Approaches to 30% Energy 

Savings at the Community Scale 

in the Hot-Humid Climate 

S. Thomas-Rees, D. Beal, 

E. Martin, and K. Fonorow

Building America Partnership for Improved 

Residential Construction 

March 2013
NOTICE

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

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

thereof, nor any of their employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any 

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

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

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

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

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply 

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or 

any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency 

thereof.

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

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

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

Approaches to 30% Energy Savings at the 

Community Scale in the Hot-Humid Climate

Prepared for: 

Building America

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Prepared by: 

S. Thomas-Rees, D. Beal, and E. Martin – Florida Solar Energy Center 

K. Fonorow – Florida H.E.R.O 

Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction

Florida Solar Energy Center

1679 Clearlake Rd. 

Cocoa, FL 32922 

NREL Technical Monitor: Stacey Rothgeb

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40339-00 

March 2013 
iv

[This page left blank]
v 

Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

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

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

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

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

1.1 Building America Goals ......................................................................................................1

1.2 Builder Profiles ....................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Tommy Williams Homes .........................................................................................2

1.2.2 LifeStyle Homes ......................................................................................................3

1.2.3 Habitat for Humanity ...............................................................................................4

2 Implementation of the 30% Packages ................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................5

2.2 Packages and Energy Savings Analysis ...............................................................................5

2.2.1 Tommy Williams Homes Implementation ...............................................................7

2.2.2 LifeStyle Homes Implementation ..........................................................................10

2.2.3 Habitat for Humanity Implementation ...................................................................12

2.3 Quality Control/Quality Assurance ....................................................................................14

3 Cost Effectiveness of the 30% Packages......................................................................................... 15

4 Marketability of the Homes................................................................................................................ 17

4.1 Sales Data/Statistics ...........................................................................................................19

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 21

References................................................................................................................................................. 22
vi 

List of Figures

Figure 1. FDC after rough framing ............................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2. FDC finish creates architectural elements ............................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Drywall slipped through 3⁄4-in. space between the top plate of the nonload-bearing 

interior wall............................................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 4. Drywall is also offset beyond the wall/chase to allow for marrying adjacent drywall......... 9

Figure 5. Arrows point to code-required fire blocking under chase, resulting in insulation void 

within the chase.................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6. Backside of a foamed knee wall, showing blocker board used to serve as backing for the 

foam ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7. Foam applied to knee wall in attic where ceiling heights transition from 8 to 10 ft .......... 11

Figure 8. Backer board for foam, shown from inside garage............................................................... 11

Figure 9. Radiant barrier backer board for standard batt insulation at knee wall installation ......... 11

Figure 10. Batt insulation installed to backer board from Figure 9; six-sided sealing of cavity is 

provided by backer, facing drywall (yet to be installed), and framing members......................... 12

Figure 11. Completed exterior HPWH closet.......................................................................................... 13

Figure 12. Closet under construction. Grille on back wall connects attic space of closet to vented 

attic of house through gable end. Rough framing can be seen for grille in closet ceiling that

will complete connection between closet and attic........................................................................ 13

Figure 13. Example of TWH marketing showing the feature has a benefit......................................... 18

Figure 14. LSH uses show-and-tell type illustrations and mockups to create a hands on bonding 

experience with the customer........................................................................................................... 18

Unless otherwise noted, all figures were created by BA-PIRC.

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Hot-Humid Community-Scale Builders Specifications .................................. 6

Table 2. BEopt Analysis Results ............................................................................................................... 7

Table 3. TWH Cost Analysis of Ducts Within Conditioned Spaces ..................................................... 15

Table 4. Builders Specifications, Improvement Costs, and Energy Savings Analysis ..................... 16

Table 5. Longleaf Sales Data.................................................................................................................... 20

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by BA-PIRC.
vii 

Definitions

ACH50 Air changes per hour at 50 Pascals

ASHP Air source heat pump

BABM10 Building America Benchmark

BA-PIRC Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction

BEopt Building Energy Optimization

Btu British thermal unit

CFL Compact fluorescent lighting

cfm25 Cubic feet per minute at 25 Pascals

COP Coefficient of performance

EF Energy factor

FDC Fur-down chase

FSEC Florida Solar Energy Center

ft2 Square foot

ft3 Cubic foot

gal Gallon

HERS Home Energy Rating System

HFH Habitat for Humanity

HPWH Heat pump water heater

HSPF Heating seasonal performance factor

kBtu Thousand Btu

kWh Kilowatt-hour

LSH LifeStyle Homes

MBtu Million Btu

o.c. On center

RESNET Residential Energy Services Network

SHGC Solar heat gain coefficient

SEER Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

TWH Tommy Williams Homes

UA Unvented attic

WHES Whole-house energy savings

WHSES Whole-house source energy savings

ZEH Zero energy home
viii

Executive Summary

The Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction, formerly the Building 

America Industrialized Housing Partnership, has worked with several community-scale builders 

within the hot-humid climate zone to improve performance of production-, or community-scale, 

housing. Tommy Williams Homes (Gainesville, Florida), LifeStyle Homes (Melbourne, Florida), 

and Habitat for Humanity (various locations, Florida) have all been continuous partners of the 

Building America Program. The activities of these partners, described in this report, achieved the 

Building America goal of 30% whole-house source energy savings using packages adopted at the 

community scale. For new homes, the reference case is the B10 Benchmark, aligned with 2009 

building codes.

This report describes how these goals were achieved in production-scale homes that were built 

cost effectively at the community scale and modeled to reduce whole-house energy use by 30% 

or more in the hot-humid climate region. Key aspects of this research include determining how to 

evolve existing energy efficiency packages to produce replicable target savings, identifying 

builders’ technical assistance needs for implementation and working with them to create 

sustainable quality assurance mechanisms, and documenting commercial viability through 

neutral cost analysis and market acceptance. This report documents barriers that builders 

overcame and the approaches they implemented to accomplish Building America Program goals 

that have not already been described in previous reports.

Although the general approach to achieving 30% savings is similar among the builders, subtle 

variations in the comparable specifications show that trade-offs exist, allowing optimization of 

the efficiency package to fit regional fuel preferences, product availability/cost, subcontractor 

experience, house size, and each community’s intended market. All packages use standard, offthe-shelf components with proven durability and reliability. Successful, community-scale energy 

efficiency improvements were not only the result of specified components and packages based 

on energy modeling software analysis, but were coupled with elements of design, quality control, 

and creative marketing.

