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

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Conference Paper Evaluation of the Energy NREL/CP-550-38080 Performance of Six High- April 2005 

Performance Buildings 

Preprint 

P.A. Torcellini and S. Pless 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

D.B. Crawley 

U.S. Department of Energy

To be presented at ISES 2005 Solar World Congress 

Orlando, Florida 

August 6–12, 2005 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

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

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

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

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov 

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

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

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

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

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) monitored and evaluated the energy performance of 

six high-performance buildings around the United States. The six buildings were the Visitor Center at 

Zion National Park, the NREL Thermal Test Facility, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Merrill 

Environmental Center, the BigHorn Home Improvement Center, the Cambria Office Building, and the 

Oberlin College Lewis Center. 

Evaluations began with extensive one-year minimum building energy use monitoring; the data were then 

used to calibrate energy simulation models. Actual energy savings and common lessons learned are 

described. These real stories can highlight what should be repeated and avoided in future buildings. The 

energy performance was compared among the buildings and to code-compliant, base-case buildings. 

Features of the buildings include good thermal envelopes, advanced glazings, Trombe walls, photovoltaic 

systems, daylighting, ground-source heat pumps, and passive solar design strategies. A set of 

performance metrics used for the evaluations is presented and discussed. The buildings saved 40%–70% 

compared to typical code-compliant buildings. 

Introduction 

The energy consumption of commercial buildings continues to increase. Because buildings consume 

more than 39% of the nation’s primary energy and more than 70% of its electricity (EIA 2003), architects 

and engineers must design new buildings that use considerably less energy than typical commercial 

buildings. Some building owners and designers have made great strides to significantly change the way 

commercial buildings use energy. Some of these early adopters have documented the performance of 

sustainable buildings with respect to energy and identified lessons learned from their experience. 

Publishing performance data and lessons learned encourages others to build low-energy buildings and can 

help to prevent errors from being repeated. 

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) documented the operating performance of six highperformance buildings constructed over the past decade to understand how these buildings perform with 

respect to their design goals (Torcellini et al. 2004). All the design teams included sustainability in their 

initial project goals and worked to minimize the energy and environmental impacts of their projects 

through design. From the onset, the owners and design teams for each building set aggressive energy 

saving goals ranging from 40% better than code to a net zero-energy performance. Some of the design 

teams also had ambitious goals for other dimensions of sustainability such as water management, building 

materials selection, or obtaining a high LEEDTM score (USGBC 2004). All buildings have thermal 

envelopes that exceed ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. In addition, daylighting, radiant heating, 

natural ventilation, mixed-mode ventilation, ground-source heat pumps, photovoltaic (PV), and passive 

solar design strategies were used. Computer simulated design tools were also used to help reach energy 

saving goals. Simulations were used to help guide each design—first by evaluating envelope options, 

then by designing mechanical systems that matched the predicted loads of the low-energy building. Each 

project looked at the envelope as the first method of creating low-energy buildings, and the mechanical 

and lighting systems should provide the remaining thermal and lighting comfort needs. Low-energy 

architecture is not effective if mechanical systems have to solve problems from inadequate envelopes. In 

other words, the mechanical and lighting systems complement the envelope (Torcellini et al. 1999, 2002). 

Postoccupancy evaluations began with extensive building monitoring for at least one year; energy flows 

established from the measured data were used to calibrate building models for energy simulation 

performance. A set of common metrics was also established so comparisons could be made. Site energy 

refers to energy consumed by the building, but it does not include PV generation. Net site energy 

includes on-site generation, in other words, what the utility meter reads. Net source energy refers to 

primary energy with a conversion of 3.167 for electricity and 1.084 for natural gas (EIA 2003). Facility 

1
2

totals include plug loads and site lighting. Part of the analysis was creating and simulating codecompliant, base-case buildings to determine how much the buildings exceeded code. A brief description 

of each building follows. Complete building descriptions and detailed case studies of each building are 

available at http://www.highperformancebuildings.gov/case_studies/. 

The Six High-Performance Buildings Case Studies 

Oberlin College Lewis Center 

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, is a twostory, 13,600-ft2

 (1,265-m2) classroom and laboratory building. The vision was to create a building that 

has the potential to be a net zero-energy building as technologies improve. The integrated building design 

includes daylighting to offset lighting loads, natural ventilation to offset building cooling loads, massive 

building materials to store passive solar gains, a ground-source heat pump system to meet the cooling and 

heating loads, and an energy management system. Because of the zero-energy vision, the building was 

designed to be all-electric, such that on-site energy could potentially offset 100% of the energy consumed. 

