U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable

Building Technologies Program

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

June 2005 • NREL/SR-550-37609

Performance Evaluations of Prototype Houses: 

Minimum 40% Residential Building Energy 

Savings Level Habitat for Humanity of 

Greater Newburgh Liberty Street Project

April 2003 to September 2004

Ric Guilbert and Amanda Magee

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB)

Norwalk, Connecticut
Performance Evaluations of 

Prototype Houses: Minimum 40% 

Residential Building Energy 

Savings Level Habitat for 

Humanity of Greater Newburgh 

Liberty Street Project 

April 2003 to September 2004 

Ric Guilbert and Amanda Magee 

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB) 

Norwalk, Connecticut 

NREL Technical Monitor: Mark Eastment 

Prepared under Subcontract No. KAAX-3-33411-03.B.1.C 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-550-37609 

June 2005 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
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, 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

This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Table of Contents

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

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

Project Time Line ............................................................................................................ 2 

Standard Practice Home ................................................................................................. 3 

Prototype Home .............................................................................................................. 3 

CARB Recommendations ............................................................................................... 5 

Panelized Construction ................................................................................................... 5 

Architectural Redesign .................................................................................................... 6 

Optimal Value Engineered Framing ................................................................................ 8 

New York ENERGY STAR® Labeled Home Program Certificates ................................ 11 

Low-e Windows............................................................................................................. 11 

Insulation Details........................................................................................................... 12

Foundation Insulation.................................................................................................... 12 

Above-grade Wall Insulation ......................................................................................... 13 

Attic Insulation............................................................................................................... 13 

Mechanical Equipment Upgrades ................................................................................. 15 

Mechanical Ventilation .................................................................................................. 16 

Lighting and Appliance Package ................................................................................... 17 

Energy Modeling ........................................................................................................... 19 

Performance Testing..................................................................................................... 20 

Air Infiltration............................................................................................................ 20 

Bathroom Exhaust Fans .......................................................................................... 20 

Combustion Safety Testing...................................................................................... 21 

Designed Versus Installed Specifications ................................................................ 21 

Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 22 

Appendix A: Energy Modeling ...................................................................................... 24 

iii 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Liberty Street row houses.............................................................................. 3 

Figure 2. Floor plans for the Habitat for Humanity row houses on Liberty Street ......... 4 

Figure 3. CARB panelized townhouses Ryan Homes, Frederick, Maryland................. 6 

Figure 4. Revised house plans..................................................................................... 7 

Figure 5. OVE Framing Techniques............................................................................. 8 

Figure 6. Corner framing options.................................................................................. 9 

Figure 7. Building each roof on the deck of the next unit.............................................. 9 

Figure 8. Two roofs with sheathing and tarpaper ― ready for the crane.................... 10 

Figure 9. Lifting the roofs into position........................................................................ 10 

Figure 10. First two roofs in place ................................................................................ 10 

Figure 11. Window installed and flashed...................................................................... 11 

Figure 12. Detail of house wrap-around windows ........................................................ 12 

Figure 13. Foundation insulation with furring strips ...................................................... 13 

Figure 14. Band joist insulation cut to fit and sealed with foam.................................... 13 

Figure 15. Volunteers cut insulation to fit in the above-grade walls.............................. 14 

Figure 16. Finished wall with foam around each piece................................................. 14 

Figure 17. Blown-in cellulose insulation ....................................................................... 14 

Figure 18. Programmable thermostat........................................................................... 14 

Figure 19. Installed combination boiler......................................................................... 14 

Figure 20. Recommended bath fan and timer control .................................................. 17 

Figure 21. Chandelier with two 15-Watts CFLs ............................................................ 18 

Figure 22. Pit-type dome light ...................................................................................... 18 

Figure 23. Strip light with CFLs .................................................................................... 18 

iv 
List of Tables 

Table 1. Project Time Line............................................................................................ 2 

Table 2. Blower Door Summary.................................................................................. 21 

Table 3. Bath Fan Performance.................................................................................. 21 

Table 4. Cost Estimates for CARB Recommendations for an Individual 

Row House Unit Control ............................................................................... 23 

Table 5. Building America Benchmark/Builder/Prototype Specifications .................... 24 

Table 6. Summary of Energy Consumption by End-Use ............................................ 25 

Table 7. Summary of End-Use Source-Energy and Savings ...................................... 25 

v 
List of Definitions 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers 

CARB Consortium of Advanced Residential Buildings 

cfm cubic feet per minute 

EFI Energy Federation, Inc. 

ELA effective leakage area 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERBP Existing Residential Buildings Program 

HERS Home Energy Rating Score 

HfHGN Habitat for Humanity of Greater Newburgh 

HfHI Habitat for Humanity International 

MEC Model Energy Code 

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority 

NYES New York ENERGY STAR-Labeled Homes Program 

SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 

SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient 

SWA Steven Winter Associates, Inc. 

vi 
Performance Evaluations of Prototype Houses: Minimum 40%

Residential Building Energy Savings Level Habitat for Humanity of 

Greater Newburgh Liberty Street Project 

Introduction 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the technical field manager for the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building America Program (BAP). The goal of the BAP is to 

develop innovative system engineering approaches to advanced housing that will enable the 

United States housing industry to deliver affordable and environmentally sensitive housing while 

maintaining profitability and competitiveness of homebuilders and product suppliers in domestic 

and overseas markets. 

For innovative building energy technologies to be viable candidates over conventional 

approaches, it must be demonstrated that they can cost-effectively increase overall product value 

and quality while significantly reducing energy use and use of raw materials when used in 

community-scale developments. To accomplish this goal, each of the Building America Teams 

partners with material suppliers, equipment manufacturers, developers, builders, designers, and 

state and local stakeholders. 

The Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB), led by Steven Winter Associates, 

is one of five Building America teams working throughout the country to develop, test, and 

design advanced building energy systems for all major climate regions in the United States. This 

report summarizes the successful research initiative with the Habitat for Humanity of Greater 

Newburgh (HfHGN) in Newburgh, New York. CARB partnered with HfHGN to design and 

build six prototype homes on Liberty Street in Newburgh. 

Background 

Habitat for Humanity International (HfHI) is a nonprofit organization that engages volunteers 

and would-be homebuyers in programs that emphasize sweat-equity and self-help. Having built 

about 30,000 houses across the nation, Habitat is among the top-ten housing producers in the 

United States. Habitat not only undertakes new housing construction, often in inner-city 

neighborhoods on infill sites, but it also engages in housing rehab—rescuing older, derelict 

homes and improving them to extend their service life. 

In collaboration with the HfHI Department of Construction & Environmental Resources, Steven 

Winter Associates, Inc., (SWA) began working with the Habitat for Humanity of Greater 

Newburgh (HfHGN) affiliate in Newburgh, New York, in April 2003. Initially, CARB partnered 

with HfHGN to develop innovative cold-climate high-performance retrofit strategies, as part of 

the Existing Residential Buildings Program (ERBP). The goal of the ERBP was to develop 

approaches that would enable the housing retrofit industry to deliver energy-efficient housing 

improvements, while maintaining profitability and the competitiveness of home retrofitters and 

product suppliers. 