The evaluation demonstrates that the overall benefits of the integrated energy efficient measures 

used in each of the 30% whole-house source energy savings packages are marketable and result 

in neutral or net positive cash flow for homeowners. The findings are primarily applicable to 

builders and subcontractors in the hot-humid climate looking to replicate the same success in 

building cost-effective, energy efficient, comfortable, and durable homes. The high performance 

home business model calls for sweeping yet systematic change to code minimum construction 

that, over time, pays dividends to both builder and homeowner. 
1 

1 Introduction

The Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction (BA-PIRC), formerly 

Building America Industrialized Housing Partnership, has worked with several community-scale 

builders within the hot-humid climate zone to improve performance of production-scale housing. 

Tommy Williams Homes (TWH; Gainesville, Florida), LifeStyle Homes (LSH; Melbourne, 

Florida), and Habitat for Humanity (HFH; various locations, Florida) have all been continuous 

partners of the BA program. The activities of these partners, described in this report, achieved

30% whole-house source energy savings (WHSES) using packages adopted at the community 

scale. Nine BA case studies have been written about these partners’ previous BA work.1

 The key 

to this adoption at the community scale has been robust sales, and the key to robust sales has 

been the documentation and associated communication of the cost neutrality of the package to 

the buyer, along with the intangible benefits of comfort, health, and indoor air quality. 

The three partners represent a cross section of builder classifications. TWH is a “move-up” (or 

second-time buyer), small production builder. LSH started out building entry- to mid-level 

production-scale homes and has segued into higher end production-scale home building for a 

portion of its market. These two for-profit partner builders continued to experience continual 

sales during the recession of 2008, which is attributable to the market differentiation resulting 

from the integrated and promoted systems engineering approach. The nonprofit HFH affiliates

that construct affordable housing have embraced a similar approach, allowing first-cost 

considerations to take a back seat to minimizing total cost of ownership. This evaluation also 

explains how this success is a result of quality construction synchronized with the BA program, 

creative marketing strategies, and staffers that are well educated in energy efficiency. 

1.1 Building America Goals

The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) BA program is to conduct research to develop 

market-ready energy solutions that improve efficiency of new and existing homes by 30%–50%. 

For new homes, the reference case is the B10 Benchmark (BABM10), aligned with 2009 

building codes (Hendron and Engebrecht 2010).2

 Along with energy savings, the program also 

focuses on solutions that lead to the following: 

• Improved indoor air quality, which can benefit occupant health 

• Higher comfort levels in all rooms throughout the home 

• Durable and moisture-resistant building designs 

• Increased builder profitability through reduced construction time. 

Through targeted research, industry partnerships, and collaboration with related DOE residential 

initiatives, BA works to make cost-effective energy efficient homes a reality for all Americans. 

This report describes how these goals were achieved in production-scale homes that were built 

cost effectively at the community scale, and modeled to reduce whole-house energy use by 30% 

 

1 See http://www.ba-pirc.org/casestud/index.htm for more information. 2 The B10 Benchmark is consistent with the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), with additional 

definitions that allow evaluation of all residential end uses consistent with typical homes built in 2010.
2 

or more in the hot-humid climate region. Key aspects to the research at the community scale 

include determining how to evolve existing energy efficiency packages to produce replicable 

target savings, identifying builders’ technical assistance needs for implementation and working 

with them to create sustainable quality assurance mechanisms, and documenting commercial 

viability through neutral cost analysis and market acceptance. 

1.2 Builder Profiles

The community-scale builders discussed in this report have been heavily influenced by the same 

BA program goals and have similar general energy efficiency improvement strategies they have 

embarked on since they were inducted as partners. Features that may be important to delineate, 

however, are the approaches that distinguish them from each other. These result from internal 

decisions, regionally-accepted practice, or target market. Their homes include differing structural 

strategies (block versus frame), insulation methods, exterior finishes, and roof coverings. All the 

builders discussed, though, are similar in home energy optimization results and Home Energy 

Rating System (HERS) Indices, ultimately reaching the same goal of cost-effectively improving

WHSES without compromising occupant health, safety, or comfort. 

Two of the builders have taken steps to maximize performance of select homes by incorporating 

renewable energy. Detailed discussion of energy and economic implications of zero energy 

homes (ZEHs) is outside the scope of this report because those implications go beyond the nearterm BA goals of 30% energy savings. Note, however, that in some cases, achieving ZEH status 

on the small scale has served as a catalyst leading to achievement of more modest savings on a 

much larger scale. Continued pursuit of production-scale ZEHs by these builders also shows that 

the tipping point of cost-effective, low-energy-use, production-scale homes has not been reached. 

In addition, a growing consumer demand for ZEHs supports the BA program’s continued 

research into ZEHs. 

1.2.1 Tommy Williams Homes

TWH has been a BA partner since 2004 and has accelerated its standard construction practices to 

a high performance level consistent with BA program goals. TWH was one of the “Pioneering 

Builders” of the DOE Builders Challenge when the challenge was first offered in 2008. TWH

has two communities under construction that will total 411 homes when built out. These 

communities have gradually integrated advanced measures of construction over time. All of the 

houses are single-family, slab-on-grade with brick and fiber cement siding. These two 

developments consist of one- and two-story houses between 1,450 and 3,100 ft2 with three to 

five bedrooms. 

In 2009, TWH confirmed its plans to build on its efficiency package and construct its first ZEH

with a HERS Index of 0. The home was the first ZEH for this production builder and the first 

true ZEH for a production builder in Florida. During the design, the team factored in a safety net 

and a goal of a HERS Index of better than 0. The final inspection and testing of the home 

resulted in a HERS Index of –2, which means it is expected to produce more energy than it 

consumes.3

 TWH has completed and sold an additional five ZEHs, and is developing plans for a 

community consisting exclusively of ZEHs. 

 

3 See http://www.ba-pirc.org/casestud/pdf/BA_BuildersChallengeSpotlight_TWH-ZEH.pdf for more information.
3 

The TWH focus on building high performance homes has led to the development of an 

aggressive marketing and incentive program with targeted social media outlets and blogs, among 

other features. Marketing is a key component to TWH’s success in selling a premium product 

that demands a premium price even in a suppressed economy. As discussed in Section 4 of this 

report, in one community a non-BA builder also constructs an equal number of homes alongside 

TWH high performance homes. Property sales records show that TWH outsells this builder at a 

higher price per square foot in addition to selling homes faster. Marketing is a key component to 

TWH success in selling a premium product that demands a premium price even in the current 

economic recession.