The building’s roof is covered with a grid-tied, 60-kW PV array (Figure 1). 

Measured annual site energy use was 29.8 kBtu/ft2

·yr (338 MJ/m2·yr), or 47% less than the ASHRAE 

90.1-2001 comparable code-compliant building for a typical meteorological year. The PV system 

provided 45% of the total electricity load of the building for a net site energy use of 16.4 kBtu/ft2

·yr (186 

MJ/m2

·yr). The net source energy requirements of Oberlin are also very low at 39.7 kBtu/ft2·yr (451 

MJ/m2

·yr), or 77% less than the code-compliant building. 

These results show that a high-performance 

academic building is possible in a climate that 

has heating loads, cooling loads, and humidity, 

such as in northern Ohio. A zero-energy building 

in this climate will be very difficult to realize, 

especially with on-site wastewater treatment 

loads. Additional PV capacity that extends 

beyond the footprint of the building and better 

control algorithms would be required to meet the 

zero-energy vision with today’s technology. 

Zion National Park Visitor Center 

The Visitor Center at Zion National Park in southwestern Utah exemplifies the National Park Service’s 

commitment to promote conservation and to minimize impact on the natural environment. The building 

design incorporates energy-efficient features, including daylighting, natural ventilation, cooltowers, 

Trombe walls, solar load control with overhangs, computerized building controls, and an uninterrupted 

power supply (UPS) system integrated with the 7.2-kW PV system (Figure 2). 

The cooltowers use a wet medium at the top of a 

tower; cool air naturally “falls” down the tower 

and into the building without fans. Two 

fractional horsepower water pumps drive the 

entire cooling system. The cooltowers 

eliminated the need for conventional airconditioning. Trombe walls were integrated into 

the envelope, providing passive solar heating 

without introducing light and glare into these 

Figure 2. Zion National Park Visitor Center commercial spaces. The Trombe wall supplies 

Figure 1. Oberlin College Lewis Center
20% to 40% of the annual heating, depending on the winter. Localized radiant electric heating augments 

passive solar heating. The heating system is controlled to purchase electricity when demand charges will 

not be incurred. This system eliminated all ductwork and fuel storage from the project. Because heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment was reduced, the building was constructed for less 

money than a conventional visitor center. 

The integrated design resulted in a building that costs $0.43/ft2

·yr ($4.63/m2·yr) to operate and consumes 

27 kBtu/ft2

·yr (307 MJ/m2·yr). The PV system produced a net 7,900 kWh (building area normalized to 

2.3 kBtu/ft2

·yr (26 MJ/m2·yr) or 8.5% of the annual energy use. 

BigHorn Home Improvement Center 

The BigHorn Home Improvement Center in Silverthorne, Colorado, consists of an 18,400-ft2 (1,710-m2) 

hardware store retail area and a 24,000-ft2

 (2,230-m2) warehouse (Figure 3). The owner was committed 

to minimizing energy use in his building. Natural 

ventilation provides all the cooling loads, which 

was enabled by reduced internal gains from 

lighting and envelope design. The lighting load 

is reduced by extensive use of daylighting. The 

retail area uses a hydronic radiant floor system 

with natural gas-fired boilers. An energy 

management system controls the lights, natural 

ventilation, and heating system. A transpired 

solar collector and gas radiant heaters heat the 

warehouse. Figure 3. Bighorn Home Improvement Center 

The integrated design of BigHorn yielded a source energy saving of 54%, an energy cost saving of 53% 

with annual energy costs of $0.43/ft2

·yr ($4.63/m2·yr). The lighting design and daylighting reduced 

lighting energy use by 93% in the warehouse and 67% in the retail and office areas. The reference case is 

based on Standard 90.1-2001. The PV system provides 2.5% of the annual electrical energy with the 

highest monthly percentage of 7.3% in July 2002. The additional building cost was approximately 10% 

compared to conventional construction. Most of the increase in cost can be attributed to the architecture 

of the building; this architecture was designed to help the energy performance. 

NREL Thermal Test Facility 

The NREL Thermal Test Facility (TTF) in Golden, Colorado, is a 10,000-ft2 (930-m2) steel frame 

building typical of many small commercial buildings, such as professional buildings, industrial parks, and 

retail spaces. The building features extensive daylighting through clerestory windows, two-stage 

evaporative cooling, and overhangs for minimizing 

summer gains, T-8 lamps, instantaneous water 

heaters, and a well-insulated thermal envelope 

(Figure 4). 