Since October 1999, HfHGN has acquired and renovated abandoned houses for an average cost 

of $45,000 per home. The affiliate serves area families living in overcrowded, substandard 

housing and spending 50% to 80% of their income on housing. In August 2003, HfHGN began 

their first new construction project, six row houses located on Liberty Street in Newburgh. 

1 
As a result of their enthusiasm and willingness to implement new retrofit strategies under the 

ERBP, SWA invited HfHGN to participate in the Building America Program. Through this 

partnership, CARB provided recommendations for the Liberty Street Row Houses to achieve 

increased energy savings. The first two row houses (Figure 1) were completed and tested in 

mid-December 2004. The third and fourth units were completed shortly thereafter and tested in 

late January 2005. A dedication event for the last two units has been planned for the end of July 

2005, with Unit #6 ready for occupancy by the end of August. 

Project Time Line 

A summary of the project milestones is shown in Table 1. From planning through construction, 

all six homes are expected to be completed in less than 2 years. Unlike production builders, 

HfHGN relies heavily on volunteer labor. Although this reduces construction costs, it often 

results in a longer construction cycle. 

Table 1. Project Time Line 

August 6, 2003 Initial CARB presentation to HfHGN architecture team

August 21, 2003 Presentation to HfHGN Board of Directors to discuss energy goals 

October 5, 2003 Liberty Street ground-breaking event 

November 18, 2003 First Five Foundations Formed and Poured 

December 17, 2003 Setting the open-web trusses, CARB onsite 

January 6, 2004 Framing training for volunteers and project managers, CARB onsite

March 26, 2004 Assembly of Unit #1 and #2 roofs, CARB Staff Volunteer Day 

April 1, 2004 Setting of the roofs, CARB onsite 

June 29, 2004 NYES insulation inspection, CARB onsite 

October 16, 2004 Unit #1 Dedication Ceremony 

December 14, 2004 Gas meters set in Units #1 and #2 

December 16, 2004 Final performance testing of Units #1 and #2 by CARB 

January 28, 2005 Final performance testing of Units #3 and #4 by CARB 

January 28, 2005 Re-testing of combustion equipment in Units #1 and #2 by CARB 

February 8, 2005 ENERGY STAR certificates issued for Units #1 through #4 

May 28, 2005 Roof installed on Unit #6 by volunteers 

June 2, 2005 Tentative ENERGY STAR insulation inspection for Unit #5 by CARB 

Late July 2005 Expected completion date for Unit #5 

Late August 2005 Expected completion date for Unit #6 

July 30, 2005 Dedication event for Unit #5 and possibly Unit #6 

2 
 

Figure 1. Liberty Street row

houses 

Standard Practice Home 

The first step was a review of HfHGN’s proposed building specifications, as summarized below. 

Wall Construction: Exterior walls - 2x6 studs at 16 in. on-center with R-19 cavity 

insulation 

Interior walls - 2x4 studs at 16 in. on-center 

Roof Construction: Wood trusses with R-30 attic insulation 

Foundation Walls: R-5 insulation required by code 

Windows: Double-pane, clear, wood frame in front and vinyl frame in back 

Mechanical Equipment: 80% AFUE boiler serving baseboard heating 

Atmospheric hot-water storage tank 

Window air-conditioning units (A/C not provided by HfH) 

Conventional, manually switched bath fans 

Prototype Home 

As part of their commitment to the program, HfHGN agreed to work with CARB to target a 40% 

total energy reduction for their first new construction project. This target included space 

conditioning, hot-water heating, lighting, and electrical use. When complete, the Liberty Street 

site will contain six new single-family row homes. Through HfHGN’s fund-raising efforts, the 

homes were constructed in sets of two. The construction of four of the six units has already been 

completed, and the homes are occupied. Units #5 and #6 are nearing completion and expected to 

be ready for occupancy by late August 2005. CARB will perform the final ENERGY STAR 

testing. 

Each of the row houses is two stories tall and has three bedrooms. Including the full-conditioned 

basement, each unit provides approximately 2,000 ft2 of living space. The floor plans in Figure 2

differ slightly from the original design. A powder room was added to the first floor, and the 

master bath was removed.

3 
•

N 

1st Floor Plan 

2nd Floor Plan 

Figure 2. Final floor plans for the Habitat for Humanity row houses on 

Liberty Street 

4 
CARB Recommendations 

After reviewing HfHGN’s standard building specifications, CARB recommended a list of 

improvements for a “whole building systems” approach to design. During a design meeting held 

on August 6, 2003, each of these recommendations was presented to the architectural design 

team for HfHGN. Based on the discussions that arose during that meeting, CARB gave a full 

presentation to the HfHGN Board of Directors on August 21, 2003. At that time, each of the 

following recommendations was presented for the board to evaluate. Because HfH is a 

democratic organization, the building committee had to vote on these recommendations before 

the final specifications could be determined. CARB’s recommendations included the following: 

• Panelized Construction 

• Architectural Redesign 

o Structural and Fire Concerns 

o Integration of the Mechanical System 

• Optimal Value Engineered Framing 

• New York ENERGY STAR Labeled Homes Program Certification 

• Low-e Windows 

• Insulation Details 

o Basement Walls 

o Above-Grade Walls 

• Mechanical Equipment Upgrades 

• Mechanical Ventilation 

• Lighting and Appliance Package. 

Panelized Construction 

To simplify and accelerate the construction process, CARB offered to help HfHGN panelize the 

Liberty Street Row Houses (Figure 3). With minimal design changes, the framing plan was 

divided into sections that could be pre-assembled into panels. Each panel would be 

approximately 12 feet long and was designed to be lightweight. To reduce the weight of the 

panels, CARB proposed 2x4 framing and advanced framing techniques. 

For this particular project, panelization offered many advantages. The panels could be preassembled, delivered to the site, and quickly erected using a crane. This approach is volunteerfriendly and expedites construction. Given the site location, panelizing the row houses would 

reduce the risk of theft and vandalism. The photo in Figure 3 shows the assembly of panelized 

townhouses that CARB developed with Ryan Homes in Maryland. 

Despite the many advantages of panelization, HfHGN opted to stick frame the houses. 

Primarily, the organization was concerned about erecting the homes “too quickly.” After raising 

community awareness and construction funding, HfHGN wanted a project that the public could 

see in development and be able to track the ongoing progress. CARB was concerned about 

5 
6 

Figure 3. CARB panelized townhouses Ryan 

Homes, Frederick, Maryland 

volunteer safety and believed the project would still take time, even with panelization. HfHGN 

could not be convinced to reconsider panelization as a safer option for unskilled labor. 

Unfortunately, one volunteer was injured during the framing of the first unit, when he fell from

the second floor. There is a learning curve for construction teams more familiar with rehab 

construction, in which the structural shell is already complete. 

Architectural Redesign 

An architectural review of the row houses was performed to rationalize the floor plan for 

advanced framing and to maximize the use of the space. Initially, HfHGN agreed to panelize the 

homes, and CARB re-designed the plan around this concept. In addition to panelizing the 

framing, the key components of the architectural review included structural/fire concerns and the 

integration of mechanical ductwork (Figure 4). 