1.2.2 LifeStyle Homes

The partnership between BA-PIRC and LSH began with the builder’s desire to build more 

energy efficient homes in its home market of Melbourne, Florida. Following many of BAPIRC’s energy recommendations and options, LSH has taken notable steps in realizing and 

exceeding its energy efficiency goals. Construction on LSH’s first BA Builders Challenge home 

was completed in April 2009 with a HERS Index of 60 (approximately 25% WHSES savings 

over BABM10), and LSH quickly committed to building all of its homes to this level. LSH

completed its first ZEH in August 2010. Final inspection and testing of the home resulted in a 

HERS Index of –6. Subsequently, the builder has constructed 15 ZEHs as of the writing of this 

report. This milestone has led LSH to consider developing a community of ZEHs in the Brevard 

County, Florida area. 

LSH’s focus on building high performance homes has led to the development of its SunSmart 

package, which is a combination of better building techniques and high performance components 

that aim to deliver improved indoor air quality, comfort, durability, as well as lower energy cost. 

LSH CEO Jake Luhn confirms the relevance of BA goals: “Our ultimate goal has remained 

unchanged since our friends at FSEC [Florida Solar Energy Center] sold us on it. We will not 

rest until we can deliver truly affordable net ZEHs with sufficient energy production and/or 

storage capacity to recharge two electric automobiles overnight. Doing that will change 

everything.” 

As with TWH, BA-PIRC has worked with LSH on marketing the economic benefits of energy 

efficient homes. LSH asserts that three challenges, once addressed, resulted in its success: 

overcoming a mindset that it was impossible to build more energy efficient homes at reasonable 

costs; optimizing climatically-responsive energy saving features at cost neutrality; and—with 

BA-PIRC’s assistance—educating and encouraging cooperation of trade partners and 

subcontractors in the field responsible for implementing LSH’s SunSmart Program. LSH 

continues to evaluate improvements to the SunSmart package, providing that new measures 

considered will be cost effective to both builder and potential home buyers. Part of LSH’s 

formula for selecting and implementing energy efficient mortgages is to show, via modeling, the 

costs and benefits of installed measures over a 30-year mortgage. 

After experiencing the effects of the continued economic slowdown caused by the 2008 

recession, LSH’s priority is to align energy savings with the most cost-effective implementation 

strategies that meet neutral cost targets. As a result, LSH emerged from the downturn early with 

enhanced business and previously uncharted growth. Additionally, LSH continues to educate its 

potential buyers and sales staff on the value-added benefits of its product, which is paramount for 
4 

customer buy-in. LSH is committed to working with BA to communicate the benefits of high 

performance construction to the industry as a whole. 

1.2.3 Habitat for Humanity

The BA-HFH partnership, formed in 1995 at HFH’s Environmental Initiative Kickoff, has 

brought BA-PIRC into the design, construction, and evaluation process of hundreds of HFH

homes built by more than 50 HFH affiliates in more than 20 states. HFH homes are sold to 

qualified buyers who also contribute hundreds of hours of “sweat equity.” In general, HFH 

affiliates finance the homes using a 0% interest mortgage for 15–30 years depending on the 

home buyer’s ability to pay. Because of the volunteer process and the 0% loans, the actual costs 

to the HFH affiliates for executing some of the performance improvements can be lower than 

those achievable in standard for-profit construction. 

For-profit builders that work with BA are often motivated to adopt practices that will give them a 

market edge. On the other hand, many affordable housing providers are locked into a first-cost 

dominated planning and purchasing system, as well as mired in outdated information. Each HFH 

affiliate operates independently but builds homes in accordance with basic design criteria set by 

HFH. Because of these criteria, there is much similarity in the size and design of the homes. 

The HFH information in this report specifically builds on previous BA work with HFH affiliates’ 

housing in the Gulf Coast region (Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi). This work led to a hothumid climate efficiency package specific to small houses (McIlvaine and Beal 2010). This 

improvement package was based on small (1,080 ft2), three-bedroom, one- or two-bath houses 

built in the Gulf Coast, a region devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Efficiency measures that are 

not affected by house size, such as refrigeration, hot water usage, and—to a lesser extent—

lighting, became a higher priority than more traditional efficiency measures that address 

envelope and HVAC improvements. This report focuses on an “enhanced” Gulf Coast package 

that has been adopted by most of the Florida-based HFH partners that BA assists, which, unlike 

the standard Gulf Coast package, specifically addresses water heating. 
5 

2 Implementation of the 30% Packages

2.1 Introduction

The builders described in this report all have slight variations in their construction specifications 

including individual components employed. This is the result of regional practices, varied 

business models, cost considerations, or a combination. Some builders have migrated toward 

different technologies as they have emerged, often because of the cost competitiveness of 

product offerings, like that of spray foam insulation. Some have increased energy and resource 

efficiency by increasing wall R-value, as did TWH, which advanced from 2 × 4 frame

construction to 2 × 6 frame, purely for market competitiveness. In the case of HFH, the size of 

the house has an impact on the importance of the individual components (e.g., equipment, 

envelope, and fixtures/appliances) toward achieving the 30% WHSES reductions.

2.2 Packages and Energy Savings Analysis

The hot-humid builders profiled have adopted the BA systems approach and established 

packages that not only ensure a minimum of 30% WHSES, but are reported to enhance comfort 

and nearly eliminate callbacks. Table 1 provides the details of the packages that enabled these 

builders to achieve energy savings. A summary of the components with the largest contributions 

to package savings follows:

• Minimization of conductive/convective/radiative heat gain from roof/attics. Each 

builder employs minimum R-30 ceiling insulation (versus code minimum R-19) 

without gaps, voids, or compression, in a vented attic with a radiant barrier. TWH

further enhances this through ducts within the conditioned space. 

• Efficient windows. All builders use double pane windows with low emissivity 

glazing. Solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values range from 0.20 to 0.29. 

• Efficient cooling equipment. Cooling equipment efficiencies range from seasonal 

energy efficiency ratio (SEER) 14 to 16. 

• Efficient water heating equipment. Each builder employs an ENERGY STAR

water heating technology. 

