Addendum to the Building 

America House Simulation 

Protocols

C. Engebrecht Metzger, E. Wilson, 

and S. Horowitz

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

December 2012
ii

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

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following current and former National Renewable Energy Laboratory staff 

members for their significant contributions to the development of this document:

Ren Anderson

Dennis Barley

Jay Burch

Craig Christensen

Mark Eastment

Xia Fang

Rob Guglielmetti

Sara Farrar-Nagy

Kristin Field

Marcia Fratello

Michael Gestwick

Robert Hendron

Ron Judkoff

Neal Kruis

Ben Polly

Stacey Rothgeb

Jennifer Scheib

Paul Torcellini

Jon Winkler

Gail Werren

Stefanie Woodward

The authors would also like to thank Ed Hancock, Greg Barker, and Paul Reeves for their 

valuable technical contributions. In addition, the simulation experts for each of the Building 

America teams provided important new perspectives and critical assistance with the development 

of these protocols. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to David Lee, Eric Werling,

and Sam Rashkin of the U.S. Department of Energy for the program leadership and financial 

resources needed to complete this work over many years.
iv

Addendum to the Building America 

House Simulation Protocols

Prepared for:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401 

NREL Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 

Prepared by: 

C. Engebrecht Metzger, E. Wilson, and S. Horowitz

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401 

December 2012 
v 

Definitions

AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BA Building America

CEC California Energy Commission

CFA conditioned floor area

cfm cubic feet per minute

COU coefficient of utilization

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOE-2 building energy analysis program that can predict the energy use and cost for 

all types of buildings

EF energy factor

HSP House Simulation Protocols

IECC International Energy Conservation Code

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

MAT monthly average temperature

MEL miscellaneous electric load

NCTH New Construction Test Home

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NREMD National Residential National Residential Efficiency Measures Database

SEER seasonal energy efficiency ratio

SLA specific leakage area
vi

Contents

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the House Simulation Protocols ..............................................................................1

Purpose of the Addendum to the House Simulation Protocols..................................................2

Analysis Tools ...........................................................................................................................2

1 New Construction................................................................................................................................. 3

B10 Benchmark Specifications..................................................................................................3

1.1 Building Envelope ...................................................................................................4

1.2 Space Conditioning/Air Distribution Equipment.....................................................6

1.3 Domestic Hot Water ................................................................................................7

1.4 Air Infiltration..........................................................................................................8

1.5 Mechanical Ventilation............................................................................................8

1.6 Lighting....................................................................................................................9

1.7 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads ........................................................9

1.8 Site Generation.........................................................................................................9

Modeling the NCTH ..................................................................................................................9

2 Existing Homes................................................................................................................................... 10

Analysis Tools Specific to Existing Buildings........................................................................10

Pre-Retrofit Specifications.......................................................................................................10

2.1 Building Envelope .................................................................................................10

2.2 Space Conditioning/Air Distribution Equipment...................................................11

2.3 Domestic Hot Water ..............................................................................................11

2.4 Air Infiltration and Ventilation ..............................................................................11

2.5 Lighting..................................................................................................................11

2.6 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads ......................................................11

2.7 Site Generation.......................................................................................................12

Modeling the Post-Retrofit Case..............................................................................................12

3 Operating Conditions......................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Vacation Periods....................................................................................................13

3.2 Space Conditioning................................................................................................13

3.3 Domestic Hot Water ..............................................................................................14

3.4 Lighting..................................................................................................................14

3.5 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads ......................................................14

3.6 Occupancy..............................................................................................................14

3.7 Internal Mass..........................................................................................................14

4 Reporting Energy Use and Energy Savings .................................................................................... 15

5 Overall Document Format.................................................................................................................. 22

6 Bibliography........................................................................................................................................ 23
vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Previous Benchmark Framing Factors ...................................................................................... 5

Table 2. New Benchmark Framing Factors .............................................................................................. 5

Table 3. Fenestration Assembly Characteristics..................................................................................... 6

Table 4. Benchmark Space Conditioning Equipment Efficiencies ........................................................ 6

Table 5. Benchmark Domestic Hot Water Storage and Burner Capacity.............................................. 7

Table 6. Determination of Benchmark Water Heater Location............................................................... 8

Table 7. Benchmark Ventilation Specifications ....................................................................................... 9

Table 8. Natural Ventilation Seasonal Temperature Limits .................................................................. 13

Table 9. Cost Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 16

Table 10. Cash Flow Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 21
1

Introduction

Building America (BA) is an industry-driven research program sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) that applies systems engineering approaches to accelerate the 

development and adoption of advanced building energy technologies in new and existing 

residential buildings. This program supports multiple building research teams in the production 

of advanced residential buildings on a community scale. These teams use a systems engineering 

process to perform cost and performance assessments to improve each builder or retrofit 

contractor’s standard practice; the overall goal is to significantly reduce energy use with only a 

nominal increase in initial construction costs. The energy efficiency concepts incorporated into 

these houses are evaluated by conducting successive design, test, redesign, and retest iterations.

This process results in innovations that can be used cost effectively in production-scale housing. 

Additional goals of the BA program are to:

• Encourage a systems engineering approach in the design and construction of new homes 

and retrofits.

• Accelerate the development and adoption of high performance residential energy 

systems.

• Improve indoor air quality, comfort, and durability.

• Integrate clean onsite power systems.

Purpose of the House Simulation Protocols

As BA has grown to include a large and diverse cross-section of the home building and retrofit 

industries, it has become more important to develop accurate, consistent analysis techniques to 

measure progress towards the program’s goals. The House Simulation Protocol (HSP) document

provides guidance to program partners and managers so they can compare energy savings for 

new construction and retrofit projects. The HSP provides the program with analysis methods that 

are proven to be effective and reliable in investigating the energy use of advanced energy 

systems and of entire houses. 

The HSP document is divided into three sections. 

• Section 1 provides information about program design assumptions and analysis methods 

for new construction. In new construction, the project house (also known as prototype, 

or New Construction Test Home [NCTH]) is compared to a reference building that 

represents a “typical” code-built house at the time of the contract recompetition. The 

most recent contract recompetition was in 2010, so this benchmark house is referred to as

the “B10 Benchmark” hereafter in this document.

• Section 2 provides similar information for the analysis of existing homes, including 

design assumptions and analysis methods for comparing pre-retrofit to post-retrofit

homes. Using as many aspects of the real house as possible, this section also provides 

default values for components of an existing house with unknown performance 

characteristics. 
2

• Section 3 provides information about standard operating conditions for the analysis of 

new and existing homes. Standard user profiles, which represent an average of many 

occupants rather than actual profiles for an average or typical set of occupants, were

developed based on review of the available literature. 

