Appendix B: Energy and Construction Cost Estimates1

This appendix describes the energy modeling used in the analysis presented in Section 2.2 of this
document. The analysis showed that the combination of energy-savings features added to the prototype
building had a savings-to-investment ratio of nearly 1.5 and an adjusted internal rate of return of almost
5%, which makes a compelling business case for sustainability.

Figure B-1 illustrates the main steps of the modeling process. As the figure shows, the modeling effort
began with a characterization of a base-case building. This building, intended to represent a typical new
Federal office building, was the basis against which the sustainable building was compared. The base-case
building's energy use was then estimated using a building energy simulation model, DOE-2.1E. The base-
case characterization and model assumptions are documented in Section B.1 of this appendix.

The sustainable building was defined in terms of a number of improvements made to the base-case
building. A set of potential improvements was developed and simulated in another energy simulation
model, ENERGY-10, which optimized for energy and lifecycle cost savings. This simulation provided
information that allowed a final set of improvement options to be selected based on maximum energy and
lifecycle cost savings. These options defined the sustainable building. This process is described in Section
B.2 of this appendix.

The sustainable building was then simulated in DOE-2.1E to obtain energy-use estimates. These were
compared with the energy-use estimates of the base-case building, and estimated energy savings and the
associated incremental costs were calculated. The simulation of the sustainable building is described in
Section B.3, and the results of the energy-savings and cost calculations are described in Section B.4. Section
B.5 explains some of the differences between DOE-2.1E and ENERGY-10.

Base-Case Building Characterization

Energy Design Standard

The study used the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineering (ASHRAE)
standard 90.1-1999 as the energy design standard or code for the base-case building and ASHRAE 90.1-1999,
Table A-13, to implement the base-case building envelope parameters. The HVAC equipment in the base
case was modeled at the minimum efficiency levels according to ASHRAE 90.1-1999, Tables 6.2.1B and
6.2.1E. The supply fan energy was modeled separately by breaking down the energy-efficiency ratio (EER)
and coefficient of performance (COP) into its components. For some building characteristics not specified
in ASHRAE 90.1, such as the building operation schedules and HVAC system types, assumptions were made
based on data from several sources including the "Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey"
(Energy Information Administration 1995), the Proposed Appendix G to ASHRAE 90.1-2001, and general
engineering practices.

Construction Cost Estimating for the Base-Case Building Design

The purpose of the construction cost estimate for the overall base-case building was to set a reasonable
order-of-magnitude cost for use in the lifecycle cost calculations. The estimating method was parametric –

1
This appendix was written by D. Winiarski, S. Shankle, J. Hail, and B. Liu, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and
A. Walker, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

B-1
 Simulation
of Baseline Baseline DOE-2.1 Baseline
Building DOE-2.1 Energy Use
Building
Energy Characterization Simulation
Use

Selection of Selected
Sustainable
Sustainable Energy-10 Sustainable Design
Design Options
Design Features
Features
B-2

Simulation of
Sustainable Sustainable Design DOE-2.1 Sustainable
DOE-2.1
Design Building Building Design Energy Use
Energy Use Characterization Simulation

Calculation Energy Savings Energy

of Energy and Savings
Metrics Cost Savings Calculation

Figure B-1. Energy Simulation Flow Diagram

using simple inputs such as the square feet of the building and subareas and the generic type of
structural system. The parametric tool was the Commercial Construction Knowledgebase module
within "Timberline Precision Estimating – Extended Edition, Version 6.2."2 Timberline uses RS
Means cost data and adjusts costs to Baltimore, Maryland. The Timberline parametric modules
allow some specific inputs for a building such as specifying gas or electric heat. This study specified
some of those inputs to approximate the natural gas heating for the base-case building but
otherwise relied on the modules' assumptions.

Building Occupancy Type and Size

The study focused on an office-building model. According to the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA), offices are the second largest square-footage category (after housing) and the
largest building cost category. The study selected a building size of 20,000 ft2 because the average
size of the office buildings in GSA's inventory is 20,979 ft2.

Building Location

The study selected Baltimore, Maryland, as the location for the DOE-2.1e and construction cost
estimating because it represented a large city with a substantial Federal construction market and a
moderate East Coast climate. Because one purpose of this study is to help guide new Federal
construction projects, the study reviewed FY 2002 capital appropriations and found that roughly
two-thirds of the appropriations were slated for states in the southern half of the continental United
States. The appropriations for California appeared to be the highest of any individual state.
However, when grouping states into informal regional climate zones, the states in the "moderate
eastern climate" zone had significantly more appropriations than California. The selection of an
appropriate average climate was also based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL's)
experience gained through developing ASHRAE 90.1-1999 and Federal Energy Code (10 CFR 434)
standards.