• Tight duct systems with air handlers inside conditioned space. All builders limit 

duct leakage to less than 3 cfm25 per 100 ft2

 of floor area. All locate the air-handling 

components within the thermal envelope.

• Mechanical ventilation. All builders incorporate central fan integrated supply 

ventilation systems. All builders vent the kitchen exhaust to the outside. 

• Hardwired compact fluorescent (CFL) lighting. All builders use hardwired CFL

fixtures. 

• ENERGY STAR appliances. All builders use ENERGY STAR appliances. 

Although the general approach to achieving 30% savings is similar among the builders, subtle 

variations in the comparable specifications in Table 1 demonstrate that trade-offs exist. These 

trade-offs allow optimization of the efficiency package to fit regional fuel preferences, product 

availability/cost, subcontractor experience, tax credits and incentives, and each community’s 
6 

intended market. Packages all use standard, off-the-shelf components with proven durability and 

reliability. Packages were designed to free homeowners from additional maintenance burdens. 

Table 1. Comparison of Hot-Humid Community-Scale Builders Specifications

Notes: o.c., on center; SHGC, solar heat gain coefficient; ACH50, air changes per hour at 50 Pascals; ASHP, air 

source heat pump; EF, energy factor; HPWH, heat pump water heater; COP, coefficient of performance

The simulation software Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) E+ V 1.3 calculates energy 

savings with respect to the BABM10 (Hendron and 2010).4 Table 2 shows the results relative to 

the BABM10. 

 

4 A size adjustment factor is included in determination of the “adjusted” savings percentage. This numerical 

multiplier allows for comparison against the national average size home, rather than a home of the exact same size. 

The effect is that smaller homes are tabulated to be more efficient than larger homes.
7 

Table 2. BEopt Analysis Results 

2.2.1 Tommy Williams Homes Implementation

Since partnering with BA, TWH has improved its efficiency package incrementally over time 

through component enhancements. The bulk of the current TWH 30% package has been 

standard practice for the builder for quite some time and has been documented previously 

(Fonorow et al. 2006). In terms of enhancements to standard practice to surpass the 30% savings 

mark, the greatest impact and the most regionally-atypical strategy has come from implementing 

ducts within the conditioned space via a fur-down chase (FDC), as seen in Figures 1 and 2

(Fonorow et al. 2010). 

Figure 1. FDC after rough framing 

Feature Tommy Williams Lifestyle SunSmart HFH Standard HFH HPWH

Conditioned Space (ft2) 1700 2313 1080 1080

Number of Bedrooms 3 4 3 3

Source Energy Use Mbtu/yr 107 129 112 95

% Savings Over Adjusted 

BABM10 31% 30% 27% 39%
8 

Photo by Doug Thompson

Figure 2. FDC finish creates architectural elements

Even though the innovative strategy of implementing interior ductwork was initially challenging, 

lessons learned enabled more efficient and effective integration into TWH’s standard practice

across all floor plans offered. For instance, by keeping the top plate of the nonload-bearing 

interior walls 3⁄4 in. from the bottom cord of the roof trusses, the drywall can be slipped through 

this space (Figure 3). By offsetting the drywall beyond the interior wall/chase, it is much easier 

to “tape and mud” the marriage line between the pieces (Figure 4). This method eliminates the 

dead wood required in small spaces to accept the drywall and the waste of drywall that results 

from having to cut small pieces of the material. It also reduces construction time, and hence labor 

costs. A BA measure guideline issued after continued improvement to the TWH practice of 

installing ducts within the conditioned space contained expanded detail about critical design, 

planning, construction, inspection, and verification steps taken in this process (Beal et al. 2011). 

Figure 3. Drywall slipped through 3⁄4-in. space between the 

top plate of the nonload-bearing interior wall 
9 

Figure 4. Drywall is also offset beyond the wall/chase to allow for marrying adjacent drywall 

Continual communication and brainstorming sessions between builder, subcontractors, and local 

officials is critical to maintaining quality assurance as the interior duct approach is applied to 

new floor plans. Figure 5 shows one home with the duct chase located on an exterior wall, and 

local code officials required fire blocking (see arrows) to be installed below the chase. Installing

ductwork before insulation resulted in restricted access to the portion of the exterior wall cavity 

above the fire blocking. This portion of the exterior wall is essentially part of the ductwork 

chase, and fully air sealing and insulating this area is important. Discovering and correcting this 

detail resulted in a slight change to construction sequencing for homes with duct chases along 

exterior walls. 

Figure 5. Arrows point to code-required fire blocking under chase, preventing insulation from 

being easily installed behind duct. Correction involves re-sequencing so insulation can be 

installed in this area prior to duct.
10 

Interior ducts, combined with upgraded envelope features such as 2 × 6 framing and a continual 

improvement in window SHGC, have enabled TWH’s standard practice to exceed 30% savings. 

Interestingly, TWH did not begin to make these component changes specifically to achieve 30% 

savings—instead, the changes were motivated by the builder’s desire to build ZEHs, and to make 

them as cost effective and marketable as possible. TWH’s ongoing relationship with BA and 

upper management’s top down oversight of trades and subcontractors during construction, along 

with continuous third-party inspections, regular sales staff education and training seminars, and 

an incentive strategy that pays the home buyers’ energy bills for 1 year, are all critical facets to 

sustained achievement of 30% WHSES and robust sales.

2.2.2 LifeStyle Homes Implementation

Similar to TWH, after partnering with BA, the LSH SunSmart efficiency package has improved 

incrementally over time through component enhancements. The bulk of the current LSH 30% 

package has been standard practice for the builder for quite some time, and has been documented 

previously (DOE 2010). Recently, LSH has effectively implemented solutions to one common 

stumbling block, air sealing and insulating attic knee walls. This area of air sealing and 

insulating has long been a failure point on ENERGY STAR’s thermal enclosure system checklist 

for program participants. The prevalent attic insulation in the hot-humid region is blown-in 

insulation. This type of insulation does not remain installed at the knee walls. Further failures 

resulted from a lack of sealing on six sides, as required by ENERGY STAR. LifeStyle Homes

adopted two methods, one employing standard batt insulation and six-sided sealing, and another 

relying on spray foam to both air seal and insulate (Figures 6–10). 