Purpose of the Addendum to the House Simulation Protocols

Traditionally, the HSP has been updated annually to incorporate newly available research results.

This year, BA is taking a new approach to this update, in which an addendum to the changes is 

released first. A public comment period will be offered so the changes can be tested and vetted 

before they are final.

Specifically, one of the major goals this year for the HSP is to provide the opportunity to plot the 

benchmark building on BEopt optimization curves (Christensen et al. 2006)1. To do this, it is 

necessary to have physical options that can have costs associated with each measure.

Fortunately, NREL also recently developed the National Residential Efficiency Measures 

Database (NREMD), which includes costs for all types of measures. View the NREMD at:

http://www.nrel.gov/ap/retrofits/about.cfm.

This addendum follows the same structure as the HSP and notes cases in which no changes were

made.

Analysis Tools

A key decision in any building energy analysis is determining which tool or program to use to 

estimate energy consumption. An hourly simulation is often necessary to fully evaluate the timedependent energy impacts of advanced systems used in BA houses. Thermal mass, solar heat 

gain, and wind-induced air infiltration are examples of time-dependent effects that can be 

accurately modeled only by using a model that calculates heat transfer and temperature in short 

time intervals. An hourly simulation program is also necessary to accurately estimate peak 

energy loads. Because it has been specifically developed and tailored to meet BA’s needs, BEopt 

(using either DOE-2 or EnergyPlus as the simulation engine) is the hourly simulation tool 

recommended for systems analysis studies performed under the DOE BA program.

The BA teams are also encouraged to use other simulation tools when appropriate for specialized 

building simulation analysis (new technologies, some multifamily projects, etc.), provided the 

tool has met the requirements of the Building Energy Simulation Test and Diagnostic Method in 

accordance with the software certification sections of RESNET (2006). Regardless of the tool 

selected, teams should present complete analysis results in their final project summaries. 

 1 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed BEopt to simulate residential building energy 

performance.
3

1 New Construction

To track progress toward aggressive multiyear, whole-house energy savings goals of 30%–50% 

for new homes, NREL developed the concept of a new construction reference building that 

represents the “typical” code-built house at the time of the contract recompetition. The most 

recent contract recompetition was in 2010, so this reference building is called the “B10 

Benchmark” or “Benchmark” in this document. This reference building is generally consistent

with the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), with additional definitions that 

enable the analyst to evaluate all residential end uses consistent with typical homes built in 2010. 

The goal is to essentially maintain the energy performance of the Benchmark construction 

throughout the contract period (in this case, through the end of calendar year 2014). However, 

updating the HSP is beneficial when a statement needs further clarification, or when more 

accurate information becomes available through research. These types of changes do not affect

the overall reference point-in-time of the building.

A series of user profiles, intended to be an average over many homes, rather than the behavior of 

an individual set of typical occupants, was created for use in conjunction with the Benchmark. 

The Benchmark is intended for use with detached and attached single-family housing, as well as 

multifamily housing. 

The following house designs shall be included as part of the analysis of a new home design:

B10 Benchmark. A reference case representing a house built to the 2009 IECC, as well 

as the federal appliance standards in effect as of January 1, 2010, and lighting 

characteristics and miscellaneous electric loads (MELs) most common in 2010. The 

Benchmark is used as the point of reference for tracking progress toward multiyear 

energy savings goals established by BA. 

NCTH. A research home or prototype home built as part of a community-scale project 

that includes advanced systems and design features built as part of the BA program. 

B10 Benchmark Specifications

The following sections summarize the Benchmark definition. NREL and other BA partners have 

also developed a series of tools, including spreadsheets with detailed hourly energy use and load 

profiles, to help analysts quickly and consistently apply the Benchmark. These tools are available 

on the BA website 

(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/residential/ba_house_simulation.html). BEopt can also 

automatically simulate the Benchmark when the specifications for an NCTH are entered.

The Benchmark may be applied to either a single-family or a multifamily home. A single-family 

home is contained within walls that go from the basement or the ground floor (if there is no 

basement) to the roof. A single-family attached home is defined as a residence that shares one or 

more walls with another unit. This definition includes, but is not limited to, duplexes, row 

houses, and townhomes. 
4

A multifamily home (or multifamily building) has at least five housing units. Each unit must 

share at least a floor or a ceiling with another unit.2 Also, a given multifamily building may have 

no more than three stories; otherwise, it is considered a commercial building, which is outside 

the scope of this document. These definitions are consistent with those provided by the DOE

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (DOE 2005) database (except the requirement on the 

number of units). 

1.1 Building Envelope

Modification 1.1.1—Modeling the Benchmark, Second Bullet

Language was added to clarify this statement, which now reads, “...and for climate zones 3 

through 8, the basement or crawlspace, which shall be unvented and insulated at the walls...”

This was simply a clarification of the basement insulation location, which was omitted in 

previous versions. The crawlspace and basement of the Benchmark will always be unvented and 

the floor will not be insulated in any case. Climate zones 1 and 2 will have unvented crawlspaces 

but no insulation anywhere.

Modification 1.1.2—Modeling the Benchmark, Fourth Bullet

The basement wall construction for the Benchmark building will be fixed at 8 in. of concrete 

instead of being the same type of construction as the NCTH. This decision is driven by the desire 

to cost a more fixed Benchmark building.

Modification 1.1.3—Modeling the Benchmark, New Bullet

Because BEopt has added capability, the following new language was added: “Surfaces adjacent 

to neighboring units (attached walls, floors, and ceilings) shall be modeled as adiabatic for both 

the Benchmark and NCTH.”

Modification 1.1.4—Window Analysis, Option 2

Currently, option 2 allows for equally distributed window area on each of the four walls 

(including attached walls). The goal of this analysis technique is to have the glazing influences 

on energy use become independent of the NCTH orientation. To maintain the goal of the fixed 

Benchmark building, the front door will now be fixed in the north-facing position, rather than 

following the NCTH. The latest version of BEopt will use option 2 with a fixed orientation, 

which will keep the simulation run time as low as possible. 

Modification 1.1.5—Insulated Ceiling Analysis

There is an inherent decrease in attic floor insulation levels near the attic perimeter and roof 

edges with most common construction practices. In the past, the HSP specified a workaround to 

model this effect by slightly increasing the ceiling framing factor. BEopt can now calculate the 

effect of the reduced insulation depth at roof edges, accounting for roof type, roof pitch, eave 

depth, and insulation thickness.