Energy Rates

The study used energy cost rates for Baltimore, Maryland, as shown in Table B-1. The rates were
developed from the local utility, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE). Baltimore is a
deregulated utility market and BGE's rate structure has many options to select from despite a few
frozen tariffs. Apparently, GSA has a contract with BGE with very different schedules – see
[Link] For simplicity, this study developed an
average or blended rate based on the information provided through BGE's website (the current link
is [Link] This study used $0.077 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) and $0.692 per therm based on review of BGE rate schedules.

Table B-1. Energy Rates for

the Base-Case Building

Energy Type Rate

Natural gas ($/therm) $0.692
Electricity ($/kWh) $0.077

2
[Link]

B-3
Derivation of Blended Electricity Rate

Commercial buildings such as the one used in the study's base-case building are likely to be on a
general service or a small general service rate schedule. Neither schedule is a typical demand
schedule. The general service schedule has two complex options for the energy demand charge
averaging summer and non-summer costs. The small general service schedule does not have a
standard demand rate but uses peak and offpeak rates. The base simple general service schedule
option would be as follows:

Base rate $11.50/month

Energy charge
October through May $0.03749/kWh
June through Sept. $0.05383/kWh
Transmission charge $0.00298/kWh
Delivery service charge $0.02250/kWh
Competitive transmission charge $0.00576/kWh

The above rates can be simplified to the following schedule for the study's base-case building:

Base rate $11.50/month

Energy charge
October through May $0.06873/kWh
June through Sept. $0.08507/kWh

Derivation of Blended Gas Rate

The general service gas schedules are located at [Link]

however, this schedule appears to cover delivery cost but not the energy cost:

Customer charge $27.00 /month

Delivery price
First 10,000 therms $0.1724/therm
All remaining therms $0.0936/therm

BGE also charges separately for automated/daily metering. A complete rate was obtained by BGE
customer service, who reported that costs varied between the three major suppliers in the area and
from year to year. However, the average costs based on the last two years available are shown in
Table B-2.

Table B-2. Average BGE Rate

(based on the last two years)

Month $/Therm Month $/Therm

January $0.570 July $0.502
February $0.597 August $0.458
March $0.504 September $0.461
April $0.517 October $0.498
May $0.495 November $0.476
June $0.500 December $0.562

B-4
 Base-Case Building Design Assumptions

Table B-3 summarizes the key input assumptions used for the base-case building design in the DOE-
2.1E models.

Table B-3. Base-Case Assumptions Used in the DOE-2.1E Models

Characteristic Base-Case Assumptions

General
Building type Office
Location Baltimore, Maryland
Gross area 20,164 ft2
Operating hours 8am - 5pm Monday-Friday
Utility rates
Electric energy rate Base rate: $11.50/month
Energy charge: $0.077/kWh
Natural gas price ($/therm) Base rate: $27.0/month
Energy charge: $0.692/therm
Architectural features
Configuration/shape
Aspect ratio 2:1
Perimeter zone depth 15 ft
Number of floors 2
Window area 20% window-to-wall ratio
Floor-to-ceiling height 9 ft
Floor-to-floor height 13 ft
Exterior walls
Wall type 4" Face brick façade on 16" on-center metal framing
Opaque wall U-value 0.124
Wall insulation R-13 cavity insulation
Roof
Roof type Builtup roofing with concrete deck
Solar absorptance 0.7 (medium dark)
Roof U-value 0.063 Btu/hr-ft2-oF
Roof insulation R-15 continuous insulation
Floor structure
Floor type Concrete
Floor insulation R-5.4 perimeter insulation*
Fenestration/windows
Window type Aluminum frames with thermal beaks and double panes
Total U-value 0.57 Btu/hr-ft2-oF
Shading coefficient 0.45