Figure 6. Backside of a foamed knee wall, showing blocker board used 

to serve as backing for the foam 
11 

Figure 7. Foam applied to knee wall in attic where ceiling heights transition from 8 to 10 ft 

Figure 8. Backer board for foam, shown from inside garage 

Figure 9. Radiant barrier backer board for standard batt insulation at knee wall installation 
12 

Figure 10. Batt insulation installed to backer board from Figure 9; six-sided sealing of cavity is 

provided by backer, facing drywall (yet to be installed), and framing members

2.2.3 Habitat for Humanity Implementation

As previously mentioned, the HFH efficiency package builds on previous BA work in the Gulf 

Coast region (McIlvaine and Beal 2010). The work led to a hot-humid climate package specific 

to small housing, with efficiency measures that are not affected by house size. Examples are

refrigeration, hot water usage, and—to a lesser extent—lighting. These became a higher priority 

than more traditional efficiency measures that address envelope and HVAC improvements. 

The next logical step to improve the efficiency of the HFH package was to address water heating 

equipment efficiency. Various affiliates have experimented with tankless gas and solar water 

heaters. The recent advent of ENERGY STAR-rated hybrid water heaters or HPWHs has 

provided all-electric houses with an additional method to reduce water heating energy use in 

addition to heating water with solar power. Several of BA’s affordable housing partners have 

adopted hybrid HPWHs as part of their improvement packages. HPWHs have advertised COPs 

of greater than 2. This, coupled with better aesthetics and a significantly lower first cost than a 

solar water heating system, makes HPWHs attractive. Similar commercially-available units that 

had been on the market in the past, however, suffered from poor reliability and difficulty meeting 

demand. ENERGY STAR-certified HPWHs come with a minimum 6-year warranty on the 

sealed, heat pump portion of the system. The units have a back-up electric resistance element 

that comes on automatically to meet heavy demand. Various control strategies are available to 

suit the homeowners’ lifestyle. FSEC research and monitored data show savings in the range of 

40% of traditional electric resistance tank type water heaters (Colon 2012). 

Limited space was a challenge in many HFH homes when implementing the HPWH. HPWH 

manufacturers recommend a space of not less than 100 ft2

, to avoid possible overcooling of the 

area that could potentially affect performance. Ambient noise created by the heat pump is a 

perceived concern with an interior installation, and garages are often the installation location of 

choice in a warm climate. Because HFH homes are typically small, however, it is not uncommon 

for the floor plans to be without a garage. To address this, two BA-PIRC partner HFH affiliates 

adopted HPWHs in their specifications by installing them in alternative locations. One installed 

the units in an exterior unconditioned closet specifically designed and constructed for this 

purpose. Although the exact configuration differed slightly from plan to plan, the closet typically 
13 

had to be smaller than the HPWH manufacturer’s recommendation of 100-ft2 minimum. A 

unique feature was included to overcome this limitation— connecting the air volume of the 

closet to the air volume of the attic via air vents (Figures 11 and 12). 

Figure 11. Completed exterior HPWH closet 

Figure 12. Closet under construction. Grille on back wall connects attic space of closet to vented 

attic of house through gable end. Rough framing can be seen for grille in closet ceiling that will 

complete connection between closet and attic.

Another HFH affiliate partner allowed BA-PIRC to install a simple monitoring system to track 

the efficiency of an HPWH that was installed in a utility room smaller than 100 ft2 within a 

home. Instrumentation consisted of a Campbell Scientific data logger monitoring the inlet and 

outlet temperature of the water, water flow, energy use of the tank, and temperature and relative 

humidity of the utility room. Results from 80 days of data (April 9, 2012–June 27, 2012) yielded 

an average daily consumption of 37.5 gal of hot water used, delivering 34.42 kBtu using 4.16 

kWh/day. This produced an average daily COP of 2.42, slightly better than the manufacturer’s 

advertised COP of 2.35, showing that the performance was not severely affected by this 

particular restricted space installation.
14 

2.3 Quality Control/Quality Assurance

The builders’ careful attention to quality control and quality assurance differentiates them from 

much of their competition. In addition, it is considered a critical requirement for achieving cost 

and energy savings associated with the high performance, systems engineered packages. Buy-in 

at the top executive level within a builder’s organization is critical for all components of high 

performance housing, but top-down attention to quality control and quality assurance is 

especially important. When many builders are cutting costs, TWH executive management insists 

on continual site supervision and third-party inspections, which Todd Louis states “gives us an 

edge above and beyond the competition.” This creates a niche market for TWH against others 

who are claiming but not validating high performance. LSH CEO Jake Luhn attributes “effective 

quality control mechanisms performed by our RESNET [Residential Energy Services Network]

affiliated professionals provide the final proof of quality for each SunSmart home we deliver.” 

This provides a performance guarantee to LSH customers. 

It is critical that each home is individually designed, inspected, rated, and commissioned for 

optimum performance, comfort, and cost effectiveness. Keys to success include the following: 

• Scopes of work for subcontractors that include specific performance criteria

• Clear communication with the trades, often including training and education activities

• Independent third-party testing and commissioning with feedback to the builder and 

trades. 

These builders use proper documentation of energy, comfort, and durability features on job-siteready checklists extensively as part of their high performance formula (Baechler and Love 2004). 

One of the best ways to foster program compliance is to provide detailed, specific plans 

enumerating all energy efficiency and durability items. Distributing trade-specific job-site 

checklists is also extremely helpful in ensuring program compliance. Affordable housing 

providers such as HFH often have brisk turnover rates, exacerbating the effects of poor or 

missing documentation. Such documentation is necessary if their products are to consistently and 

continually meet high performance expectations. Although this is true for almost all the 

builder/partners featured in this report, perhaps the small home size and speed of construction in 

HFH disallows time needed for corrections after the fact.

Commissioning activities conducted in every home have evolved over time, coincident with 

requirements of key labeling programs including EPA ENERGY STAR and DOE Builders 

Challenge. To some degree, such programs have provided the impetus toward more rigorous and 

systematic quality control. Although marketing benefits often result from program participation, 

builders place greater value on the contribution toward ensuring comfort, efficiency, and cost 

effectiveness. This includes staff and subcontractor education on the front end as well as careful 

oversight throughout design, construction, and commissioning. The commissioning activities 

require builders and third-party raters to engage in regimented inspection and performance 

testing of enclosure, air flow, and HVAC system performance elements (Fonorow et al. 2007). 