The integrated design and energy features have 

resulted in an energy cost saving of 51% and a site 

energy saving of 42%. Daylighting provided the 

most significant energy savings, reducing the 

lighting energy use by 75%. In this dry climate, 

Figure 4. NREL Thermal Test Facility two-stage evaporative cooling provides sufficient 

cooling capacity for less energy than conventional 

3
cooling systems. The building was built at the same cost as a conventional building; however, an overall 

evaluation of the project by an independent estimator showed an approximate increase of 3.5% because of 

the energy features. Like BigHorn, some of these features also enhance the architecture of the building. 

Cambria Office Building 

The Cambria Office Building in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, has an area of 34,500 ft2 (3,205 m2) and serves 

as the district office for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. The design team used 

LEEDTM 2.0 requirements and standards as design guidelines and goals. Among the low-energy design 

features used in this building are ground-source heat pumps, an underfloor air distribution system, heat 

recovery ventilators, an 18.2-kW PV system, daylighting, motion sensors, additional wall and roof 

insulation, and high-performance windows (Figure 5). 

The integrated energy design of this all-electric 

building produced an energy saving of 40% and 

energy cost saving of 43% compared to Standard 

90.1-2001. The lighting and HVAC efficiencies 

contributed most to the energy saving. Some 

daylighting was used, but the energy saving was 

minimal. The PV system covers about 40% of 

the roof and provides approximately 2.7% of the 

annual energy. Operational problems with the 

PV system have been corrected and the energy Figure 5. Cambria Office Building 

production is expected to double. 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Phillip Merrill Environmental Center 

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) built the 31,000-ft2 (2,900-m2) Philip Merrill Environmental 

Center in Annapolis, Maryland, to serve as the foundation headquarters (Figure 6). Early in the design 

process, CBF’s design team established a goal of 

achieving a Gold or Platinum (Version 1.0) 

LEEDTM certification. The LEEDTM 

certification goal had a strong influence on the 

building design; however, conserving the 

Chesapeake Bay is the organization’s first 

priority. 

Figure 6. CBF’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center CBF uses a ground-source heat pump system for 

 heating and cooling. A glazed wall of windows 

on the south contributes daylight and passive solar heating. The shed roof collects rainwater for fire 

protection, landscape watering, and clothes and hand washing. Composting toilets also minimize water 

use. Operable windows are used for natural ventilation when feasible. Fans are used to augment the 

natural ventilation system. For the monitoring period, the total site energy use saving was 24.5%, the 

source energy saving was 22.1%, and the energy cost saving was 12.1%. 

Lessons Learned 

Many lessons were learned in the design, construction, and operation of each building to reach the stated 

energy performance. In some cases, information gained from building monitoring resulted in changes to 

the building to improve performance. Ultimately, each building broke new ground to help the future 

design, construction, and operation of all commercial buildings. The performance results and design 

goals of the six buildings are summarized in Figure 7. Even though each building is a good performer, a 

number of factors caused the energy performance to be lower than expected. First, design teams were too 

4
optimistic about the behavior of the occupants and their acceptance of systems. Simulations create 

idealistic controls—actual performance showed different set points and less setup and setback of space 

temperatures. Energy consumption was higher and energy production was lower than simulations 

predicted. In particular, daylighting was less than predicted, which meant more electrical lighting was 

used. Actual peak demands were often higher than predicted, resulting in increased energy costs. 

Insulation values are often inflated when designing the building. Thermal bridging was partially 

accounted for in the models during the design process, but construction details and specifications are not 

always installed as designed. 

In the five buildings with PV systems (the TTF does not have PV), the actual PV production was less than 

predicted. Inverter integration problems at Cambria, Oberlin, and Bighorn resulted in unexpected 

downtime (Hayter et al. 2002). Continuous monitoring and identification of problems during typical 

operation resulted in inverter and software upgrades, improving PV system output in these cases. An 

automatic monitoring system for PV system operation should be installed in future low- and zero-energy 

buildings (LZEB). There is no way to know whether grid-tied PV systems are operating correctly without 

manually checking the inverter output on its display terminal. Continual manual monitoring is not 

practical, and a simple automated system could be put in place that alerts the building operators when the 

system is down. Shading of PV arrays by snow, trees, and the buildings themselves also reduced actual 

PV production. Understanding actual performance of PV systems during typical operation will allow for 

better design predictions in future LZEB. 