B-5
 Characteristic Base-Case Assumptions
Visual transmittance 0.52
Window shading/overhangs None
Building internal loads
Occupancy
Number of occupants 96
Occupancy schedule 8am - 5pm Monday-Friday
Lighting
Fixture type T-8 with electronic ballasts
Peak lighting power density 1.38 watts/ft2 (net building wattage from ASHRAE's space by space
analysis)
Lighting schedule 7am - 6pm Monday-Friday
Occupancy sensors None
Daylighting None
Office equipment
Equipment schedule 7am - 6pm Monday-Friday
Peak load density 0.72 watts /ft2
HVAC system
HVAC system type Package rooftop unit; constant-air-volume with gas furnace
Number of HVAC units Five units to serve five HVAC thermal zones
Space temperature setpoint 75ºF coling/70ºF heating
Space setback/setup 80ºF cooling/65ºF heating
Cooling equipment efficiency 10.1 EER
Outside air supply 20 cubic feet/minute (cfm) per person, 17% of supply air cfm
Heating furnace efficiency 80%
Ventilation control mode Constant during occupied periods, cycle during unoccupied periods
Economizer None
Design supply air Minimum 0.5 cfm/ft2
Air-to-air energy recovery None
ventilation
Fan total static pressure 2.0 in. total, 1.0 in. related to ductwork system
Fan schedule 6am - 6pm Monday-Friday with night cycle on/off
Fan motor efficiency 85%
Fan efficiency 65%
Service/domestic/potable water heating
Hot water fuel type Natural gas
Thermal efficiency 80%
Supply temperature 120
Hot water consumption 0.9 gallons per day/person
* Exceeds ASHRAE 90.1-1999.

B-6
 Selection of Sustainable Design Features
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a screening analysis of potential
sustainable design options using ENERGY-10, a PC-based software design tool developed by NREL.
The rationale for using ENERGY-10 in this study is that with the new lifecycle costing capabilities of
Version 1.6, it is quick and easy to search possible solutions and narrow the optimal combination of
measures for further analysis with the more detailed DOE-2.1E model (see section B.5 for a brief
discussion of the differences between ENERGY-10 and DOE 2.1E). ENERGY-10 was used to initially
assess and optimize a number of design options:

• Changes in the installed lighting power density

• Addition of daylighting controls
• Changes in building aspect ratio
• Skylighting in the building core
• Changes in fenestration area by orientation for daylighting, passive solar heating, and cooling
load avoidance
• Changes in building insulation levels.

The NREL screening analysis, documented in this section, was used to characterize a suite of
measures that maximizes energy savings and reduces the lifecycle cost of the sustainable building.
However, many of the details of the implementation of the sustainable design options differ
between their characterization in the NREL screening analysis and the final DOE-2.1E simulation.
This section documents the screening analysis, while Section B.4 documents the final sustainable
building simulation.

Aspect Ratio

One feature varied in the analysis was the aspect ratio3 of the building (see Figures B-2 and B-3). For
a building of 20,000 ft2 and two stories, an aspect ratio of less than 6 requires a core zone, whereas
an aspect ratio from 6 to 12 could be a double-loaded corridor with no core zone. For the base case,
a window-to-wall-area ratio of 0.20 was maintained for all four sides. For the energy-efficient case
(designated the "EE" case in the figures), the south window-to-wall-area ratio was as follows: south,
0.38; east, 0.07; west, 0.05; and north, 0.11.

Energy use was minimized by an aspect ratio of 1.5 for both the base and sustainable cases.4
However, for the sustainable design, the benefits of passive solar heating and daylighting
compensated for the increased surface area, and energy use increased only slightly with increasing
aspect ratio. However, increasing aspect ratio increased first costs substantially because of the
additional materials to accommodate the increased surface area for both the base and sustainable
design cases.

3
The ratio of the longer side of the building to the shorter side.
4
In DOE-2.1e aspect ratio was 2.0 in both the base and sustainable cases. This may have resulted in a slightly
higher energy use and capital cost than the ENERGY-10 simulation, but differences were not deemed
significant enough to warrant changing the model setup.

B-7
 2500000

Annual Energy Use (kbtu/year)

2000000

1500000
BaseCase
EE Case
1000000

500000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Aspect Ratio (S/E)

Figure B-2. Annual Energy Use (kBtu/yr) versus

Aspect Ratio (south/east)

4250000
4200000
4150000
Life Cycle Cost ($)

4100000
4050000 Base Case
4000000 EE Case
3950000
3900000
3850000
3800000
0 5 10 15
Aspect Ratio (S/E)

Figure B-3. Lifecycle Cost ($) versus Aspect

Ratio (south/east)

Energy Conservation Measures

Eight energy conservation measures (ECMs) were selected to define the sustainable building:
daylighting, improved windows, improved lighting efficiency, window shading, improved
insulation, passive solar heating, economizer cycle, and high-efficiency equipment. Each measure
and its cost are briefly described below.