In the revised plans (Figure 4), the walls were shifted to provide a load-bearing wall between the 

kitchen and the living space. The bedroom walls above were aligned with this wall to create a 

continuous load path. Unlike the original design (top, Figure 4), which utilized all four exterior 

walls to carry the load, only the two end walls became load bearing. This provided separation 

for the structural and fire concerns, creating a safer home. In the event of fire, the structural 

integrity of the home is not threatened. By aligning this wall and shifting some doorways and 

closets, accommodations could be made for a central chase to run ductwork for the mechanical 

system (shown with a red X). During the preliminary design phase, HfHGN was considering 

heating the home with a forced-air system. 
Overlay – First and second floor of original HfH 

design 

Overlay – First and Second Floor, as proposed by 

SWA 

Figure 4. Comparison of floor plans by HfH (top) and SWA (bottom) 

7 
Optimal Value Engineered Framing 

Habitat’s proposed construction for the exterior walls included 2x6 studs at 16-in. on-center with 

R-19 cavity insulation. To keep the panels lightweight, CARB recommended 2x4 studs at 24-in. 

on-center with R-15 cavity insulation, using 2x6 walls in structural locations. However, when 

HfHGN reversed their decision to panelize the homes, CARB revised the drawings for 2x6 wall 

construction. 

CARB also provided framing drawings to help HfHGN implement optimal value engineered 

(OVE) framing techniques. These include inlined 2x6 studs at 24-in. on-center, OSB sheathing 

on the exterior, insulated headers, and two stud corners with drywall clips (Figures 5 and 6). 

These advanced framing techniques have been in use for more than 20 years and have a proven 

track record of cost savings. CARB worked with the HfHGN construction managers to help 

them understand the concepts and benefits of this type of framing. 

HfHGN chose to build the units two at a time, as funding allowed. Although the homes were not 

truly panelized, CARB did recommend that HfHGN implement some panelization concepts into 

the construction process (Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10). HfHGN accepted the proposed panelized 

approach for building and setting the roofs for all six homes. 

Figure 5. OVE framing techniques 

8 
Two-stud corner 

with drywall clips 

Improved three-stud 

corner allows 

insulation to be 

installed later 

Conventional threestud corner leaves 

uninsulated hole 

 

Figure 6. Corner framing options

Because safety was a major concern, CARB recommended that the roofs be built on the deck 

level and lifted into place with a crane. As shown in the following photos, decking for the first 

five units was completed first. Next, the exterior walls for Units #1 and #2 were erected. Then, 

using the decks for Units #3 and #4, the roof trusses were laid out and covered with OSB 

sheathing and tarpaper. Additional bracing was added to keep each roof square while it was 

transported. Each of the roof systems was then lifted into place with a crane and attached to the 

wall systems. Finally, the shingles were added and the roofs were watertight. 

Building the roofs at the deck level had a number of advantages. Like panelized walls, the 

process was simple and quick to erect. It was also safer, eliminating the need for unskilled 

volunteers to work on scaffolding or a sloped roof. HfHGN was concerned about the cost of 

renting a crane for this task. Luckily, a local company donated the crane time for this project. 

Figure 7. Building each roof on the deck of 

the next unit 

9 
Figure 8. Two roofs with sheathing and 

tarpaper ― ready for the crane 

Figure 9. Lifting the roofs into position 

Figure 10. First two roofs in place

10 
New York ENERGY STAR® Labeled Home Program Certification 

Because HfHGN is a nonprofit organization, keeping the first-cost low was a key part of this 

project. However, HfHGN recognizes that increasing the efficiency of their homes results in a 

reduction in the operating costs, making it more affordable for the low-income families that will 

take ownership of the homes. To offset some of the initial cost increases associated with 

upgrading the windows and mechanical equipment, SWA recommended that HfHGN pursue 

certification from the New York ENERGY STAR Labeled Homes Program (NYES). In 2004, 

the program offered an $850 incentive to the builder. 

The NYES Program is based on the national ENERGY STAR Homes Program, sponsored by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). The program is 

administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

and is paid for by a System Benefits Charge on the electricity transmitted and distributed by the 

state’s utilities. 

ENERGY STAR homes are nationally recognized for saving 30% or more on home energy costs 

for space conditioning and hot water. These homes feature the best building practices and 

technologies for higher energy efficiency. Certified homes must meet the guidelines set forth by 

the EPA, which require a Home Energy Rating Score (HERS) of 86.0 or greater. In addition, the 

2004 NYES program required 450 kWh of electric savings from lights/appliances; a ventilation 

system and control; and no atmospheric combustion equipment, unless a worst-case 

depressurization test was performed. At the completion of the project, testing was done to verify 

compliance with the program requirements. 

Low-e Windows 

To improve energy performance and meet the NYES program requirements, low-e windows 

were specified (Figure 11). As discussed in the standard specifications, double-pane windows 

are typically installed. Because the project is in a historic district, the windows on the front 

façade facing the street must have wood frames and be approved by the historical preservation 

committee. Vinyl frames are permitted for the remaining three sides of the building, which are 

less visible. In the front, HfHGN installed double-pane, wood frame, low-e, argon-filled 

windows with a U-value = 0.36 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) = 0.28. The 

remaining walls had vinyl windows with a U = 0.33 and SHGC = 0.46. 

Figure 11. Window installed and flashed 

11 
Figure 12. Detail of housewrap around windows

CARB also made recommendations for flashing the windows. HfHGN covered the homes with 

housewrap to provide a drainage plane. As a best practice, CARB recommended the flashing 

approach specified by one housewrap manufacturer, which prevents moisture intrusion by 

shingling. As shown in the manufacturer’s detail in Figure 12, butyl tape is applied to the 

bottom of the window opening, the window is installed, the sides are sealed with butyl tape, the 

house wrap is folded over the top of the window and secured in place. This creates a weatherresistive barrier. 

Insulation Details 

Through national partnerships with manufacturers, HfHGN is eligible to receive some materials 

for free or at discounted rates. A partner since 1987, the Dow Chemical Company supplies 

Habitat affiliates throughout the country with free Dow Styrofoam Brand insulation products. 

To take advantage of these free materials, CARB developed wall and ceiling insulation details 

for both retrofit and new construction applications that use rigid extruded polystyrene board. 

Foundation Insulation 

For the Liberty Street row houses, CARB recommended the basement walls be insulated with 2 

in. of rigid insulation, to provide a total insulating value of R-10. Furring strips (1-in. x 4-in.) 

were used to hold the insulation in place and provide a nailing surface for the sheetrock

installation (Figure 13). Rigid insulation was also cut to fit in the band joist at the top of the 

foundation and sealed with foam (Figure 14). Drywall was then applied over the rigid insulation 

to meet fire code requirements. Habitat also receives drywall for free. 