 2 The qualifications for a project being labeled “multifamily” will be discussed in 2013.
5

Modification 1.1.6—Cathedral Ceilings

To provide similar guidance to the IECC 2009, cathedral ceilings in the reference building 

(Benchmark in this case) required only R-30 in all climates. After much discussion, it was 

decided that in the future, all cathedral ceilings in the Benchmark building shall be modeled with 

the same insulation levels that are required in all other ceilings.

Modification 1.1.7—Attached Walls Analysis

Going forward, the Benchmark shall be modeled with attached walls where the NCTH has 

attached walls.

Modification 1.1.8—Benchmark Framing Factors

The framing factors for the Benchmark wood-framed walls in the HSP have been inconsistent 

with BEopt (see previous HSP values in Table 1).

Table 1. Previous Benchmark Framing Factors

Enclosure Element Frame Spacing

(in. on center)

Framing Fraction

(% area)

Walls (Above Grade) 16 23%

Floors/Basement Ceiling/Crawlspace 

Ceiling 16 13%

Ceilings Below Unconditioned Space 24 11%

To make these values consistent and referenceable, wood-framed walls shall have the framing 

factors listed in Table 2. These are referenced from the ASHRAE (2009). Ceiling framing factors 

in Table 2 reflect the fact that BEopt now accounts for the attic perimeter insulation taper effect.

Table 2. New Benchmark Framing Factors

Enclosure Element Frame Spacing

(in. on center)

Framing Fraction

(% area)

2 × 4 Walls (Above Grade) 16 25%3

2 × 6 Walls (Above Grade) 24 22%3

Floors/Basement Ceiling 16 13%

Ceilings Below Unconditioned Space 24 7%

Roof, When Insulated At Roof 24 7%

 3 2009 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals (I-P Edition), p.27.3
6

Modification 1.9—Benchmark Fenestration

Because of the desire to cost the Benchmark, it is important to have the values associated with 

the Benchmark window properties to be more realistic and to reflect real-world availability and

still comply with IECC 2009. Real windows that were chosen were similar for similar climates. 

(See Table 3.)

Table 3. Fenestration Assembly Characteristics

Climate Zone Vertical Fenestration U-Value 

(UF) (Btu/h·ft2·°F)

Vertical Fenestration 

Solar Heat Gain 

Coefficient

1 to 3 0.37 0.30

4 to 8 0.35 0.44

Modification 1.10—Solar Absorptivity of Roofs

The solar absorptivity of roofs shall be equal to 0.85, which corresponds with medium-colored 

asphalt shingles. These are some of the most common shingles applied to new construction 

homes, and the Benchmark building should reflect that. 

1.2 Space Conditioning/Air Distribution Equipment

Modification 1.2.1—Space Conditioning Equipment Type and Efficiency4

In line with the goal to create a fixed Benchmark that can be graphed on a BEopt curve, the 

space conditioning equipment and fuel types for the Benchmark building are now fixed. (See 

Table 4 for details.) In the 2010 HSP, an NCTH with electric baseboard heat would be compared 

to a Benchmark building with a 7.7 heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF)/13 seasonal 

energy efficiency ratio (SEER) air source heat pump.

Table 4. Benchmark Space Conditioning Equipment Efficiencies

Function Benchmark Space Conditioning Device

Heating 78% AFUE* gas furnace

Cooling 13 SEER air conditioner

* Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency

Modification 1.2.2—Stand-Alone Dehumidification

Because research is still being conducted on the issue of universally recommending stand-alone 

dehumidification in homes, the Benchmark shall not include a stand-alone dehumidifier, 

regardless of whether the NCTH actively controls relative humidity.

 4 This change will be further analyzed in the year 2013 to determine the exact impact on BA analysis. 
7

Modification 1.2.3 – Number of Stories

The following language will be added to the HSP that states, “For purposes of specifying the 

Benchmark duct system, the number of stories is defined as each level of living space in the 

home, including basements (finished and unfinished) and finished attics.”

Modification 1.2.4—Duct Return Registers

To properly cost the Benchmark building, the number of return ducts must be fixed (instead of 

dependent on NCTH, as currently written). For single-family detached homes, the number of 

returns is equal to 1 plus the number of stories in the home. For multifamily and attached homes, 

the number of returns shall be equal to zero, which signifies that the only return is directly into 

the air handler with no ducts. Values chosen here were based on field experience from the 

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB), IBACOS, and NREL teams.

Modification 1.2.5—Duct Insulation Levels

For ducts to be part of a plottable Benchmark house that is not dependent on the options in the 

NCTH, the insulation levels were changed to R-6 for all duct locations. Previously, the 

Benchmark building was consistent with IECC 2009, which specified that supply ducts in 

unconditioned attics have an insulation level of R-8.

1.3 Domestic Hot Water

Modification 1.3.1—Hot Water Equipment Type and Efficiency

Due to the goal of costing the Benchmark building, the Benchmark shall now have a fixed water 

heating type and efficiency (as opposed to changing depending on the NCTH). The Benchmark 

shall use a natural gas storage-type water heater, with recovery efficiency of 0.78.

5 The volume, 

energy factor (EF), capacity, and tank location are specified in Table 5 and Table 6. EF must

comply with the federal minimum standard (0.67–0.0019 x V) for the corresponding storage 

capacity (DOE 2001a). Real combinations of storage capacity, EF, and burner capacity are 

important for costing, so values in Table 5 were obtained from NREMD.

Table 5. Benchmark Domestic Hot Water Storage and Burner Capacity

# Bedrooms 1–2 3 4 5 6

# Bathrooms All ≤ 1.5 ≥ 2 ≤ 2.5 ≥ 3 All All

Storage (gal) 30 30 40 40 50 50 50

EF 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58

Gas Burner (kBtu/h) 36 36 36 36 38 47 50

 Source: ASHRAE 2007b and NREMD

 5 This change will be further analyzed in the year 2013 to determine the exact impact on energy savings models.
8

Table 6. Determination of Benchmark Water Heater Location

BA Climate Zone Benchmark Water Heater Location

Hot-Humid, Hot-Dry Attached garage if one exists, otherwise in 

conditioned space

Marine, Mixed-Humid, Cold, 

Very Cold, Subarctic Basement if one exists, otherwise in conditioned space

Source: Lstiburek 1999

1.4 Air Infiltration 

Modification 1.4.1—Separation of Infiltration and Ventilation 

The written HSP document will now have section separation between Infiltration and 

Mechanical Ventilation.