ECM 1 – Daylighting

Ten lighting zones were set up, one facing each direction (i.e., east , south, west, and north) on each
floor, a core zone on the top floor with 12 skylights, and a 4592 ft2 core zone on the first floor with
no daylighting. Continuous dimming controls maintain a 50-foot-candle lighting level. The cost
of this measure was $188/ lighting zone for dimming sensor and controls and $0.75/ ft2 of floor

B-8
space to cover the cost of upgrading to dimming ballasts. Therefore, the total cost of daylighting
controls was $13,371.

Window dimensions were optimized and costed in the passive solar heating ECM (described below),
including the effects of daylight savings. The 4592-ft2 core zone on the second floor is daylit only
by skylights. The ratio of skylight area to zone roof area was varied from 0.02 to 0.08, and annual
energy use was minimized by an area ratio of 0.06. The cost of skylights was estimated at $90/ft2,
which is significantly more expensive than wall windows. Figures B-4 and B-5 show the annual
energy use and lifecycle costs, respectively, as functions of skylight to zone roof area.

ECM 2 – Improved Windows

Double-pane windows with U=0.67 Btu/hr-ft2-oF were replaced with low-emissivity windows with
U=0.31 Btu/hr-ft2-oF; the solar heat gain coefficient remains at 0.39 for both, but the premium

Figure B-4. Annual Energy Use (kBtu/yr) as a Function

of Skylight to Zone Roof Area Ratio

Figure B-5. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function

of Skylight-to-Zone-Roof-Area Ratio

B-9
glazing uses a selective surface with visible transmittance of 0.7. The cost of the premium glazing
was $25 ($22 to $28/ft2) for item 08810 3004000 in RS Means (2002) (super-efficient glazing, triple-
glazed with low-e glass, argon filled U=0.26). The cost of standard glass was $22.50 for item
4600400 in RS Means (2002) (3/16 float, 5/8 thick unit, U=0.56) for a $2.50/ft2 difference or $1.22/
ft2/R-value. Table B-4 lists the results of the glazing improvement.

Table B-4. Results of Glazing Improvement

Base Case Premium Glazing

Window construction Buscase, U=0.67 4060 low-e al/b, U=0.31,etc.
Window total gross area (ft²) 2,208 2,208
Windows (north/east/south/west:roof) 23/23/23/23:0 23/23/23/23:0
Glazing name Buscase, U=0.56 Double low-e selective, U=0.26
Energy use (kBtu) 904,917 820,385
Energy cost ($) 16,058 15,633
Construction costs 3,146,828 3,149,669
Lifecycle cost 3,815,530 3,805,379

ECM 3 – Improved Lighting Efficiency

The lighting power density was reduced from 1.38 to 1.0 W/ft2 by architectural design of the
lighting system and premium efficiency equipment. The cost was estimated at $0.36/ft2 or $7259.

ECM 4 – Window Shading

Overhangs provide shade over the south-facing windows. The cost was estimated at $12.37/ft of
overhang projection per linear foot of shaded window. Only windows facing east, south, and west
were supplied with overhangs for a linear window length of 360 ft. Overhang projection was varied
in the model from 0 to 4 ft, with a 3-ft projection minimizing annual energy use. The cost of the 3-
ft projection was $13,359. Figures B-6 and B-7 show the annual energy use and lifecycle costs,
respectively, as a function of overhang projection.

ECM 5 – Improved Insulation

Six wall cross-sections were considered to achieve different R-values: R-9, R-18, R-22, R-36, and R-50
and R-1000 (R-1000 was also considered just to provide a limiting case of the importance of
insulation). While R-36 provides the lowest lifecycle cost, it is only slightly lower than R-18, so R-
18 was adopted. Figure B-8 shows the net present value as a function of wall U-value (the inverse of
the R-value).

The overall loss coefficient of the envelope was reduced from 3276 to 1556 Btu/hr-oF at a total cost
of $18,868. (Upgrading to 6-in. steel frame walls with polyisocyanurate insulation added $0.05/unit
R-value/ft2 of wall area or $3943 for wall insulation; adding foam insulation to reduce the slab
perimeter F-value from 0.35 to 0.20 Btu/hrft2-oF cost $5/ft of perimeter or $8283 for foundation
insulation; improving roof insulation added $0.03/unit R-value/ft2 of roof area totaling $6505 for
roof insulation; and adding premium doors cost $137.)