12 
Figure 13. Foundation insulation 

with furring strips 

Figure 14. Band joist insulation cut to 

fit and sealed with foam 

Above-Grade Wall Insulation 

A similar approach was used to insulate the above-grade walls. CARB recommended 4 in. of 

rigid insulation, for a total insulating value of R-20. In 2x6 construction, the stud cavity is 5-1⁄2 

in. deep. With 4 in. of insulation, this leaves a 1-1⁄2 in. space for electrical wiring and boxes. As 

shown in Figures 15 and 16, volunteers cut two layers of 2-in. insulation to fit in each stud 

cavity. 

In conjunction with each of these insulation strategies, CARB continued to emphasize the 

importance of tightly air sealing the homes. HfHGN was introduced to air-sealing practices in 

the rehab projects. After cutting each piece of rigid insulation to fit, the volunteers then sealed 

the perimeter of the piece with foam to reduce air infiltration. 

The same method used in the rim joist was used to insulate the band joist. Although this method 

is cost-effective for HfHGN because both labor and materials are free, R-19 fiberglass batts were 

used in the next two houses to accelerate the project schedule. As seen in Figures 15 and 16, the 

HfHGN project managers added bracing to the walls. Although advanced framing methods have 

been proven time and again, old habits are hard to change. 

Attic Insulation 

For the attic, CARB recommended either R-38 batt insulation, blown-in insulation (Figure 17), 

or a similar detail using layers of rigid insulation to obtain an equivalent R-value. HfHGN has 

installed rigid insulation in the attics of their rehab homes, as part of the Building America 

retrofit program. However, to simplify the new construction project, they chose to use blown-in 

cellulose insulation in the attics of these homes. 

13 
Figure 15. Volunteers cut insulation to fit 

in above-grade walls 

Figure 16. Finished wall with foam 

around each piece 

Figure 17. Blown-in cellulose 

insulation 

Figure 18. Programmable thermostat 

Figure 19. Installed combination boiler 

14 
Mechanical Equipment Upgrades 

CARB provided HfHGN with recommendations for a number of alternative heating and cooling 

systems. Each recommendation was based on achieving a minimum HERS rating of 89. It is not 

Habitat for Humanity’s policy to include air conditioning in their low-income projects. 

However, with a desire to increase the future resale value of the row houses, HfHGN asked 

CARB to consider central air conditioning as part of the recommendations. To meet that request, 

CARB integrated a central duct chase into the floor plans and provided three recommendations

for space conditioning and water-heating equipment. 

The first option utilized a power-vented combination hot-water heater and boiler with a hydro-air 

system. Similarly, Option 2 combined a direct-vent combination water heater and boiler with a 

hydro-air system. Either of the first two options required the installation of ductwork and would 

have enabled the homeowner to add central air conditioning at a later date. The third option that 

was presented utilized the same direct-vent combination boiler and hot-water heater 

recommended in Option 2 in conjunction with hydronic baseboard, which is standard practice for 

HfHGN. Because a hydro-air system is less efficient than hydronic baseboard heating and 

HfHGN did not plan to install the air conditioning equipment, CARB recommended Option 3. 

HfHGN selected Option 3 and planned to install the modulating gas-fired combination 

boiler/hotwater heater that CARB had specified. HfHGN was already familiar with this 

equipment because it had been successfully installed in previous CARB rehab prototype homes. 

The specified unit has an efficiency rating of 85% AFUE, is a direct-vent appliance, and contains 

an automatic burner that can modulate from 57% to full fire. 

In addition, the recommended model includes a 20-gallon domestic hot-water storage tank. 

After the tank is depleted, instantaneous domestic hot water is provided by a heat exchanger with 

a Recovery Rate of 4 gpm. The installation of a direct-vent boiler ensured that the criteria for 

combustion equipment under the NYES Program were met. CARB also specified programmable 

thermostats for the homes. Each floor included a 7-day programmable thermostat (Figure 18). 

After further discussing equipment alternatives with their plumber, HfHGN asked CARB if they 

could substitute a different combination boiler for that which CARB had recommended (Figure 

19). After reviewing the equipment specifications, CARB agreed. 

The alternative unit is a wall-hung, dual-purpose, hydronic heating system, providing both heat 

and hot water. The model HfHGN proposed has an efficiency rating of 90% AFUE, is sealed 

combustion, and has a modulating blower assembly. The intake fan assembly modulates to 

provide the correct airflow for combustion. Domestic hot water is provided on demand using a 

heat exchanger. Unlike the unit initially proposed, the alternative equipment does not include a 

storage tank for the domestic hot water. Controls internal to the unit give domestic hot water 

priority over heating. 

HfHGN debated about which type of unit to install in these homes. Although they were pleased 

with the performance of the combination units that had been installed in a number of rehab 

projects, the local distributor was offering HfHGN a significantly discounted price on the 

alternative unit. However, the plumber had some concerns about the availability of parts and 

installation requirements. HfHGN opted to install the newer unit in all six homes (Figure 19). 

Although supportive of the decision to install equipment with a greater efficiency rating, CARB 

was disappointed in the behavior of the installed units during final testing. In the first four 

15 
homes, the boilers were not performing properly. There were both combustion and comfort 

issues with the units. 

Outside of Unit #1, the smell of gas was strong, and the blower fan was not modulating correctly. 

CARB tested the products of combustion being exhausted from each of the homes. In Unit #1, 

44 parts per million (ppm) of CO were measured. When compared to Unit #2, which measured 

1430 ppm, it was evident that gas was being exhausted from the unit before it could be 

combusted. CARB immediately recommended that the plumber return to rectify the situation. 

Although the boiler in Unit #2 did not display combustion problems, it did not react properly to a 

call for heat. Even when the thermostat setpoint was not met, the unit would stop firing. Similar 

comfort problems arose in all four units, and CARB encouraged HfHGN to work with the 

plumber, the distributor, and the manufacturer to resolve the problems. 

CARB returned to Liberty Street a second time to re-test the combustion of the boilers in Units 

#1 and #2, as well as perform the final testing for Units #3 and #4. During that visit, all the 

boilers passed the combustion tests, and CARB was able to issue the ENERGY STAR 

certification. However, HfHGN continued to investigate the comfort complaints. 

Ultimately, the boiler issues at Liberty Street were resolved enough to satisfy the new occupants. 

CARB believes the problems were largely a result of inexperience and lack of oversight. After 

numerous calls, the boiler manufacturer sent a technical representative to the sight to investigate 

the problem. Unfortunately, each of the boilers in the four units was installed in a slightly 

different manner and by a number of different plumbers. As is often the case with new products, 

there was only one local plumber familiar with the installation of this unit. He, unfortunately, 

did not install the first two units. Along with the manufacturer’s representative, this plumber did 

eventually help to identify and rectify the installation problems. 

The primary problem was associated with the internal low water cut-off switch. Concerned 

about meeting the building code requirements, some of the plumbers who installed these units 

added an external low-water cut-off switch. The code requires the low-water cut-off, and the 

plumbers were adamant that the code inspectors would not pass the homes without one. Because 

the unit already included the switch internally, the two controls competed with one another and 

problems arose. Other minor issues, related to parts failure, also occurred and the distributor 

provided replacement components for the systems. 