Modification 1.4.2—SLA to ACH50

Because the ACH50 metric is predominant (compared with specific leakage area [SLA]), the 

Benchmark air infiltration shall be specified in ACH50. The new Benchmark airtightness metric 

is 7 ACH50, The teams may now report infiltration in the form of ACH50.

Equation 6 in the HSP (which references above-ground basement wall area) will be removed.

Above-grade basement walls cannot be modeled in BEopt at this time.6

1.5 Mechanical Ventilation

Modification 1.5.1—Benchmark Ventilation Rate

To accommodate costing the Benchmark, the ventilation rate for the Benchmark building shall 

be a single-point exhaust ventilation system, consistent with ASHRAE 62.2.

There is much debate on the appropriate ventilation rate for homes. This is one case where more 

research is needed. The authors would like the analysts to remember that the Benchmark 

building is simply a reference point for comparing homes to each other. The ASHRAE 62.2

standard is used because it can be referenced.

Modification 1.5.2—Exhaust Fan Flow Rates in Benchmark

Previously, some details about exhaust fan flow rates were not clear in the Benchmark 

specifications. Details are now presented in the HSP (see Table 7).

 6 The best workaround for above-grade basement wall area is to increase the wall height of the first floor equal to the 

above-grade basement wall height. 
9

Table 7. Benchmark Ventilation Specifications

Ventilation Type Flow Rate (cfm) Power 

(W/cfm) Time

Kitchen Spot Exhaust 100 0.30 6:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m.

Bathroom Spot 

Exhaust 50 per bathroom 0.30 7:00 a.m.–8:00 a.m.

Whole-House 

Ventilation Per ASHRAE 62.2 0.30 All-day

Clothes Dryer 100 * 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

* Clothes dryer fan power is already included in clothes dryer appliance energy. The authors realize the 

inconsistancy between the profile of the electricity use (spread out over a day) and ventilation (one hour discrete 

event) of the clothes dryer. The authors will explore this difference during discussions with the teams in 2013. 

The NCTH shall also provide whole-house mechanical ventilation consistent with ASHRAE 

Standard 62.2, or provide justification otherwise. It is important for the program to require 

ventilation rates consistent with ASHRAE 62.2 at this time so that decreased ventilation rates are 

not used as an energy efficiency measure.

1.6 Lighting

Modification 1.6.1—Lighting Takeback Effect

Clarification: In all calculations, a takeback is included in the form of an increase in operating 

hours when incandescent lamps are replaced with energy-efficient lamps (Greening et al. 2000).

The takeback factor is proportional to the ratio of the NCTH and Benchmark average efficacies.

The modified operating hours are calculated using equation 1:

Operating Hours = �0.9 + 0.1 � Efficacy, NCTH

Efficacy, Benchmark�� × Operating Hours, Benchmark (1)

1.7 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads

Modification 1.7.1—Fixed Appliance Type

Because the goal is to simplify the Benchmark building so that it may be graphed on a BEopt 

curve, the cooking range and clothes dryer will now be modeled as electric appliances in the 

Benchmark building, regardless of the NCTH.

1.8 Site Generation

No modifications.

Modeling the NCTH

No modifications.
10

2 Existing Homes

This section in the HSP provides a set of guidelines for estimating the energy savings achieved 

by a package of retrofits or an extensive rehabilitation of an existing home. BA developed a set 

of standard operating conditions that will be used for a building simulation model to objectively 

compare energy use before and after a series of retrofits is completed. Actual occupant behavior 

is extremely important for determining the cost effectiveness of a retrofit package, especially if 

the homeowner is paying the bills. But for tracking progress toward programmatic goals, and for 

comparing the performance of one house to another, a hypothetical set of occupants with typical 

behavioral patterns must be used. 

Certain field test and audit methods are also described. These tests help establish accurate 

building system performance characteristics that are needed for a meaningful simulation of 

whole-house energy use. Several sets of default efficiency values have also been developed for 

certain older appliances that cannot be easily tested and for which published specifications are 

not readily available.

Analysis Tools Specific to Existing Buildings

NREL does not recommend that utility bills be heavily relied on as a tool for model validation in 

the context of research houses, except as an approximate check of model accuracy. There are two 

important reasons for this position:

• Occupant behavior is extremely difficult to determine accurately during the period 

reflected in the utility bills.

• The large number of uncertain input parameters allows multiple ways to reconcile the 

model with the small number of utility bills, and there is no reliable methodology for 

performing this calibration because the problem is mathematically undetermined.

Instead, detailed inspections, short-term testing, and long-term monitoring should be used to the 

greatest extent possible to minimize the uncertainty in model inputs. Default values may be used 

when certain building features are inaccessible (wall insulation) or efficiency characteristics 

cannot be readily determined through inspection or short-term testing (furnace AFUE). 

Throughout the remainder of this section, the term pre-retrofit case refers to the state of an 

existing house immediately before it undergoes a series of upgrades, repairs, additions, or 

renovations. These measures may be limited to a focused set of energy efficiency improvements 

or may be part of a larger remodeling or gut rehabilitation effort. The term post-retrofit case

refers to the same existing house after the package of improvements is complete. 

Pre-Retrofit Specifications

Any element of the pre-retrofit case that is not specifically addressed in the corresponding HSP

sections, or is not changed as part of the package of energy efficiency measures, is assumed to be 

the same as the post-retrofit case.

2.1 Building Envelope

No modifications.
11

2.2 Space Conditioning/Air Distribution Equipment

Modification 2.2.1—Maintenance Factors

When true equipment efficiency has not been tested, default values for simulations are provided

in the HSP document. Previously, the HSP values projected a decrease in efficiency over time 

for all types of heating and cooling equipment. Values were dependent on different levels of 

homeowner maintenance. Further research did not verify whether all types of equipment degrade

over time; thus, installation quality may be a more significant performance factor than age. More 

data are needed in this area.

Until more data are available on the performance of the same installed equipment over many 

years, the authors have decided to remove the maintenance factor equations.

A point of clarification is the use (or nonuse) of filters. In homes that have no filters or have

significant filter bypass, coil fouling can lead to severe equipment degradation. However, 

because this usually leads to equipment failure and eventual replacement of the filter and 

cleaning of the coils, the authors have decided not to include this type of incident in the 

calculation.

The decision is further backed by the requirement of a degradation equation that pertains to a 

single piece of equipment over its lifetime. With instances of failure and subsequent repair, there 

is no degradation equation that would capture such neglect.

2.3 Domestic Hot Water

No modifications.

2.4 Air Infiltration and Ventilation

Modification 2.4.1—Infiltration Units

For the same reasons as discussed in the New Construction section, SLA values for existing 

homes will now be represented as ACH50 values in BEopt.