B-10
Figure B-6. Annual Energy Use (kBtu/yr) as a Function
of Overhang Projection (ft)

Figure B-7. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function

of Overhang Projection (ft)

Figure B-8. Net Present Value (k$) as a Function

of Wall U-Value

B-11
ECM 6 – Passive Solar Heating

The amount of glazing on the east, west, north, and south walls was varied to minimize annual
energy use. The passive solar heating measure was implemented by changing from an even
distribution of windows on all sides (20% window-to-wall-area ratio) to the following distribution:

• 0.15 on the north

• 0.10 on the east
• 0.10 on the west
• 0.30 on the south.

The total window area in the walls decreased from 2208 ft2 to 2064 ft2 (not including the 12
skylights in the daylighting measure). The cost was $25/ft2 of window area for a total cost savings
of $3600 over the base case. Figures B-9 through B-16 show the annual energy use and lifecycle
costs as a function of the window-to-wall-area ratios for east, west, south, and north windows,
respectively.

Figure B-9. Annual Energy Use (kBtu) as a Function

of East Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

Figure B-10. Annual Energy Use (kBtu) as a Function

of West Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

B-12
Figure B-11. Annual Energy Use (kBtu) as a Function
of South Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

Figure B-12. Annual Energy Use (kBtu) as a Function

of North Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

Figure B-13. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function

of East Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

B-13
Figure B-14. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function
of West Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

Figure B-15. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function

of South Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

Figure B-16. Lifecycle Cost ($) as a Function

of North Window-to-Wall-Area Ratio

B-14
ECM 7 – Economizer Cycle

An economizer was added with a fixed dry bulb temperature of 60°F. The cost was $0.25/ft2 of floor
area for a total cost of $5041.

ECM 8 – High-Efficiency Equipment

HVAC efficiency was improved by using larger ducts and more efficient equipment. Heating
efficiency was raised from 80% to 90% at a cost of $1.00/unit of heating capacity in kBtu/hr per
unit increase in efficiency. Cooling efficiency was raised from an EER of 10.1 to 13.0 at a cost of
$5.00/unit of cooling capacity in kBtu/hr per unit of improvement in EER. The total cost of the
mechanical equipment upgrades was therefore estimated to be $7006.

Simulation of the Energy Use of the Sustainable Building

The sustainable building was characterized by incorporating the information developed in the NREL
screening analysis with the base-case building characterization. Figure B-17 lists the features
incorporated in the sustainable building, and Table B-5 shows the sustainable building
characterization.

The study developed construction and replacement cost estimates for the evaluated building energy
features from several sources, including vendors and facility engineering staff (through personal
communication), vendor websites, RS Means construction cost estimating books, and case studies
and reports. Table B-6 summarizes the estimates and sources. The estimates are shown as the net
incremental cost change (increase or decrease) to the base-case construction cost.

Results of the Energy Simulations

Energy Use and Energy Cost Estimates

Tables B-7 and B-8 show the energy use and energy cost by end use for both the base-case and the
sustainable buildings. The tables show energy use and cost with and without plug loads. Although
the model estimated energy consumption for plug loads and other miscellaneous office equipment,
these were not included in the analysis of the percent energy reductions that could be achieved
using various energy efficiency technologies. This is consistent with the practice within the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) Rating System.

Lifecycle Cost Calculations

This study estimated the lifecycle cost or present value of the initial construction costs, the outyear
replacement costs, and the annual energy costs over 25 years. Most replacement costs were based
on the service life values in Table 27.3 in Marshall and Petersen (1995). This study did not evaluate
the costs of annual recurring maintenance, the cost of nonrecurring or irregular repairs and
maintenance, or the cost impacts on the environment and occupants' productivity.

The lifecycle cost tool was an Excel spreadsheet workbook titled, "User-Friendly Building Life-Cycle
Cost Analysis" (M.S. Addison and Associates 2002). The developers say the workbook is compliant
with National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook lifecycle costing procedures and

B-15
offer the workbook free of charge at [Link] The study used the following key
inputs for the lifecycle cost workbook:

• DOE/FEMP fiscal year 2002

• Real discount rate for this analysis 3.2%
• Number of analysis years 25
• DOE fuel price escalation region 3 (south)
• Analysis sector 2 (commercial).

Table B-9 shows the lifecycle cost calculations for the base-case and the sustainable buildings.