Although PV system performance in the five buildings was lower than predicted, these systems were 

successful overall. The PV-integrated UPS system at Zion provided backup power for more than 40 

power outages in a year and met more than 8% of the total site energy use. The Oberlin PV system met 

45% of the site energy requirements and helped the building realize significant source and net site energy 

savings. The Bighorn PV system is a highly visible feature that enhances the company’s green image. 

For the five buildings with PV systems, the on-site power generation did not directly reduce monthly peak 

demand charges. During summer months, when peak demands are due to peak cooling loads, peak 

demands typically result when a cloud shades the PV array. This results in minimal PV production 

during periods of peak cooling loads, and the consequential peak demand charges. Peak demands can 

also be shifted to nighttime in daylit buildings, when PV is not available. Daylighting reduces peak 

daytime lighting loads, but cleaning staff may turn on all the lights at night, which can result in monthly 

peak demands when no PV is available. Demand responsive controls at Zion, which considers available 

on-site generation, historic demand levels, and loads that can be shifted, have successfully limited peak 

demands. In future generations of LZEB, it will be difficult to reduce peak demands with PV systems 

without demand responsive controls combined with on-site thermal storage, such as capacitance in the 

building or ice storage. 

Starting at the design process, it was easier for the design team to achieve a larger percentage energy 

saving when concrete energy goals were established. Concrete goals not only provided targets for the 

design, but also provided a means for evaluating success. Oberlin has a goal of a net zero-energy 

building, which would result in a 100% net source energy saving; Zion, TTF, Cambria, and Bighorn all 

set energy cost savings design goals. In some cases, the targets were set without knowing if those targets 

could be achieved. Setting the goals also infers establishing the metrics. Different metrics yield different 

goals. A building that is successful in meeting its goal, might not fare well compared to other buildings 

that used other metrics for goals. As an example, CBF had a goal of building a LEEDTM 1.0 Platinum 

building. It met this goal; however, energy was not an additional goal and although the building is a good 

energy performer, the energy use is greater than that of some of the other buildings. Oberlin had the most 

aggressive energy goal, which is evident in the results, but did not do as well in the energy cost category 

5
.

(which was not a part of its goals.) Goals drive projects and their establishment, and definition is critical 

early in the design process. 

A key to all projects was using simple systems. Daylighting was accomplished with high windows and 

clerestories in all cases. To realize savings from daylighting, lights must be dimmed or turned off. In all 

six buildings, daylight sensors did not function properly and were either changed or reprogrammed to 

realize lighting savings. The reflectance of ceilings in daylit spaces should be greater than 80%, as darker 

ceilings in all cases reduced daylighting savings, especially when combined with indirect lighting. Glare 

from the daylighting fenestrations was also a problem in all cases. Diffusing films and light-deflecting 

panels have been successful at reducing glare issues without reducing daylighting savings. Central 

lighting controls tended to work better than distributed controls and allowed for easier commissioning and 

calibration. In all cases, lower lighting power densities (LPDs) were designed into the spaces. Even 

when the lights were on, savings were realized. Daylighting augmented the lighting, increasing the 

overall quality and quantity of interior illuminance. Appropriate placement and use of occupantcontrolled task lighting are essential for daylit buildings with reduced LPD, especially for detailed task 

work. At night, the lower LPD resulted in less light. Few complaints were received, however, because 

people seem to adapt well to lower lighting levels at night. The concept appears to be that the time of day 

influences the amount of light that is required for human visual comfort. 

Even though all of these buildings were commissioned prior to occupancy, commissioning did not always 

catch these problems. Typical commissioning primarily checks for proper individual system operation, 

but it does not address the optimal performance of the whole building once it is in operation. All of the 

buildings benefited from postoccupancy fine-tuning of system operations, resulting from building 

performance monitoring. Achieving and maintaining high performance require a constant effort, which is 

absent in most buildings. 

Conclusions 

All these buildings successfully saved energy 100%

because they integrated energy goals into the 

designs from the beginning. Use of whole-building 

80% energy simulation is a great help in setting goals, 

informing the design process, and evaluating the 

impact of design and construction decisions. It was 

critical that the envelope was designed first, 

followed by meeting remaining loads with HVAC 

equipment. Successful daylighting was vital to 

reducing lighting and HVAC loads. 