2.5 Lighting

Modification 2.5.1—Lighting Analysis Clarification

If the home is unoccupied at the time of the pre-retrofit lighting audit, the pre-retrofit model 

should include additional plug-in lighting to meet Illuminating Engineering Society of North 

America (IESNA) illumination levels (Rea et al. 2000). If the home is occupied at the time of the 

lighting audit, no additional lighting is necessary; actual installed lighting levels should be used 

for the analysis.

2.6 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads

Modification 2.6.1—Default Internal Loads, Table Typographical Errors

Two typographical errors in the table titled, “Default Internal Loads From Appliances and Small 

Electric End Uses in the Pre-Retrofit Case” were corrected. MELs sensible load fraction is 

actually 0.74 and latent load fraction is actually 0.02. The BA analysis spreadsheet did not have 

these errors.
12

2.7 Site Generation

No modifications.

Modeling the Post-Retrofit Case

Modification—Post-Retrofit Lighting Modeling

Previously, modeled post-retrofit lighting levels were specified to match those in the post-retrofit 

home. A slight change was made to declare that if the actual post-retrofit lighting levels do not 

meet IESNA guidelines in an effort to conserve more energy, the post-retrofit home shall be

modeled with IESNA lighting levels.
13

3 Operating Conditions

Operating conditions in the HSP shall apply to all simulations conducted for official BA

reporting purposes, including the analysis of new homes and retrofits of existing homes, unless 

otherwise specified.

Modification 3.1—Modeling Clarification

For technologies such as ceiling fans that are designed to save energy related to operating 

conditions, the NCTH may use operating conditions that differ from those required for the 

Benchmark building. A published reference that proves those specific operating conditions can 

be changed and maintain occupant comfort, must be included in the analysis section of the 

related reports for the team to implement those changes in BEopt. The Benchmark shall always 

use the operating conditions outlined in the HSP.

3.1 Vacation Periods

No modifications.

3.2 Space Conditioning

Modification 3.2.1—Monthly Average Temperature (MAT) Basis

A clarification was made so that the MAT measurement is less than 66°F for heating and greater 

than or equal to 66°F for cooling.

Modification 3.2.2—Dehumidification Simulation

Because the requirement for blanket stand-alone dehumidification is still in the early research 

phase, the Benchmark shall not be modeled with a stand-alone dehumidifier, regardless of 

whether the NCTH actively controls relative humidity.

Modification 3.2.3—Natural Ventilation

Previously, the logic for the natural ventilation stated that the windows were assumed to be 

closed once the indoor temperature dropped below 1°F above the heating set point. This could 

lead to overcooling during the heating season. Table 8 shows a new set of parameters that uses 

natural ventilation more intelligently throughout all seasons.

Table 8. Natural Ventilation Seasonal Temperature Limits

Season Windows Close If Indoor 

Temperature Drops Below:

Heating Only 75°F (1°F below cooling set point)

Cooling Only 72°F (1°F above heating set point)

Both Heating and Cooling Enabled 72°F (1°F above heating set point)

Windows in BEopt will only open if natural ventilation can meet the cooling load for that hour. 
14

3.3 Domestic Hot Water

No modifications.

3.4 Lighting

No modifications.

3.5 Appliances and Miscellaneous Electric Loads

No modifications.

3.6 Occupancy

No modifications.

3.7 Internal Mass

No modifications.
15

4 Reporting Energy Use and Energy Savings

Modification 4.1—Cost Assumptions

The motivation for some of the changes addressed in this report is to respond to the frequent 

requests made to have real costs associated with the Benchmark building. Table 9 shows the 

default values for the Benchmark house and their associated costs. These costs can be selected

automatically in the BEopt software, by choosing “B10 Benchmark” as the reference building.

There are two possible reasons a category is listed, but no cost is listed: (1) the option (for 

example, natural ventilation/opening windows) has no associated cost; and (2) it appears in 

BEopt, and is therefore part of this list, but is not part of the Benchmark building (for example,

electric baseboards).

These costs are currently consistent with the NREMD. Because this database is dynamic and 

changes as more relevant data become available, these values may change over time. However, 

the units will likely remain consistent.
16

Table 9. Cost Assumptions

 7 This default value will be discussed in 2013 to determine the most “standard” across the country

Group Category Option BA 

Zone(s) Cost Cost Units 2nd Cost 2nd Cost Units

Building Orientation North All 0 $

Neighbors North All 0 $

Operation

Heating set point 71°F All 0 $

Cooling set point 76°F All 0 $

Humidity set point 60% relative humidity All 0 $

MELs 1 All 0 $

Miscellaneous gas loads 1 All 0 $

Natural ventilation Benchmark All 0 $

Interior shading Benchmark All 0 $

Walls

Wood Stud

R-13 fiberglass batt, Gr-1,

2 × 4, 16 in. o.c. 1,2,3,4 3.4 $/ft2 net exterior wall

R-21 fiberglass batt, Gr-1, 

2 × 6, 24 in. o.c. 7,8 3.5 $/ft2 net exterior wall

R-13 fiberglass batt, Gr-1, 

2 × 4, 16 in. o.c., R-5 XPS 4C,5,6 4.4 $/ft2 net exterior wall

Double wood stud None All 0 $

Concrete masonry unit None All 0 $

Structurally insulated 

panel None All 0 $

Insulating concrete form None All 0 $

Other None All 0 $

Exterior finish Medium/dark stucco7 All 5.3 $/ft2

Exterior 
17

Wall

Interzonal (e.g., between attached garage and 

conditioned space) walls

R-13 fiberglass batt, Gr 1, 

2 × 4, 16 in. o.c. 1,2,3,4 2.6 $/ft2

wall

R-21 fiberglass batt, Gr 1, 

2 × 6, 24 in. o.c. 7,8 2.7 $/ft2

wall

R-13 fiberglass batt, Gr 1, 

2 × 4, 16 in. o.c., R-5 XPS 4C,5,6 3.6 $/ft2

wall

Ceilings/

Roofs

Unfinished attic

Ceiling R-30 cellulose, 

vented 1,2,3 0.95 $/ft2

ceiling

Ceiling R-38 cellulose, 

vented 4,4C,5 1.1 $/ft2

ceiling

Ceiling R-49 cellulose, 

vented 6,7,8 1.2 $/ft2

ceiling

Finished roof

R-30C fiberglass batt, 2 × 10 1,2,3 2.1 $/ft2roof

R-38C fiberglass batt, 2 × 12 4,4C,5 2.7 $/ft2roof

R-30 + R-19 fiberglass batt 6,7,8 3.2 $/ft2roof

Roof material Asphalt shingles, medium All 1.8 $/ft2roof

Radiant barrier None All 0 $

Foundation/

Floors

Slab

Uninsulated 1,2,3

2-ft R-10 perimeter, R-5 gap 4,4C,5 1.9

$/ft2slab 

insulation

(perimeter)