Unfortunately, the project managers at HfHGN have decided to discontinue the use of this boiler 

for future projects. Although CARB can understand their frustration, it seems that proper 

training and coordination could have eliminated many of these problems. CARB would not 

discourage the use of this equipment. However, CARB would highly recommend a properly 

trained plumber and technical assistance from the manufacturer. 

Mechanical Ventilation 

CARB recommended improvements to HfHGN’s standard practice for bathroom ventilation. 

The inexpensive bath fans that are typically installed tend to be noisy and are seldom operated 

for sufficient periods of time. Instead, CARB specified an upgraded bath fan rated for 

continuous operation, quiet performance, and improved energy-efficiency. This fan was 

installed with controls to ensure extended run time. 

16 
As part of the NYES program, a mechanical ventilation system must be provided for the home 

that is capable of delivering a continuous airflow equal to 15 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per 

house, plus an additional 15 cfm for each bedroom. CARB recommended a ventilation system

capable of complying with the guidelines set forth by the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in Standard 62.2, Ventilation and 

Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-rise Residential Buildings. 

Through a partnership with Energy Federation, Inc., (EFI) HfHGN receives special pricing on 

upgraded bath fans. CARB recommended a fan/light combination for the bathroom (Figure 20). 

This model provides 75 cfm at a pressure drop of 0.25 in. wg, with a sound rating of less than 0.7 

Sones. CARB also recommended that this fan be controlled by a wall timer switch (Figure 20). 

This timer switch was mounted to a standard single-gang electrical box in the bathroom to 

provide automatic control of the bath fan. It was set to run the fan for 20-minute intervals 

throughout the day. This is a simple, low-cost way to ensure that the bathroom fan operates for 

long enough periods to adequately remove moisture and provide fresh air for the home. HfHGN 

installed the timer in the bathroom in Unit #1. CARB recommended that for future units the 

timer be installed in a closet, to reduce homeowner interference. 

Lighting and Appliance Package 

As part of the NYES program, HfHGN was required to demonstrate a 450-kWh reduction in the 

electricity use of lighting and appliances. Through a national partnership with Habitat for 

Humanity International, the Whirlpool Corporation donates a free ENERGY STAR® refrigerator 

to all new and rehabbed Habitat houses in the United States and Canada. To reach the Building 

America goals, CARB also specified that fluorescent lamps or fixtures be installed to provide 

100% of the lighting in the home. 

Figure 20. Recommended bath 

fan (left) and timer control 

(right) 

17 
CARB performed a thorough lighting audit and confirmed that all the lighting in the home had 

been fitted with appropriate bulbs. As shown in Figures 21-23, HfHGN went to great efforts to 

find compact fluorescent bulbs that would work in the fixtures that they typically install. The 

first photo shows a chandelier that was donated for the home, retrofitted with two 15-Watt 

screw-in fluorescent bulbs (Figure 21). In the center is an example of a typical bedroom fixture, 

which uses two 13-Watt pin-type compact fluorescent bulbs (Figure 22). HfHGN wanted to 

install a strip-lighting fixture in each bathroom (Figure 23). CARB encouraged them to find 

more efficient bulbs that would screw into a standard fixture. This option, which uses four 14-

Watt bulbs, was less expensive than purchasing a pin-type fixture. This same fixture with four 

60-Watt bulbs would use 240 Watts, the fluorescent bulbs reduce the electrical use by 184 Watts. 

Figure 22. Pin-type 

dome light 

Figure 21. Chandelier with 

two 15-Watt CFLs 

Figure 23. Strip light 

with CFLs 

18 
Energy Modeling 

These homes were one of the first CARB projects designed to achieve the Building America 

Program goal of 40% total energy savings, as compared to the “Building America Research 

Benchmark Definition.” However, during the Liberty Street design development phase in early 

2003, the Building America Benchmark was still being refined. CARB based the project 

recommendations on modeling with REM/Rate software and a draft of the Benchmark issued on 

April 11, 2003 (Version 1). 

With a loosely defined Benchmark and a need to get a commitment from potential builder 

partners for the upcoming year, CARB asked HfHGN to target a goal of 40% better than the 

Model Energy Code (MEC) or an equivalent HERS score of 89. In addition, CARB outlined 

requirements for reducing the electrical loads in the house, which included 100% compact 

fluorescent lighting and ENERGY STAR-rated appliances. Because no cooling was provided 

for the home, higher SEER air conditioning was not recommended. 

As development of the Benchmark progressed, CARB developed an energy model for the 

prototype using EnergyGauge USA 2.3 software. The energy performance of the home was 

modeled and compared to the “Building America Research Benchmark Definition version 3.1.” 

An updated summary of the EnergyGauge results is included in Appendix A: Energy Modeling. 

The energy modeling results shown are for a Liberty Street row house end unit, specifically Unit 

#1. Based on the proposed specifications, the prototype will have an estimated 24% total energy 

reduction compared to the Benchmark and use 27% less energy than HfHGN Standard Practice. 

The combination boiler system will reduce the hot water energy use by a projected 39% and the 

heating energy use by 21%, when compared to the Benchmark. Installing compact fluorescent 

light bulbs in 100% of the fixtures will decrease the lighting electrical use by 64%. 

For the hourly energy analysis, the EnergyGauge version 2.3 simulation tool was used. There 

are several limitations to this software when dealing with attached homes. The primary issue 

arises when trying to deal with party walls in the Building America Benchmark home. Because 

solar neutrality is desired, the window glazing needs to be evenly distributed to all sides of the 

house, including the party wall(s). If solar neutrality is not considered, the party wall can simply 

be omitted from the EnergyGauge model because DOE 2.1e does not require that the geometry 

of the building being modeled to be closed. But to have solar neutrality, a window needs to be 

inputted on the party wall, and DOE 2.1e will not permit a window to float in space without a 

wall assignment. 

For this reason, the party wall in all three models (Benchmark, Builder, and Prototype) is 

modeled as a low mass, high R-value wall. This is done to simulate an adiabatic wall to which 

window area can be assigned for the Benchmark house. The U-value and solar heat gain of the 

window is inputted as specified by the Benchmark definition. 

The inclusion of the party wall as an adiabatic surface in the Prototype homes resulted in less 

than 0.3% increase in the overall source energy total. For the Benchmark, if we compare the 

adiabatic party wall to the case when the party wall is omitted and the window glazing is divided 

only between the three exterior wall surfaces, the result is less than a 1.1% increase in the overall 

source energy total. 

Therefore, it is not a large issue but a method should be agreed upon to ensure that all analysts 

are using the same methodology to model this case. Also, as the party wall is a north-facing 

19 
wall, the Benchmark specifies that the 40 ft2

 of opaque door area should be placed on this 

surface. Some of these issues, including the appropriate method for modeling solar neutrality, 

have been dealt with in the most recent Benchmark definition (12/29/2004). 

The HERS ratings provided by EnergyGauge are not accurate when dealing with attached 

homes. The score is inaccurate because EnergyGauge uses the detached HERS reference home 

to generate a HERS score. This is not an issue in dealing with the Benchmark analysis, but when 

discussing with clients and builders the HERS score is the primary market tool used to determine 

energy efficiency. 