With the recent evolution of ENERGY STAR to version 3, and the change from DOE Builders 

Challenge to Challenge Home, builders, subcontractors, and third-party raters are currently 

exploring ways to carefully transition so the new program requirements become cost-effectively 

integrated into their success models. 
15 

3 Cost Effectiveness of the 30% Packages

The builders in this report continuously exercise performance improvement cost analysis, and 

often subject new individual measures under consideration to cost-effectiveness criteria in 

addition to packages of measures. For example, committed to constantly improving the energy 

performance and indoor environment and comfort of its homes, TWH first implemented ducts 

within the conditioned space on a prototype zero energy home and has since made this feature 

standard. Various methods to achieve the objective were originally compared: spray foam 

technique at the roof deck creating an unvented attic (UA), and installing the ducts below the 

insulated ceiling within the conditioned space via FDCs. Table 3 breaks down costs for each 

method (Fonorow et al. 2010). 

Table 3. TWH Cost Analysis of Ducts Within Conditioned Spaces 

Parameter TWH UA Case TWH FDC Case

Floor Area (ft2) 2,250 2,250

House Volume (ft3) 25,500 22,500

Roof Pitch 7/12 7/12

Heat Transfer Area (ft2) 2,520 2,250

R-Value 21 38

Insulation Cost 

($/ft2 of floor area)

$5,625

($2.50)

$1,688

($0.75)

Duct Within Conditioned Space Cost

($/ft2 of floor area)

N/A

N/A

$875

($0.39)

Radiant Barrier Cost ($) $0 $500

Total Cost

($/ft2 of floor area)

$5,625

($2.50)

$3,063

($1.36)

The FDC method is more cost effective, and although no direct performance comparison of the 

methods has been documented in the hot-humid climate, most agree that the FDC method is at 

least as effective, if not superior to, the UA method in terms of energy savings. Energy modeling 

also confirms this effect. Analysis such as this and experience with the method gave TWH the 

necessary feedback to proceed with constructing the ducts within the conditioned space as 

standard practice. Many builders in hot-humid climates, however, are reluctant to consider this 

over the method of spray foaming at the roof deck (UA) because of the design work required on 

the front end to implement FDC in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Once this reluctance is 

overcome, though, builders such as TWH report that customers appreciate the enhanced aesthetic 

appeal created. 

Not included in this analysis is additional value accruing from enclosing the air handler in a 

conditioned closet as opposed to regional practice of installing the air handler in an 

unconditioned attached garage. This effectively adds approximately 15 ft2

 of conditioned space, 

with a sales value of nearly $2,000. The first cost of the detail adds about $500 to the total cost of 

the project, resulting in a net gain of $1,000. 

Conducting performance improvement cost analysis in affordable housing has revealed unique 

challenges faced by this sector. By its nature, affordable housing is often small; for example, a 
16 

typical HFH three-bedroom house is 1,100 ft2 or smaller. There are fixed costs associated with 

high-efficiency HVAC equipment (i.e., advanced or multiple motors) that do not scale with 

house size. These fixed costs serve to effectively increase the cost of small (1.5–2 ton) highefficiency HVAC units disproportionately more than large (3–4) ton HVAC units. Further 

challenges are encountered when improving envelope efficiencies. The small area of windows, 

attics, floors, and walls decreases their thermal impact on the overall load of the building 

compared to more size-independent loads, such as lighting, water use, and, to an extent, internal 

loads. WHSES packages that make financial sense for larger housing stock do not always 

translate accurately to smaller housing. This highlights the need for investigation and 

information dissemination across a range of housing types. 

BEopt software was used to determine site energy savings for packages discussed in this report 

and combined with cost data collected from builders for application of those packages. Table 4 

presents the results from this analysis. As the table shows, when the added costs of the efficiency 

package are included in a 30-year mortgage at 5% interest, positive cash flow results from the 

energy savings of those packages over the BABM10. 
16 

Table 4. Builders Specifications, Improvement Costs, and Energy Savings Analysis

Feature BABM10 Tommy Williams Inc. Cost Lifestyle SunSmart Inc. Cost HFH Standard Inc. Cost HFH HP H2O Inc. Cost

Building Envelope

Roof Finish/Attic Medium roof finish; no 

radiant barrier; vented atttic

Medium roof finish; radiant 

barrier; vented attic

Medium roof finish; radiant 

barrier; vented atttic

Light roof finish; radiant 

barrier; vented attic

Light roof finish; radiant 

barrier; vented attic

Roof/Ceiling Insulation R-30 blown in insulation @ 

ceiling 

R-30 blown in insulation @ceiling 

10" heel truss 

R-38 blown in insulation @ 

roof $675 R-38 blown in insulation @ ceiling $350 R-38 blown in insulation @ ceiling $350

Wall Type Frame 2x4 2x6 16" o.c. frame w/ladder T and 

2 stud corners when feasible Light color masonry block 2x4 16" o.c. frame 2x4 16" o.c. frame

Wall Insulation R-13 fiberglass batt R-21 formaldehyde-free blown 

fiberglass $700 Reflective Foil R-7 interior wall insulation $150 R-13 fiberglass batt R-13 fiberglass batt

Windows U = 0.40 SHGC = 0.30 Double pane low-E (U = 0.34 

SHGC = 0.25)

Double pane low-E (U = 0.35, 

SHGC = 0.29) $385 Double pane low-E (U = 0.40, SHGC = 0.20)* -$10 Double pane low-E (U = 0.40, SHGC = 0.20)* -$10

Floors 20% tile 70% tile, 30% carpet 30% tile, 70% carpet 100% tile $800 100% tile $800

Envelope Leakage ACH50 ACH50 = 5 ACH50 = 2.9 ACH50 = 3.5 ACH50 = 4.5 ACH50 = 4.5

Air Sealing None

Expanding foam at all exterior 

openings & foam gasket at 

ceiling/wall joints 

$100 Expanding foam at all exterior 

openings $500 Expanding foam at all exterior openings $200 Expanding foam at all exterior openings $200

HVAC System

Heating/Cooling system ASHP - SEER 13 / HSPF 

7.7; standard thermostat

ASHP - SEER 16 / HSPF 9.5; 

programmable thermostat $800 ASHP - SEER 15/HSPF 8.5; programmable thermostat $800 ASHP - SEER 14 / HSPF 8.2; standard thermostat $200 ASHP - SEER 14 / HSPF 8.2; standard thermostat $200