1.2 $/ft2

gap 

insulation

4-ft R-10 perimeter, R-5 gap 6,7,8 1.9

$/ft2 slab 

insulation 

(perimeter)

1.2

$/ft2 gap 

insulation

Finished Basement

Uninsulated 1,2,3
18

 8 This default composition to meet code will be discussed in 2013 to determine the most “standard” across the country

Wall 8-ft R-10 XPS, furring 

strips, 0.5 in. gypsum board8 4,4C,5 2.7 $/ft2

wall

Wall 8-ft R-15 XPS, furring 

strips, 0.5-in. gypsum board 6,7,8 3.3 $/ft2

wall

Unfinished Basement

Uninsulated 1,2,3

Whole Wall, R-10 XPS, 

furring strips, 0.5-in. gypsum 

board

4,4C,5 2.7 $/ft2 basement wall

Whole Wall, R-15 XPS, 

furring strips, 0.5-in. gypsum 

board

6,7,8 3.3 $/ft2 Basement Wall

Crawlspace

Uninsulated, vented 1,2

Wall R-5 XPS, unvented 3 0.84 $/ft2 floor 0.97 $/ft2wall

Wall R-10 XPS, unvented 4,4C,5,6,

7,8 0.84 $/ft2 floor 1.5 $/ft2

wall

Interzonal floor

R-13 fiberglass batt 1,2 0.68 $/ft2 floor

R-19 fiberglass batt 3,4 0.81 $/ft2 floor

R-30 fiberglass batt 4C,5,6 1 $/ft2 floor

R-38 fiberglass batt 7,8 1.2 $/ft2 floor

Carpet 80% carpet All 0 $

Thermal 

Mass

Floor mass Wood surface All 1.8 $/ft2 floor

Exterior wall mass 1⁄2-in. drywall All 1.2 $/ft2wall

Partition wall mass 1⁄2- in. drywall All 1.2 $/ft2wall

Ceiling mass 1⁄2-in. drywall All 1.4 $/ft2

ceiling

Windows and Window areas 15.0% F25 B25 L25 R25 All 0 $
19

 9 Overhangs are defined as the shading provided over each window. The Benchmark building does not have overhangs.

Doors Windows

Double-pane, lowgain low-e, nonmetal 

frame, air fill

1,2,3 22 $/ft2

window

Double-pane, 

medium-gain low-e, 

nonmetal frame, 

argon fill

4,4C,5,6,

7,8 23 $/ft2window

Eaves 2 ft All 5.8 $ft2 eave

Overhangs9 None All 0 $

Airflow Air leakage 7 ACH50, 0.5 shelter 

coefficient All 0.25

$/ft2

finished 

floor

Mechanical ventilation Exhaust All 1100 $

Major 

Appliances

Refrigerator Benchmark All 1100 $

Cooking range Benchmark All 920 $

Dishwasher Benchmark All 880 $

Clothes washer Benchmark All 590 $

Clothes dryer Benchmark All 760 $

Lighting Lighting Benchmark All 0.04 $/ft2 living 

+ garage

Space 

Conditioning

Central air conditioner SEER 13 All 64 $/kBtu/h 410 $ (labor)

Furnace Gas, 78% AFUE All 9 $/kBtu/h 1200 $ (labor)

Boiler None All 0 $

Electric baseboard None All 0 $

Air source heat pump None All 0 $

Ground source heat pump None All 0 $

Ducts 15% leakage, R-6 All 5.8 $/ft2 duct 

surface
20

Ceiling fan Benchmark All 240 $/fan 290 $/fan 

(labor)

Dehumidifier None All 0 $

Water 

Heating

Water heater Benchmark All 10 $/gal 640 $

Distribution Uninsulated, 

TrunkBranch, copper

All 8.6 $/ft Piping

Solar water heating None All 0 $

Solar water heating azimuth Back roof All 0 $

Solar water heating tilt Roof pitch All 0 $

Power 

Generation None 0 $
21

Clarification 4.2—Cash Flow Assumptions

There have also been requests to state explicitly what the cash flow assumptions are for the 

Benchmark and retrofit analyses. These values are documented in Table 10 and are consistent 

with the default values in BEopt.

Table 10. Cash Flow Assumptions

Group Category Construction Type Value

Economics

Project analysis period All 30 years10

Inflation rate All 3.0%

Discount rate All 3.0%

Mortgage

Down payment New, existing with loan, and 

existing with tax deductible loan 0.0%

Existing, cash 100%

Mortgage interest rate All applicable 7.0%

Mortgage/loan period New 30 years

Existing with loan, existing with 

tax deductible loan 5 years

Marginal income tax rate, 

federal New 28%

The analyst should use OpenEI to find whatever utility rate is the closest to the actual rate the

homeowner pays. This is applicable to all analyses, including for the Benchmark, NCTH, and 

pre- and post-retrofit. The site to source ratios for electricity, gas, propane, and oil are 3.365,

1.092, 1.151, and 1.158, respectively in all locations and are automatically implemented in 

BEopt.

 10 The analysis period versus the mortgage period for existing homes is part of a larger, ongoing discussion about 

how to report on energy savings metrics in existing homes. This will be discussed further in 2013.
22

5 Overall Document Format

Recommendation 5.1.1—Internal Versus External

Although the BA HSP document was never meant for use outside of the BA program, some 

people reference its values simply because few such references are available.

There have been some suggestions for a change in the overall report format. Some believe that 

the report would benefit from a division of information. There would be two reports to represent 

the current HSP, one internal to the BA program, and one external for all simulation analysts. In 

cases where not enough research has been done to provide a recommendation to outside users,

the external version of the HSP would be silent.

Pros: It would be clear to outside users which values have proper justification for general 

use. All values that are meant only for programmatic calculations would be used only for 

the BA program, as was the original intent. 

Cons: The magnitude of effort required for such a task is unclear. However, the report 

used by outside stakeholders would be fairly short, because there are few statistically 

significant values for simulation assumptions in the current version.

At this point, the report will remain the same because of budget constraints. However, feedback 

on this possible division is welcomed by the authors.