Lighting Measures
• Increased daylighting. Skylights were added, increasing daylight to the top floor.
• Reduced lighting intensity. Lighting power densities recommended by the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America and ASHRAE, as a proposed addenda to the 90.1 standard, were adopted. The
lighting level was reduced from 40 to 35 footcandles in the office area, with some increase in task
lighting.
• Perimeter daylighting controls with dimmers. Daylight sensors (six per floor) control stepped ballast
controls so that electric lighting is dimmed when sufficient daylight exists. In the base case, no dimming
of electric lighting occurs.

Envelope Measures
• Window distribution. The square footage of the windows was redistributed to optimize solar gain with
heating and cooling costs. The optimized window-to-wall ratio is 15% window for the north wall, 10%
window for the east and west walls, and 30% window for the south wall. The base-case ratio is 20% for
all walls.
• Additional wall insulation. On the outside face of the exterior wall framing, R-10 rigid insulation was
added compared with only R-13 batt insulation in the base-case walls. The resulting insulation in the
sustainable building was R-23.
• Additional roof insulation. The R-15 rigid insulation was increased to R-20.
• White roof. A white roof finish material with low solar radiation absorptance of 0.30 was used
compared with the base case's absorptance of 0.70.
• Highly energy-efficient windows. The sustainable option balances window performance with the low
lighting levels and the use of daylighting controls. The result is a cost-optimized window with a U-factor
of 0.31 and a shading coefficient of 0.39.

Mechanical Systems
• High-efficiency air conditioner. The air conditioning unit has an energy-efficiency ratio of 13
compared with 10 for the base case.
• High-efficiency water heater. A 90% thermal efficiency condensing water heater was used compared
with a commercial gas water heater with 80% thermal efficiency for the base case.
• Low-pressure ducts. The fan external static pressure was reduced from 1.0 inch water column to 0.5
inch water column by enlarging the duct sizes.
• Economizers. An integrated economizer, including an outside air enthalpy sensor with a high-limit
enthalpy setpoint, was used; the setpoint was set at 25 Btu/lb in conjunction with a dry bulb temperature
high limit of 74°F.

Figure B-17. Features Included in the Sustainable Building

B-16
 Table B-5. Characterization of Sustainable Building (includes base-case building comparison)

Characteristic ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Base Case Sustainable Building

General
Building type Office Same as in base case
Location Baltimore, Maryland Same as in base case
Gross area 20,164 Ft2 Same as in base case
Operation hours 8am - 5pm Monday-Friday Same as in base case
Utility Rates
Electric energy rate Base rate: $11.50/month Same as in base case
Energy charge: $0.077/kWh Same as in base case
Natural gas price ($/therm) Base rate: $27.0/month Same as in base case
Energy charge: $0.692/therm Same as in base case
Architectural features
B-17

Configuration/shape
Aspect ratio 2:1 Same as in base case
Perimeter zone depth 15 ft Same as in base case
Number of floors 2 Same as in base case
Window area 20% window-to-wall ratio Redistribute windows to optimize solar gain: north 15%, south
30%, and east and west 10%. Net overall: 18%.
Floor-to-ceiling height 9 ft Same as in base case
Floor-to-floor height 13 ft Same as in base case
Exterior walls
Wall type 4-in. face brick façade on 16-in. on-center See next item
metal framing
Opaque wall U-value 0.124 0.055
Wall insulation R-13 cavity insulation Add R-10 rigid foam insulation under brick façade
Roof
Roof type Builtup roofing with concrete deck See next item
Solar absorptance 0.7 (medium dark) 0.3 (white roof)
 Characteristic ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Base Case Sustainable Building
Roof U-value 0.063 0.048
Roof insulation R-15 continuous insulation R-20 continuous insulation
Floor structure
Floor type Concrete Same as in base case
Floor insulation R-5.4 perimeter insulation* Same as in base case
Fenestration/windows
Window type Aluminum frames with thermal breaks and See next item
double panes
Total U-value 0.57 0.31
Shading coefficient 0.45 0.39
Visual transmittance 0.52 0.70
Window shading/overhangs None *Overhang was considered but not included because overhangs
made little impact on energy efficiency and the construction
cost was substantial.
B-18