CARB provided ENERGY STAR ratings for the first two prototype homes. When modeled 

separately with REM/Rate software version 11.41, Unit #1 received a HERS of 92.3. Unit #2, 

which is an interior unit with the same floor plan, received a HERS score of 91.3. These scores 

far exceed the HERS 86.0 requirement of the NYES program. In terms of HERS scores, each of 

these homes demonstrates at least 50% energy savings for space heating and hot water over the 

1993 Model Energy Code and exceeds the originally proposed target of HERS 89. 

Performance Testing 

At the completion of the project, CARB returned to Newburgh to evaluate the homes through 

performance testing. CARB also provided rating for the first two homes under the NYES 

Program. Because these homes have hydronic heat and no air conditioning, there were no airhandling units or duct systems to test. The testing included the following: 

1. Air infiltration measurement using a blower door 

2. Bathroom exhaust fan airflow measurements using the balometer 

3. Combustion safety testing of all gas appliances 

4. Confirmation that all equipment and materials were installed according to the specifications 

Air Infiltration 

Using a Blower Door, the houses were depressurized to measure the air-infiltration rate. The 

leakage rate for Unit #1 at 50 Pascals (Pa) was 1017 cfm. The effective leakage area (ELA) for 

the home was 44.6 in.2

 measured at 4 Pa. The natural air-change rate, based on the ShermanGrimsrud infiltration model, is equivalent to 0.25 ACHn. Given the skill level and air-sealing 

experience of the volunteers, this is a relatively good infiltration rate. Although many of 

CARB’s new construction projects have lower leakage, this is a significant accomplishment for a 

builder primarily involved in rehab construction. A comparison of the blower door tests for 

both Units #1 and #2 is shown in Table 1. 

Bathroom Exhaust Fans 

Using a Balometer, each bath fan was tested and the results are summarized in Table 2. One 

upgraded bath fan was installed in the main bath of each home. This fan is controlled by a pin 

timer. The powder rooms have “contractor-grade” fans rated for 50 cfm. Each of the upgraded 

20 
House CFM50 ELA ACHn

Unit #1 1017 44.6 0.25

Unit #2 1450 70.3 0.36

y

Table 2. Blower Door Summary

Rated* Measured

CFM CFM

Unit #1, Main Bath Panasonic FV-08VQL3 76 67

Unit #1, Powder Room Marley A664IC 50 26

Unit #2, Main Bath Panasonic FV-08VQL3 76 71

Unit #2, Powder Room Marley A664IC 50 28

* Rating based on a static pressure of 0.25 inches.

Bath Fan Performance

Location Manufacturer Model

Table 3. Bath Fan Performance 

fans performed well. To achieve proper airflow, CARB suggested that HfHGN transition from

the 4-in. fan outlet to a 6-in. flex duct. 

Combustion Safety Testing 

As discussed previously, CARB tested the combustion safety of each gas appliance in the home. 

The NYES Program requires that each appliance be tested according to the test procedure 

established by the Building Performance Institute. The tests revealed no problems with 

combustion gases impacting the interior of the home. However, CARB observed that neither of 

the combination appliances providing heating and hot water for the first two homes was working 

properly. Combustion testing equipment was used to verify this concern, and CARB requested 

that the plumber be contacted immediately. While testing the gas oven in Unit #2, CARB also 

found that control knob was faulty, and the unit would not shut off. After CARB managed to 

turn the oven off, HfHGN was informed of the problem, and a new stove was installed the next 

day. 

Design versus Installed Specifications 

During the final performance testing, CARB performed a walk-through of the home to verify 

that all equipment and materials had been installed according to the design specifications. In 

some cases, such as wall insulation and framing, inspections are performed during construction. 

The key goals of the final inspection were verification of low-e windows, confirmation of all 

wall and ceiling insulation levels, documentation of the make and model numbers of all 

mechanical equipment, activation of the mechanical ventilation system, and performance of a 

detailed lighting and appliance audit. 

CARB was pleased to find that all the windows in the prototypes were low e. The wall 

insulation and framing had been inspected prior to sheetrock. However, CARB was able to 

verify that the rigid insulation in the basement rim band had been cut-to-fit and sealed properly. 

Cellulose insulation was blown into each attic. CARB verified that the depth and quality of this

21 
installation were adequate to meet the design specifications. CARB also documented the change 

in boiler specifications and encouraged HfHGN to contact the installer and manufacturer to 

rectify the problems, as discussed earlier in this report. 

After measuring the bath fan performance, CARB calculated the fan run-time necessary to meet 

the ventilation guidelines set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62.2. Based on these calculations, 

CARB set the pin timer to automatically turn the fan on for 20 minutes per hour. In the first two 

units, the timer control had been installed in the bathroom next to the light switch. CARB 

requested that the timer be remote-wired to a nearby closet for the remaining four units. This 

minimizes concerns that the timer will be reset or disabled by the occupants accidentally. 

Last, CARB performed a detailed lighting and appliance audit. HfHGN had gone to great 

lengths to find appropriate lamps and fixtures that were energy-efficient. In most cases, HfHGN 

incorporated compact fluorescent bulbs into their standard fixtures. However, a number of pintype fixtures were also installed to meet the NYES Program requirements. Each home included 

an ENERGY STAR-rated refrigerator and a gas range. CARB verified that the range had been 

properly vented to the outside. 

Cost Estimates 

During the initial project planning stage, HfHGN had their architectural intern investigate the 

costs of incorporating CARB’s recommendations. Table 3 shows the original breakdown of the 

cost impacts for an individual row house unit. These estimates were based on CARB’s initial 

recommendations, which included the following: panelizing the walls, utilizing open-web 

trusses to simplify duct coordination, and installing a high efficiency boiler. Although many of 

the items specified in Table 4 were ultimately not incorporated, this cost information helped 

HfHGN understand the cost trade-offs and weigh the benefits of upgrading the energy 

performance of their homes. Unfortunately, as a result of staffing changes, HfHGN was not able 

to provide CARB with final cost information based on the final building specifications. 

22 
23 

Table 4. Cost Estimates for CARB Recommendations for an 

Individual Row House Unit Control 

Standard Upgrade

Unit Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Cost

Panelized Construction

-Exterior Walls 1,332 ft2 $6.00 $4.50 -$1.50 -$1,998.00

-Party Walls 528 ft2 $6.00 $4.50 -$1.50 -$792.00

Architectural Redesign

-Structural/Fire Redesign 528 ft2 $6.00 $5.25 -$0.75 -$396.00

-Integration of Mechanicals (TJI instead of Floor trusses) 936 lf $1.65 $2.29 $0.64 $599.04

Optimal Value Engineered Framing

-Materials 1 House $10,990.00 $8,455.00 -$2,535.00 -$2,535.00

Low e Windows

-Upgrade from clear glass to Low e 153 ft2 $1.25 $191.25

Basement Insulation

-Rigid Insulation (R-10) interior and drywall(1) 666 ft2 $0.00 $1.68 $1.68 $1,118.88

Increase Ceiling Insulation

-Increase from R-30 to R-38 677 ft2 $0.28 $0.32 $0.04 $27.06

Mechanical Equipment Upgrade

-Install a High Efficiency Boiler (85.5% AFUE) 1 Vent $300.00 $500.00 $200.00 $200.00

Mechanical Ventilation

-Panasonic Low Sone Bath Fan 1 Fan $38.00 $90.00 $52.00 $52.00

-Grasslin KM-2 In Wall Timer Switch 1 Control $0.00 $38.00 $38.00 $38.00

Lighting and Appliance Package

-Replace Incandescent Fixtures with CFL Fixtures 4 Fixtures $28.00 $40.00 $12.00 $48.00

-Energy Star Refrigerator

(2) 1 Fridge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Incremental Cost per Row House = -$3,446.77

Notes:

1.) This estimate is based on the cost of rigid insulation and drywall. However, HfHGN recieves these materials for free.