Recommendation 5.1.2—Directions versus Justifications

There are also discussions about the usefulness of the current written format, which consists of 

tables of data, followed by explanations and justifications. One suggestion was to break the 

report into two parts. The first part would be similar to an executive summary with only short 

tables of information for how to model the benchmark or retrofit building. The descriptions and 

justifications would be provided in the main body of the report. It has also been suggested that a 

separate report be created to describe only the operating conditions and corresponding separate 

section for the justification for those values.

Pros: It will be easier for an analyst to choose inputs for any modeling program and 

know which values to use for the Benchmark without having to read the entire report.

Cons: The magnitude of effort required for such a task is unclear. Separating the two 

elements might promote inappropriate use of some of the assumptions that are detailed in 

this report.

At this point, the report will remain the same because of budget constraints. However, feedback 

on this possible division is welcomed by the authors.
23

6 Bibliography

Abrams, D.W.; Shedd, A.C. (1996). “Effect of Seasonal Changes in Use Patterns and Cold Inlet 

Water Temperature on Water Heating Load.” ASHRAE Transactions, AT-96-18-3.

Aquacraft. (2008). “Hot & Cold Water Data from EPA Retrofit Studies—EBMUD & Seattle.” 

Boulder, CO: Aquacraft Inc.

ASHRAE. (2009). Handbook—Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2008). HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook. Atlanta, GA: American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2007a). Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings. ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2007, Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2007b). HVAC Applications Handbook. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2004a). Method of Test for Determining the Design and Seasonal Efficiencies of 

Residential Thermal Distribution Systems, ASHRAE Standard 152-2004, Atlanta, GA: 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2004b). “Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,” ASHRAE 

Standard 55-2004, Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (1993). A Method of Determining Air Change Rates in Detached Dwellings, 

ASHRAE Standard 136-1993, Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (1988). Air Leakage Performance for Detached Single-Family Residential Buildings, 

ASHRAE Standard 119-1988, Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers.

ASTM. (1994). Moisture Control in Buildings. Conshohocken, PA: American Society for 

Testing and Materials.

ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Methods for Determining External Air Leakage of Air 

Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization. ASTM E1554-07. Conshohocken, PA: American 

Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM. (2003). Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization. 

ASTM E779-03. Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.

AWWA. (1999). “Residential End Uses of Water.” Denver, CO: American Water Works 

Association AWWA.

Becker, B.R.; Stogsdill, K.E. (1990). “Development of Hot Water Use Data Base.” ASHRAE 

Transactions 96(2):422–427. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air 

Conditioning Engineers.
24

Burch, J.; Christensen, C. (2007). “Towards Development of an Algorithm for Mains Water 

Temperature.” In Proceedings of the 2007 ASES Annual Conference, Cleveland, OH. 

Burch, J.; Erickson, P. (2004). “Using Ratings Data to Derive Simulation-Model Inputs for 

Storage-Tank Water Heaters.” 2004 National Solar Energy Conference. Boulder, CO: American 

Solar Energy Society.

Burch, J.; Salasovich, J. (2002). “Flow Rates and Draw Variability in Solar Domestic Hot Water 

Usage.” In Proceedings of the Solar 2002 Conference Including Proceedings of the 31st ASES 

Annual Conference and Proceedings of the 27th National Passive Solar Conference, 15–20 June 

2002, Reno, Nevada. Boulder, CO: American Solar Energy Society, Inc.; pp. 287–292; Golden, 

Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL Report No. CP-550-31779.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2010). Appliance Efficiency Database. 

http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. Last 

accessed September 2010.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2002). California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 

Part 1, Measure Analysis and Life Cycle Cost. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.

Christensen, C.; Anderson, R.; Horowitz, S.;Courtney, A; Spencer, J. (2006). “BEopt Software 

for Building Energy Optimization: Features and Capabilities.” Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, NREL Reprot No. TP-550-39929.

Christensen, C.; Barker, G.; Thornton, J. (2000). “Parametric Study of Thermal Performance of 

Integral Collector Storage Solar Water Heaters.” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, NREL Report No. CP-550-28043.

DEG. (2006). Prototype Floor Plans—Hot Water Distribution System Layouts. Report to 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under funding by the California Energy Commission. 

Davis, CA: Davis Energy Group.

Deru, M.; Torcellini, P. (2007). Source Energy and Emission Factors for Energy Use in 

Buildings. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-550-38617. 

DOE. (2010). Residential Heating Products Final Rule Technical Support Document. Chapter 7: 

Energy Use Characterization. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/heating_products_fr_tsd.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last 

accessed May 2012.

DOE. (2005). “2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

recs/contents.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed August 2010.

DOE. (2004). Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Energy, Part 430, Subpart B, Appendices C, 

D, J, and J1, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. (2004a). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers. 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/furnaces_boilers.html. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed June 2010.

DOE. (2004b). 2004 Buildings Energy Databook. http://btscoredatabook.eren.doe.gov/. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed June 2010.
25

DOE. (2003a). New and Alternative Insulation Materials and Products. Energy Savers Fact 

Sheet. www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/eb9.html (accessed August 2005). 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOE.

DOE. (2003b). Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards. www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/ appliance_standards/. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed 

May 2004.

DOE. (2002a). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer 

Products: Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/central_ac_hp.html. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy. Last accessed June 2010.

DOE. (2002b). Residential Energy Efficiency and Appliance Standards. www.eere.energy.gov/

consumerinfo/refbriefs/ee8.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed 

May 2004.

DOE. (2001a). Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Energy, Part 430, Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Water Heaters; Final Rule. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/water_heater_fr.pdf. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed August 2010.

DOE. (2001b). Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Energy.

DOE. (2001). Annual Energy Outlook 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. (2000a). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer 

Products: Residential Water Heaters. Appendix D-2. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/residential/waterheater.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

Last accessed June 2010.

DOE. (2000b). Final Rule Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Consumer Products: Clothes Washers. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/clothes_washer.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed 

June 2010.

DOE. (1999). “1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

recs/pubs.html Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed December 2009).

DOE. (1997). Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, Energy, Part 430, “Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Kitchen Ranges, Cooktops, Ovens, and 

Microwave Ovens; Final Rule.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. (1996). Residential Lighting Use and Potential Savings. DOE/EIA-0555(96)/2. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

DOE. (1995). Measuring Energy Efficiency in the United States Economy: A Beginning. 

Chapter 7. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/ee_report_html.htm. Washington, DC: U.S. U.S. 

Department of Energy. Last accessed June 2010.

DOE. (1993). Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products. Volume 2. 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_0998_r.html. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Last accessed June 2010.
26

EPRI. (1986). Trends in the Energy Efficiency of Residential Electric Appliances. EM-4539, 

Research Project 2034-9. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.