Building internal loads

Occupancy
Number of occupancy 96 Same as in base case
Occupancy schedule 8am - 5pm Monday-Friday Same as in base case
Lighting
Fixture type T-8 with electronic ballasts Same as in base case
Peak lighting power density 1.38 watts/ft2 (net building wattage from 1.0 watts/ft2. The density was recommended by the
ASHRAE's space by space analysis) Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and
ASHRAE as a proposed addenda to ASHRAE's 90.1 standard.
For this building, the level was reduced from 40 to 35 foot
candles in the office area.
Lighting schedule 7am – 6pm Monday-Friday Same as in base case
Occupancy sensors None Same as in base case
Daylighting None Light sensors and dimmable fixtures the perimeter zones (15
feet in from the window walls). Skylights in second floor core
with light sensors and dimmable fixtures.
Office equipment
 Characteristic ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Base Case Sustainable Building
Equipment schedule 7am – 6pm Monday-Friday Same as in base case
Peak load density 0.72 watts/ft2 Same as in base case
HVAC system
HVAC system type Package rooftop constant air volume with gas Same as in base case
furnace
Number of HVAC units Five units to serve five HVAC thermal zones Same as in base case
Space temperature setpoint 75°F cooling/70°F heating Same as in base case
Space setback/setup 80°F cooling/65°F heating Same as in base case
Cooling equipment efficiency 10.1 EER 13.0 EER
Outside air supply 20 cfm/person, 17% of supply air cfm Same as in base case
Heating furnace efficiency 80% Same as in base case
Ventilation control mode Constant during occupied periods, cycle See next item
during unoccupied periods
Economizer None Economizer in each rooftop unit with outside air enthalpy­
B-19

based controls
Design supply air Minimum 0.5 cfm/ft2 Same as in base case
Air-to-air energy recovery ventilation None Same as in base case
Fan total static pressure 2.0 in. total, 1.0 in. related to ductwork system Increase duct size to reduced static pressure to 1.5 inches total
(0.5 inches related to ductwork system).
Fan schedule 6am - 6pm Monday-Friday with night cycle Same as in base case
on/off
Fan motor efficiency 85% Same as in base case
Fan efficiency 65% Same as in base case
Service/domestic/potable water heating
Hot water fuel type Natural gas Same as in base case
Thermal efficiency 80% 90%
Supply temperature 120 Same as in base case
Hot water consumption 0.9 gallons per minute/person Same as in base case
* Exceeds ASHRAE 90.1-1999.
 Table B-6. Costs of Technology Options and Data Sources

Construction
Alternate Feature or Cost Impact on
Technology Option Base Case Basis and Source of Cost Service Life of Alternate
Lighting
Reduce lighting power density – -$16,970 Based on the watts/ft2 (1.0 watt) and the cost/ft2 ($2.32) needed to 25 yr; assumes light
Level 1: Reduce from 1.38 meet the current Illuminating Engineering Society of North America replacement costs are the same
watts/ft2 to 1.0 watts/ft2 (from 40 handbooks lighting levels for the space types in the office building even though lower light levels
to 35 foot candles) design (office, lobby, corridor/support areas, and kitchen) with T-8 reduce the number of fixtures
fixtures, electronic ballasts, and compact fluorescent lamps). The and lamps that need to be
fixture choices remain the same as in ASHRAE's 90.1-1999 baseline. replaced – and therefore reduces
costs – over the life of the
building.
Add perimeter daylighting with $11,246 Based on $0.88/ft2 for daylighting controls and fully dimming 15 yr
dimming control ballasts for all office space in a 15-ft depth from the building
perimeter on both floors of the building. The range of cost per ft2
was $0.23/ft2 to $1.88/ft2. One daylight sensor/controller was
B-20

