 

Optimal Building Designs on the Path to Zero Energy Buildings.” ASES Annual Meeting, 

July, 2004, Portland, Ore. 

Hendron, R. 2005. Building America Research Benchmark Definition, Updated December 29, 

2004. NREL/TP-550-37529. Golden, Colo., National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

12
Heschong Mahone Group. 2002. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building 

Energy Efficiency Standards: Time Dependent Valuation Formulation Cookbook,” April 12, 

2002. 

Keeney, K.R. and J.E. Braun 1997. “Application of Building Precooling to Reduce Peak Cooling 

Requirements” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 103, Pt. 1, pp. 463-469. 

 Pacific Gas and Electric. 2002. “2005 Title 24 Codes Change Proposal: Time Dependent 

Valuation Economics Methodology.” March 18, 2002. 

R. S. Means. 1999. Residential Cost Data – 18th Annual Edition. Kingston, Mass: R.S. Means 

Company, Inc. 

Vang, Steve. 2006. Personal communication. Consol, Inc., February 8, 2006. 

Acknowledgments 

This work has been authored by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States 

Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that 

the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to 

publish or reproduce the publishd form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States 

Goverment purposes. 

This work was also done with support of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District under 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement No.CRD-05-168. Neither the Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, 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 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the United States government, or any agency thereof. 

13
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Program Design Analysis using BEopt Building Energy Optimization 

Software: Defining a Technology Pathway Leading to New Homes 

with Zero Peak Cooling Demand; Preprint 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-39821 

5e. TASK NUMBER

BET6.8004 

6. AUTHOR(S)

R. Anderson, C. Christensen, and S. Horowitz 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-39821 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

An optimization method based on the evaluation of a broad range of different combinations of specific energy 

efficiency and renewable-energy options is used to determine the least-cost pathway to the development of new 

homes with zero peak cooling demand. The optimization approach conducts a sequential search of a large number of 

possible option combinations and uses the most cost-effective alternatives to generate a least-cost curve to achieve 

home-performance levels ranging from a Title 24-compliant home to a home that uses zero net source energy on an 

annual basis. By evaluating peak cooling load reductions on the least-cost curve, it is then possible to determine the 

most cost-effective combination of energy efficiency and renewable-energy options that both maximize annual 

energy savings and minimize peak-cooling demand. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Building America; U.S. Department of Energy; BEopt Building Energy Optimization Software; zero peak cooling 

demand; energy efficient residential buildings 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18