2.) 

Incremental

Recommendation

Through a national partnership, Habitat for Humanity recieves a free Energy Star Refrigerator from Whirlpool Corporation for

each of their homes.
Appendix A: Energy Modeling 

Table 5. Building America Benchmark / Builder / Prototype Specifications 

Project name: HfH of Greater Newburgh

Model name: Liberty Street Row Houses - Unit #1 Area of living space = 1,353 ft

2 Floors above grade = 2

Location: Newburgh, NY Glazing Area = 178 ft

2 Attached Garage = N/A

Conditioned Basement Area = 677 ft

2

TMY site: Albany, NY

Characteristic Benchmark Home Builder Home Prototype Home

Foundation Construction full basement - concrete full basement - concrete full basement - concrete

Foundation Insulation U-0.099 R-11 batts 2" Dow Blue Board on walls (R-10)

Framed Floor Construction 9 1/2" I-joist @ 16" o.c. 9 1/2" I-joist @ 16" o.c. 9 1/2" I-joist @ 16" o.c.

Framed Floor Assembly -- -- --

Wall Construction: 1st Floor 2x4 wood framing - 16" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c.

Wall Assembly: 1st Floor U-0.085 R-19 batt insulation R-20 rigid (4") insulation

Wall Construction: 2nd Floor 2x4 wood framing - 16" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c.

Wall Assembly: 2nd Floor U-0.085 R-19 batt insulation R-20 rigid (4") insulation

Garage Interior Wall Const. 2x4 wood framing - 16" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c. 2x6 wood framing - 24" o.c.

Garage Interior Wall Assembly U-0.085 R-19 batt insulation R-20 rigid (4") insulation

Ceiling/Roof Construction pre-engineered wood trusses @ 24"

o.c.

pre-engineered wood trusses @ 24" 

o.c.

"raised heel" energy wood trusses @ 24" 

o.c.

Ceiling Assembly U-0.031 R-30 insulation R-38 insulation

Window Type benchmark vinyl double vinyl double low-e

Window U-Value 0.45 0.49 0.36

Window SHGC 0.58 0.58 0.28

Interior Shading interior shading multiplier = 0.7 in cooling

season and 0.85 in heating season -- --

Doors U-0.20 U-0.40 U-0.40

Infiltration ELA 104.8 in2

 (0.528 natural ACH) 0.4 natural ACH 1,017 cfm50 (0.202 natural ACH)

NG Boiler NG Boiler QuietSide Boiler

80 AFUE 80 AFUE 90.0 AFUE

Air Conditioner Air Conditioner * Air Conditioner *

SEER 10 SEER 10 * SEER 10 *

NG Water Heater NG Water Heater QuietSide Boiler

EF 0.54 EF 0.56 EF 0.90

HW Tank Size 40 gals 40 gals 20 gal/instant. RR = 4 gpm

Water Heater Location basement basement basement

Duct R-value R-3.3 R-3.3 * R-3.3 *

Supply Duct Area 406 ft2 406 ft2 * 406 ft

2 *

Return Duct Area 162.4 ft2 162.4 ft2 * 162.4 ft2 *

Supply Duct Location 65% basement or unconditioned 100% interior * 100% interior *

Return Duct Location 100% basement or unconditioned 100% interior * 100% interior *

AHU Location basement basement * basement *

Duct Leakage to Outside 10% 10% * 10% *

Leakage Fraction return:30%/AHU:5% return:30%/AHU:5% * return:30%/AHU:5% *

(ventilation fan energy only) exhaust only exhaust only

-- 67 cfm / 19.4 Watts / 33% run-time 67 cfm / 19.4 Watts / 33% run-time

cooling: 78o

F cooling: 78oF cooling: 78oF

heating: 68o

F heating: 68oF heating: 68oF

Lighting

10% fluorescents 

(100 W / 30 W)

10% fluorescents 

(100 W / 30 W) 100% fluorescents (60 W / 15 W)

Energy Star Appliances -- -- refrigerator

 Benchmark version: Building America Benchmark Definition version 3.1

 Software version: Energy Gauge USA - USResRatePro - version 2.3

* no cooling system, inputted solely for comparison to the BA Benchmark

Building America Benchmark/Builder/Prototype Specifications 

Side-by-Side Study of Homes

Specifications of Standard and Energy Construction 

General Description

Cooling System

Heating System

Water Heater

Temperature

mechanical ventilation

24 
 

Builder: HfH of Greater Newburgh

Model: Liberty Street Row Houses - Unit #1

Location: Newburgh, NY

Table 4. Summary of Energy Consumption by End-Use

Benchmark Builder Prototype

End-Use kWh Therms kWh Therms kWh Therms $ $ $

Space Heating 114 414 138 502 101 328 $ 408 $ 495 $ 325

Space Cooling 971 0 1052 0 741 0 $ 97 $ 105 $ 74

DHW 0 249 0 245 0 154 $ 239 $ 235 $ 148

Lighting 2329 2329 833 $ 232 $ 232 $ 83

Appliances 2419 0 2419 0 2300 0 $ 240 $ 240 $ 229

Plug Load 3390 3390 3390 $ 337 $ 337 $ 337

OA Ventilation 198 37 36 $ 20 $ 4 $ 4

Total Usage 9421 663 9365 747 7401 482 $ 1,572 $ 1,647 $ 1,198

Site Generation 0

Net Energy Use 9421 663 9365 747 7401 482 $ 1,572 $ 1,647 $ 1,198

e 5. Summary of End-Use Source-Energy and Savings

Benchmark Builder Proto Builder Prototype Builde

Tabl

r Prototype Builder Prototype

End-Use MBtu/yr MBtu/yr MBtu/yr

Space Heating 43.5 52.7 34.5 -21% 21% -5% 5% 116% 22%

Space Cooling 10.5 11.3 8.0 -8% 24% -1% 1% 11% 6%

DHW 25.4 25.0 15.7 2% 38% 0% 6% -5% 24%

Lighting 25.1 25.1 9.0 0% 64% 0% 10% 0% 40%

Appliances 26.1 26.1 24.8 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 3%

Plug Load 36.6 36.6 36.6 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

OA Ventilation 2.1 0.4 0.4 81% 82% 1% 1% -22% 4%

Total 169.2 177.2 129.0 -5% 24% -5% 24% 100% 100%

Site Generation 0.0

Net Energy Usage 169.2 177.2 129.0 -5% 24% -5% 24%

Notes: The "Percent of End-Use" columns show how effective each building is in reducing energy use over the Benchmark in each end-use category.