Air Handler Location Garage Interior closet Interior closet Interior closet Interior closet

Fresh Air Ventilation ASHRAE 62.2-2007b Runtime vent system, kitchen 

exhaust to out $200 Runtime vent system, kitchen exhaust to out

Runtime vent system, 

kitchen exhaust to out

Runtime vent system, 

kitchen exhaust to out

Duct Insulation, Location R-6, attic R-6, in conditioned space $663 R-6, attic R-6, attic R-6, attic

Duct Leakage 5% leakage to out 0 leakage to out 2% leakage to out $100 2% leakage to out $50 2% leakage to out $50

Bathroom Exhaust Fans / 

Controls Manual Timer switch Timer switch Manual Manual

Water Heating

Water Heater Electric EF = 0.97 Tankless gas EF = 0.82 $450 Solar flat plate (40 ft2

) open 

loop, 80 gallon storage $3,600 Electric EF = 0.92 Heat pump COP = 2.35 $600

Lighting 33% fluorescent 100% fluorescent $125 100% fluorescent $100 100% fluorescent $45 100% fluorescent $45

Appliances ENERGY STAR No Yes $100 Yes $300 Yes $100 Yes $100

Total Cost of Improvements $3,138 $6,610 $1,735 $2,335

Annual Mortgage Cost (5%, $204 $430 $113 $152

Annual Energy Savings 

(elec.@ $0.13/kWh - gas. @ 

$1.25 therm)

$430 $591 $257 $447

Annual Cash Flow $226 $161 $145 $295

* Due to small home sizes and reduced window sizes, the savings almost equaled incremental cost of high performance windows
17 

4 Marketability of the Homes

Energy efficient measures alone do not attract new home buyers in an economy where retrofits 

and renovations are now booming. Nor do energy efficient homes propagate first-cost 

affordability. Although a high performance home’s monthly cost of ownership is less than that of 

a code minimum home, and consumers are learning that not only do they cost less to operate but 

provide a better indoor environment, this “educated consumer” is a high performance home 

builder’s ideal customer. Together with a vigorous advertising campaign; an educated, welltrained sales staff; and innovative strategies directed by senior executives, whole-house, high 

performance solutions result in home sales, not just home builds. 

Community-scale builders’ success stories of marketing the homes with the 30% package are

explained in this section. A key component to this success can be attributed to the builders 

making the package standard. “It wasn’t an option for the customer to cherry-pick [from] our 

SunSmart energy efficiency package the items they wanted in their home,” said LSH CEO Luhn. 

LSH representatives acknowledged that at first they thought this standardization would require 

them to communicate all the particulars involved in their SunSmart package for every sale, but 

they quickly realized that was unnecessary. LSH’s management reminds the sales staff that 

“when the sale is made, stop selling.” For example, when customers ask about SunSmart, in a 

manner consistent with “I’m getting that SunSmart thing included in my price, right?” it is no 

longer necessary to elaborate on technical details. It is the communication of the overall benefits 

of the package that sells the homes, not a description of the individual components. 

Builders have also found that merely claiming energy use reduction is not enough. The 

successful builders have implemented strategies that can be outlined in three steps: (1) inform the 

customer that the features have benefits; (2) use show-and-tell type illustrations or mockups to 

create a hands on bonding experience with the customer; and (3) develop/enlist incentives, 

promotions, programs, and third-party certifications that are offered to the customer. Recorded 

home sale statistics with respect to specifications of both BA builders and non-BA builders 

demonstrate the importance of not only building high performance homes but putting forth the 

effort and resources to market them. Without advertising, marketing, or expending adequate 

resources to accompany value-added features, success is not realized (Thomas-Rees, Fonorow, 

Chandra 2010). 

TWH aggressively markets its high performance homes with dedicated resources for advertising, 

realtor education seminars, and groundbreaking5 and open house dedications. In 2007, Todd 

Louis, vice president of TWH, organized an event during the construction of one of TWH’s high 

performance homes, whereby Alachua County proclaimed April 25, ”Building America Day.” 6

Some of the most successful advertising is created by TWH and talks to the first point of 

showing that the feature has a benefit (Figure 13). Customer savings can save money, but the 

benefits of saving money in energy costs allow for establishing college funds, upgrading kitchen 

countertops, or even paying for a vacation. 

 

5 See, for example, http://www.tommywilliamshomes.com/about/files/march2009a.pdf. 6 See http://www.ba-pirc.org/casestud/baday/Alachua-proclamation.pdf for more information.
18 

Illustration from Tommy Williams Homes

Figure 13. Example of TWH marketing showing the feature has a benefit

A Gainesville realtor has been blogging about TWH and his search for the best energy efficient 

home in the area. He has publicized HERS Indices and ZEHs and is not affiliated with TWH.7

LSH purports the second key point to successfully marketing high performance homes in that 

they also provide open house and demonstrate their features in their models with show-and-tell 

opportunities (Figure 14). 

Figure 14. LSH uses show-and-tell type illustrations and mockups to create a hands on bonding 

experience with the customer. 

 

7 See http://activerain.com/blogs/davegibbs/tags/zero%20energy%20home for more information.
19 

Incentives, promotions, and tangible third-party certifications and or seals of approval, or both

are other key components to successfully marketing high performance homes. LSH and TWH 

promote the HERS Index on their websites, communicate the advantages of high performance 

homes, and promote available incentives. TWH pays the first year’s electric bills on all its new 

home sales.

Packages adopted by partners had to provide real cost effectiveness and reasonable payback 

periods. To quote LSH CEO Jake Luhn, “Our original impetus was to differentiate the new 

homes we wanted to build from homes we built before the recession that were coming back on 

the market at heavily discounted prices. ‘It may look like the same home, Mrs. Smith, but it is 

not the same home by a long shot. Let me show you why it is to your advantage to purchase a 

brand new SunSmart home rather than that short sale down the street.’ The fact that bringing a 

genuinely superior product to the market would be doing the right thing for our customers was 

the deciding factor in initiating our energy efficiency program. Our goal is always to achieve 

business success for LSH by delivering superior value to our customers. Making a significant 

contribution to family health and environmental preservation is a happy by-product of our valuedriven, energy efficiency marketing strategy. Our customers told us emphatically that what they 

wanted were solid—from day one—cost savings that would grow in value over time as energy 

prices rise. If those cost savings could deliver appreciable family health benefits and make a 

significant contribution to environmental preservation, so much the better. It’s too early to tell 

about repeat customers, but our customer referral rate has risen significantly.” LSH never uses 

the word “green” in marketing materials or sales presentations. They think their customers view 

green as expensive and perceive that the original homeowner’s incremental investment might

never be recouped. Customers want solid, documented cost savings. LSH’s obligation as 

business professionals is to offer customers what they want to buy. If they can do this and “raise 

awareness of family health and environmental preservation issues in the process, so much the

better,” says Luhn. 