EPRI. (1987). TAG Technical Assessment Guide: Volume 2: Electricity End Use. EPRI P-4463-

SR. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.

E-Source. (1993). Space Heating Technology Atlas. Boulder, CO: E-Source Inc.

E-Star Colorado. (2005). R-Value Table. www.e-star.com/ecalcs/table_rvalues.html. Last 

accessed August 2005.

Gleick, P.H.; Haasz, D.; Henges-Jeck, C.; Srinivasan, V.; Wolff, G.; Kao-Cushing, K.; Mann, A. 

(2003). Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. 

Prepared for Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. Oakland, 

CA.

Greening, L.A.; Greene, D.L.; Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy Efficiency and Consumption—The 

Rebound Effect—A Survey. Energy Policy 28:389–401. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. 

Hancock, E.; Norton, P.; Hendron, R. (2002). Building America System Performance Test 

Practices: Part 2, Air-Exchange Measurements. NREL/TP-550-30270. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Hendron, R. (2008). Building America Research Benchmark Definition Updated December 19, 

2008. NREL/TP-550-44816. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Hendron, R.; Eastment, M. (2006). “Development of an Energy-Savings Calculation 

Methodology for Residential Miscellaneous Electric Loads.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy 

Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Huang, J.; Gu, L. (2002). Prototype Residential Buildings to Represent the U.S. Housing Stock. 

Draft LBNL Report. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

HUD. (1982). “Minimum Property Standards for One- and Two-Family Living Units.” No. 

4900.1-1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

ICC. 2003. International Energy Conservation Code 2003. Falls Church, VA: International Code 

Council.

Jiang, W.; Jarnagin, R.E.; Gowri, K.; McBride, M.; Liu, B. (2008). Technical Support 

Document: The Development of the Advanced Energy Design Guide for Highway Lodging 

Buildings. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Judkoff, R.; Balcomb, J. D.; Hancock, C. E.; Barker, G.; Subbarao, K. (2000). Side-By-Side 

Thermal Tests of Modular Offices: A Validation Study of the STEM Method. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-550-23940. 

KEMA. (2009). “Residential Lighting Metering Study: Preliminary Results.” February 2009 

Presentation to Stakeholders. Oakland, CA: KEMA. www.energydataweb.com/cpuc/home.aspx.

Kolb, G. (2003). Private communication. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

Lithgow, M.; Filey, D.; Kaszczij, R.; Liotta, J.; Den-Elzen, P. (1999). Multi-Unit Residential 

Clothes Washer Replacement Pilot Project. Prepared by the City of Toronto Works and 

Emergency Services and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Toronto, Canada.
27

Lstiburek, J. (1999). Heating Choices. Research Report—9911. Somerville, MA: Building 

Science Corporation. http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/reports/rr-9911-heatingchoices

Matson, N.; Wray, C.; Walker, I.; Sherman, M. (2002). Potential Benefits of Commissioning 

California Homes. LBNL-48258. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Mills, E. 2008. The Home Energy Saver: Documentation of Calculation Methodology, Input 

Data, and Infrastructure, LBNL-51938. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Navigant Consulting. (2002). U.S. Lighting Market Characterization: Volume 1: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate. Washington, DC: Navigant Consulting.

NRC. (2002). “A National Study of Water & Energy Consumption in Multifamily Housing: InApartment Washers vs. Common Area Laundry Rooms.” Multi-housing Laundry Association. 

Boulder, CO: National Research Center.

NREL. (2009). “Benchmark Midrise Apartment NewV1(2).1_3.1(SI).” Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Parker, D.; Fairey, P.; Hendron, R. (2010). Updated Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and 

Appliance Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the Building America 

Benchmark Procedures and Related Calculations. FSEC-CR-1837-10. Cocoa, FL: Florida Solar 

Energy Center.

Parker, D. (2002). Research Highlights from a Large Scale Residential Monitoring Study in a 

Hot Climate (and personal communication). FSEC-PF369-02. Cocoa, FL: Florida Solar Energy 

Center. 

Parker, D.; Sherwin, J.R.; Anello, M.T. (2000). FPC Residential Monitoring Project: Assessment 

of Direct Load Control and Analysis of Winter Performance. Prepared for the Florida Power 

Corporation, Cocoa, FL, FSEC-CR-1112-99.

PNNL; ORNL. (2007). High-Performance Home Technologies: Guide to Determining Climate 

Regions by County. Building America Best Practices Series. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/climate_region_guide.pdf. Richland, WA: Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory. Last accessed July 2010.

Pratt, R.; Conner, C.; Richman, E.; Ritland, K.; Sandusky, W.; Taylor, M. (1989). Description of 

Electric Energy Use in Single-Family Residences in the Pacific Northwest—End-Use Load and 

Consumer Assessment Program, Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

DOE/BP-13795-21.

Rea, M., et al. (2000). Lighting Handbook, Ninth Edition. New York, NY. Section 3, Chapter 10: 

Illuminance Selection.

RESNET. (2006). 2006 Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Systems Accreditation 

Standards. San Diego, CA: Residential Energy Services Network.

Sachs, H.M. (2005). Opportunities for Elevator Energy Efficiency Improvements. Washington 

D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
28

Sherman, M.H.; Grimsrud, D.T. (1980). “Infiltration-Pressurization Correlation: Simplified 

Physical Modeling.” ASHRAE Transactions 86(2):778. Atlanta, GA: American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

SWA. (1995). Simplified Multizone Blower Door Techniques for Multifamily Buildings. 

NYSERDA Report # 95-16. Norwalk, CT: Steven Winter Associates, Inc..

Stokes, M.; Rylatt, M.; Lomas, K. (2004). “A Simple Model of Domestic Lighting Demand.” 

Energy and Buildings 36:103–116. United Kingdom: Institute of Energy and Sustainable 

Development. 

Szydlowski, R.; Cleary, P. (1988). “In-Situ Appliance Efficiency Audit Procedures.” ASHRAE 

Transactions 94(1):1107–1023. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Taylor, Z.T.; Conner, C.C.; Lucas, R.G. (2001). “Eliminating Window-Area Restrictions in the 

IECC.” Report No. PNNL-SA-35432. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Wassmer, M. (2003). A Component-Based Model for Residential Air Conditioner and Heat 

Pump Energy Calculations. Masters Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Wenzel, T.; Kooney, J.; Rosenquist, G.; Sanchez, M.; Hanford, J. (1997). Energy Data 

Sourcebook for the U.S. Residential Sector. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, LBL-40297. 
DOE/GO-102012-3855 ▪ December 2012

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

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