 The "Percent of Total" columns show how the energy reductions in each end-use category contribute to the overall savings.

energy costs $0.0994 /kWh for electricity Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp

$0.96 /therm for natural gas New York Average

Benchmark 35.0 kBtu/hr for heating

17.8 kBtu/hr for sensible cooling --> 2.5 nominal tons

Builder 38.5 kBtu/hr for heating

26.8 kBtu/hr for sensible cooling --> 3.5 nominal tons

Prototype 29.6 kBtu/hr for heating

19.8 kBtu/hr for sensible cooling --> 2.5 nominal tons

Source Energy Savings

Annual Source Energy Percent of End-Use

Annual Site Energy Annual Site Cost

Benchmark Builder Prototype

*Sizing of cooling nominal tons is based on a SHR of 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, respectively

equipment sizing

Percent of Total Component %

Table 7. Summary of End-Use Source-Energy and Savings 

Table 6. Summary of Energy Consumption by End-Use

25 
F1146-E(12/2004) 

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)

June 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE

Subcontractor Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

April 2003 to September 2004 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Performance Evaluations of Prototype Houses: Minimum 40% 

Residential Building Energy Savings Level Habitat for Humanity of 

Greater Newburgh Liberty Street Project 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-550-37609 

5e. TASK NUMBER

BET5.8004 

6. AUTHOR(S)

R. Guilbert and A. Magee 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings 

50 Washington St. 

Norwalk, CT 06854 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

KAAX-3-33411-03.B.1.C 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-550-37609 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: Mark Eastment 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Habitat for Humanity International (HfHI) is a nonprofit organization that engages volunteers and would-be 

homebuyers in programs that emphasize sweat-equity and self-help. Habitat is among the top-ten housing producers 

in the United States. In collaboration with the HfHI Department of Construction & Environmental Resources, Steven 

Winter Associates, Inc., (SWA) began working with the Habitat for Humanity of Greater Newburgh (HfHGN) affiliate in 

Newburgh, New York, in April 2003. Since October 1999, HfHGN has acquired and renovated abandoned houses 

for an average cost of $45,000 per home. The affiliate serves area families living in overcrowded, substandard 

housing and spending 50% to 80% of their income on housing. In August 2003, HfHGN began their first new 

construction project, six row houses located on Liberty Street in Newburgh. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Building America; DOE; CARB; Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings; Habitat for Humanity; house 

renovation; cold-climate housing; Liberty Street Row Houses 

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. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable

A Strong Energy Portfolio 

for a Strong America

Energy effi ciency and clean, renewable 

energy will mean a stronger economy, 

a cleaner environment, and greater 

energy independence for America. 

Working with a wide array of state, 

community, industry, and university 

partners, the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Offi ce of Energy Effi ciency 

and Renewable Energy invests in a 

diverse portfolio of energy technologies.

Research and Development 

of Buildings

Our nation’s buildings consume more 

energy than any other sector of the 

U.S. economy, including transportation 

and industry. Fortunately, the opportunities to reduce building energy use—

and the associated environmental 

impacts—are signifi cant.

DOE’s Building Technologies Program 

works to improve the energy effi ciency 

of our nation’s buildings through innovative new technologies and better 

building practices. The program

focuses on two key areas:

• Emerging Technologies 

Research and development of the 

next generation of energy-effi cient 

components, materials, and 

equipment

• Technology Integration

Integration of new technologies 

with innovative building methods 

to optimize building performance 

and savings

For more information contact:

EERE Information Center

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

www.eere.energy.gov

An electronic copy of this factsheet is 

available on the Building America Web 

site at www.buildingamerica.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Effi ciency

and Renewable Energy

Building America Program

George S. James • New Construction • 202-586-9472 • fax: 202-586-8134 • e-mail: George.James@ee.doe.gov

Terry Logee • Existing Homes • 202-586-1689 • fax: 202-586-4617 • e-mail: terry.logee@ee.doe.gov

Lew Pratsch • Integrated Onsite Power • 202-586-1512 • fax: 202-586-8185 • e-mail: Lew.Pratsch@hq.doe.gov

Building America Program • Offi ce of Building Technologies, EE-2J • U.S. Department of Energy • 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. • 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 • www.buildingamerica.gov

Building Industry Research Alliance (BIRA)

Robert Hammon • ConSol • 7407 Tam O’Shanter Drive #200 • Stockton, CA 95210-3370 • 209-473-5000 • fax: 209-474-0817 • 

e-mail: Rob@consol.ws • www.bira.ws

Building Science Consortium (BSC)

Betsy Pettit • Building Science Consortium (BSC) • 70 Main Street • Westford, MA 01886 • 978-589-5100 • fax: 978-589-5103 • 

e-mail: Betsy@buildingscience.com • www.buildingscience.com

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB)

Steven Winter • Steven Winter Associates, Inc. • 50 Washington Street • Norwalk, CT 06854 • 203-857-0200 • fax: 203-852-0741 • 

e-mail: swinter@swinter.com • www.carb-swa.com

Davis Energy Group

David Springer • Davis Energy Group • 123 C Street • Davis, CA 95616 • 530-753-1100 • fax: 530-753-4125 •

e-mail: springer@davisenergy.com • deg@davisenergy.com • www.davisenergy.com/index.html

IBACOS Consortium

Brad Oberg • IBACOS Consortium • 2214 Liberty Avenue • Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • 412-765-3664 • fax: 412-765-3738 •

e-mail: boberg@ibacos.com • www.ibacos.com

Industrialized Housing Partnership (IHP)

Subrato Chandra • Florida Solar Energy Center • 1679 Clearlake Road • Cocoa, FL 32922 • 321-638-1412 • fax: 321-638-1439 • 

e-mail: subrato@fsec.ucf.edu • www.baihp.org

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center

Tom Kenney • National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center • 400 Prince George’s Boulevard • 

Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 • 301-430-6246 • fax: 301-430-6180 • toll-free: 800-638-8556 • www.nahbrc.org/ 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ren Anderson • 1617 Cole Boulevard, MS-2722 • Golden, CO 80401 • 303-384-7433 • fax: 303-384-7540 • 

e-mail: ren_anderson@nrel.gov • www.nrel.gov

Tim Merrigan • 1617 Cole Boulevard, MS-2722 • Golden, CO 80401 • 303-384-7349 • fax: 303-384-7540 • 

e-mail: tim_merrigan@nrel.gov • www.nrel.gov

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Pat M. Love • P.O. Box 2008 • One Bethel Valley Road • Oak Ridge, TN 37831 • 865-574-4346 • fax: 865-574-9331 • 

e-mail: lovepm@ornl.gov • www.ornl.gov

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory.

June 2005 • NREL/SR-550-37609

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste.

Visit our Web sites at:

www.buildingamerica.gov www.pathnet.org www.energystar.gov