Nonprofit providers of affordable housing are often even more vested in helping their clients live 

affordably, and also more conscious of first costs. Yet nonprofit builders such as HFH affiliates 

have also adopted 30% packages as standard because they are cost effective. Approaches to and 

value of marketing and product differentiation, however, tend to differ from those of for-profit 

builders. Examples of market value found for nonprofits constructing high performance housing 

include increased access to grant funding resulting from enhanced building performance, often 

quantified through voluntary program compliance. 

4.1 Sales Data/Statistics

TWH and LSH have been leaders in showing that marketing plays a key role in selling high 

performance homes. Although the story to be told to potential buyers includes a value 

proposition that yields large returns on extra investment, performance measures alone are not 

justification enough for success in terms of home sales, especially in a depressed economy. The 

story must be effectively communicated. Both TWH and LSH credit their success in this area to 

experienced sales staff and creative marketing. Marketing, and marketing to a targeted audience, 

is vital to the success of high performance builders. In TWH Longleaf Community located in 

Gainesville, Florida, a community with a cost-competitive builder constructing similar floor 

plans and same size homes, TWH has proven that premium construction returns premium price 

by selling homes faster and for more per square foot (Table 5).
20 

Table 5. Longleaf Sales Data

TW Competitor

12/06–05/08 Sales Price $161/ft2 $148/ft2

12/06–05/08 Sales 44 homes 22 homes

01/09–06/12 Sales Price $130/ft2 $120/ft2

2009 Data n/a Data n/a

2010 32–36 Data n/a

2011 19 15

2012 (May) 17 6
21 

5 Conclusions

This report demonstrates achievement of BA 30% WHSES goals in the hot-humid climate by 

documenting successful approaches taken by both for-profit and nonprofit community-scale 

builders. The builders have all been continuously involved with the BA program since originally 

becoming partners and their specifications and resulting efficiency levels have evolved over that 

time. These builders were specifically chosen as subjects in this research to show that the 

evolving goals of the BA program marry well with evolving capabilities and interests of builders 

and their subcontractors, and the resulting homes meet the evolving needs and sophistication of 

the market.

In the Implementation section of this report, and through key references to past work, technical 

components of hot-humid 30% packages are described. Multiple packages containing subtle 

differences show that it is possible to achieve this savings level while tailoring specifications to 

meet a builder’s unique needs and regional preferences. The need for quality assurance 

mechanisms is touched on to reiterate that when deployed at the community scale, systems 

engineered 30% packages can fall apart because of an imperfect match with a unique floor plan 

or oversight by a particular trade. In the Cost Effectiveness section of this report, it is shown that 

these packages do not increase the cost of home ownership, and in fact they generate positive 

cash flow to homeowners on the order of $200 per year. Although robust sales of these homes 

are reported here, the Marketability section makes it clear that the inherent value must be 

communicated, not in terms of the details of individual features, but in terms of the overall 

benefits of the package. 

This report is expected to be of prime use to hot-humid climate builders interested in applying 

similar methodologies toward creating and selling energy efficient homes, resulting in both 

economic and environmental benefits. As described, the builders discussed are already 

progressing toward community-scale ZEHs, showing that the tipping point of cost-effective, 

low-energy-use, production-scale homes has not been reached.
22 

References 

Baechler. M.C.; Love, P.M. (2004). Building America Best Practices Series: Volume 1. Builders 

and Buyers Handbook for Improving New Home Efficiency, Comfort, and Durability in the Hot 

and Humid Climate. NREL/TP-550-36960. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. Accessed February 

2013: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/36960.pdf. 

Beal, D.; McIlvaine, J.; Fonorow, K.; Martin, E. (2011). Measure Guideline: Summary of 

Interior Ducts in New Construction, Including an Efficient, Affordable Method to Install FurDown Interior Ducts. FSEC-RR-385-11. Cocoa, FL: FSEC. Accessed September 

2012: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC-RR-385-11.pdf. 

Colon, C. (2012). Side-by-Side Testing of Water Heating Systems: Results from the 2010-2011 

Evaluation. FSEC-RR-386-12. Cocoa, FL: FSEC. Accessed September 

2012: http://fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC-RR-386-12.pdf.

DOE Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(2010). “Builders Challenge: High Performance Builder Spotlight: LifeStyle Homes.” Building 

America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction. Accessed September 

2012: http://www.ba-pirc.org/casestud/pdf/_BuildersChallenge_LifeStyle-Homes.pdf. 

Fonorow, K.; Chandra, S.; Martin, E.; McIlvaine, J. (2006). “Energy and Resources Efficient

Communities through Systems Engineering: Building America Case Studies in Gainesville, FL.” 

Proceedings of the 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy, Asilomar, California, August. 

Fonorow, K.; Chandra, S.; McIlvaine, J.; Colon, C. (2007). “Commissioning High Performance 

Residences in Hot, Humid Climates.” 7th International Conference for Enhanced Building 

Operations, San Francisco, California, November 1–2; pp. 4–6. 

Fonorow, K.; Jenkins, D.; Thomas-Rees, S.; Chandra, S. (2010). “Low Cost Interior Duct 

Systems for High Performance Homes in Hot Climates.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy 

Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, California, August 15–20. 

Hendron, R.; Engebrecht, C. (2010). Building America House Simulation Protocols. NREL/TP550-49426. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

McIlvaine, J.; Beal, D. (2010). Gulf Coast High Performance Affordable Housing Demonstration 

Project. FSEC-CR-1791-09. Cocoa, FL: FSEC. Accessed September 2012: http://www.bapirc.org/pubs/pdf/Gulf%20Coast%20Final%20Report.pdf.

Thomas-Rees, S.; Fonorow, K; Chandra, S. (2010). “Transforming the New Home Market 

Through High Performance Construction.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 

Buildings, Pacific Grove, California, August 15–20. 
DOE/GO-102013-3892 ▪ March 2013

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

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