Energy Savings

60% 

40% 

20% 

Measured data from buildings provided feedback to 

building owners and design teams as to the success 0% 

i

i

i ing 

Oberlin Net Source Energy Saving Des gn Goal 

Net Source Energy Sav ng 

Net S te Energy Sav

Site Energy Saving 

Energy Cost Saving 

Energy Cost Saving Design Goal 

of their buildings. The monitoring results were used Oberlin Zion TTF CBF Cambria BigHorn 

to compare results against the goals and identify Notes: 

areas that needed to be corrected to improve the energy o CBF design goal was LEED certification and it 

performance. Based on good design and effective operation, reached this goal. 

buildings can be constructed that use significantly less 

energy than conventional buildings that are designed to meet Figure 7. Energy Savings Summary 

code. Three of the buildings, Bighorn, TTF and Zion, had energy cost savings that exceeded 50%. 

Overall, net source energy savings among the six buildings ranged from 77% (Oberlin) to 22% (CBF). In 

all cases, none of the buildings could be net energy exporters within their own footprints. Even with the 

6
high-performance features of some of these buildings, additional strides must be made to achieve net 

zero-energy performance—that is, to create buildings that are not burdens to energy supplies. The 

performance of these buildings can be traced to goal setting and design processes. As with all building 

projects, not everything was achieved. Lessons learned from these projects, ranging from the design 

processes through the operation of the buildings, will help to improve all buildings. 

Although all of the buildings have better than typical energy performance, none of them perform as well 

as predicted. The lower performance is mainly due to higher than expected occupant loads and systems 

not performing together in an ideal fashion. Additional research to reduce costs, better optimize control 

strategies, and improve reliability is needed to realize the full energy savings potential of highperformance buildings. In addition, whole-building energy simulation programs must be continually 

enhanced to keep pace with advances in new building energy technologies. 

Performance goals are important to the design process, and different owners and teams may have different 

metrics for success (Deru and Torcellini 2004). However, some of the owners and design teams 

emphasized other dimensions of sustainable design besides energy. In general, the design teams that set 

the strongest energy performance goals and paid the most attention to the impact of design decisions on 

energy performance throughout the design had the best energy performance. 

Acknowledgments 

DOE’s Office of Building Technologies managed and funded this research through the High-Performance 

Buildings Research Initiative (DOE 2004). In addition to the authors, the following NREL staff and 

interns provided energy analysis: Michael Deru, Brent Griffith, Nicholas Long, Ed Hancock, Joshua 

Bruce, Bill Talbert, and Mark Eastment. 

References 

(1) Deru, M. and P. Torcellini. 2004. Improving Sustainability through a Performance-Based Design 

Approach. World Renewable Energy Congress, Denver, CO. August 29-September 3, 2004. 

(2) Department of Energy High-Performance Buildings Research Initiative web site. 2004. 

http://www.highperformancebuildings.gov. 

(3) Energy Information Administration. 2003. Annual Energy Review. 2002. Washington, DC: Energy 

Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html 

(4) Hayter, S., P. Torcellini, and M. Deru. 2002. “Photovoltaics for Buildings: New Applications and 

Lessons Learned,” in Proceedings of the 2002 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 

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

(5) Torcellini, P.A., S.J. Hayter, and R. Judkoff. 1999. “Low-Energy Building Design - the Process and 

a Case Study,” in ASHRAE Transactions, V 105, Part 2. 802-810. Atlanta: American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

(6) Torcellini, P.A., S.J. Hayter, and R. Judkoff. 2002. “Zion National Park Visitor Center: Significant 

Energy Savings Achieved through a Whole-Building Design Process at No Additional Cost,” in 

Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

7
(7) Torcellini, P.A,. R. Judkoff, and D. Crawley. 2004. “Lessons Learned, High-Performance 

Buildings,” ASHRAE Journal, September 2004. pp. S4-S11. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

(8) U.S. Green Building Council. 2004. USGBC web site. Accessed June 4, 2004 at 

http://www.leedbuilding.org. 

8
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) 

April 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

August 6-12, 2005 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Evaluation of the Energy Performance of Six High-Performance 

Buildings: Preprint 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

P.A. Torcellini, S. Pless, and D.B. Crawley 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

NREL/CP-550-38080 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

BEC3.1001 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/CP-550-38080 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) 

The energy performance of six high-performance buildings around the United States was monitored and evaluated 

by the NREL. The six buildings include the Visitor Center at Zion National Park, the NREL Thermal Test Facility, the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Merrill Center, the BigHorn Home Improvement Center, the Cambria Office Building, 

and the Oberlin College Lewis Center. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

high-performance; Zion National Park; Thermal Test Facility; Merrill Center; BigHorn Home Improvement Center; 

Cambria Office Building; Lewis Center 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18