assumed per 600 ft2 of perimeter floor space. Cost data for fully
dimming ballasts were based on available costs in the Industrial
Supply Lighting Catalog (W.W. Grainger 2000). Controller cost data
with installation based on 2001 Means Electrical Cost Data.
Add skylights and daylighting $18,219 18 skylights, fixed double-glazed, 44 in. x 46 in., $550 each (RS Controls: 15 yr
controls to center core of building Means BCCD 08600-100-0130), effectively $39.13/ft2. Eighteen light Skylights: 25 yr
wells built up from suspended ceiling t-bar components. Dimmable
controls and fixtures at $1.15/ft2 of skylit core floor space; $/ft2 rate
developed from manufacturers' data indicating a range of $0.75 to
$0.88/ft2; plus 40% for labor.
Mechanical
Add high-efficiency air $5,686 Base-case costs developed from distributors' purchase cost data 25 yr for both the base case and
conditioning (increase EER from collected during analysis of unitary air conditioning equipment for sustainable building
10 to 13) DOE's EPAct standards program, 2000-2002. Baseline system cost
would then be $475/ton of cooling and the alternate would be
$510/ton for an incremental cost of $40/EER/ton. A 25% distributor-
to-contractor cost markup was assumed. The sustainable design
option (EER 13) was taken from DOE's Unitary Air Conditioner
Technology Procurement website at
[Link]
 Construction
Alternate Feature or Cost Impact on
Technology Option Base Case Basis and Source of Cost Service Life of Alternate
Add economizer with enthalpy­ $2,700 Based on $540/rooftop air-handling units (5 units total) based on 15 yr; assumes controls are the
based controls materials from multiple manufacturers. weak point
Enlarge duct sizes to reduce static $7,000 Based on ductwork at $1200/ton for baseline pressure duct design 25 yr [Note: although the
air pressure at fans and therefore (0.1 in. H2O/100-ft-length pressure drop) and $1400/ton for a low- expected lifetime is 30 years,
reduce fan and motor sizes pressure design (0.05 in./100-ft pressure drop). Assumes 120 lb of the analysis has a 25-year time-
sheet metal per ton of air conditioning and $6.40/lb for the duct plus frame, so lifetimes past 25 years
insulation cost. Cost data from RS Means Building Construction Cost are not considered.]
Data.
Envelope
Add 1-in. (R-10) rigid foam board $2,946 Isocyanurate, 4 x 8 sheets, foil-faced, both sides. 1.5-in.-thick, R- 25 yr for both the base case and
insulation behind brick façade 10.8. RS Means 072-100-116-1650: $0.88. sustainable building
Decrease total U-value from 0.57 $5,538 Cost of premium glazing is $25 ($22 to $28/ft2) for item 08810 25 yr for both the base case and
to 0.31; decrease shading 3004000 in RS Means (super-efficient glazing, triple-glazed with low-e sustainable building
coefficient from 0.45 to 0.39; and glass, argon filled U=.26). Standard glass cost is $22.50 for item
increase visual transmittance from 4600400 in RS Means (3/16 float, 5/8 thick unit, U=.56) for a
0.52 to 0.70 $2.50/ft2 difference.
B-21

Reallocate window distribution to -$3,457 Based on $37.24/ft2 for windows and $18.52 for wall. Baseline 25 yr
optimize solar gains window-to-wall ratio was 20% and the sustainable design case nets
18%. Window cost decreased $6875. Wall cost increased $3418.
Increase roof insulation from R-10 $1,916 Based on difference in Means construction costs between baseline of 25 yr for both the base case and
to R-20 3-in. expanded polystyrene (R-11.49, $0.82/ft2) and 3-in. sustainable building
polyisocyanurate (R-21.74, $1.01/ft2).
Replace roofing with a white roof $1,553 Based on a 10% extra cost ($0.15/ft2) for white over baseline roofing 25 yr for both the base case and
system at $1.54/ft2. Unit costs derived from RS Means Building Construction sustainable building
Cost Data (1999), line numbers 075-302. Manufacturers' information
indicates the additional cost may be higher, possibly a multiple of 2.
Other
Replace gas-fired service hot water $1,200 Based on review of cost information from multiple manufacturers/ 25 yr for both the base case and
heater (80% efficiency) with vendors and web-based reports. sustainable building
higher-efficiency unit (90%
efficiency)
 Table B-7. Simulated Energy Use by End Use for the Base-Case
and Sustainable Buildings

Base-Case Sustainable
End Use Fuel Units Building Building % Change
Lighting Electricity kWh 79,314 41,518 -47.7%
Space cooling Electricity kWh 23,440 17,082 -27.1%
Space heat Natural gas Therms 2,606 1,854 -28.9%
Other All Million Btu 118 92 -22.4%
Fans Electricity kWh 15,207 10,401 -31.6%
Pumps and misc. Electricity kWh 674 879 30.4%
Hot water Natural gas Therms 642 534 -16.8%
Total All Million Btu 730 477 -34.6%

Table B-8. Simulated Annual Energy Costs by End Use for the Base-Case
and Sustainable Buildings

Base-Case Sustainable
End Use Fuel Units Building Building % Change
Lighting Electricity $/Yr 6,099 3,193 -47.7
Space cooling Electricity $/Yr 1,803 1,314 -27.1
Space heat Natural gas $/Yr 1,804 1,284 -28.9
Other All $/Yr 2,128 1,699 -20.1
Fans Electricity $/Yr 1,169 800 -31.6
Pumps and misc. Electricity $/Yr 52 68 30.4
Hot water Natural gas $/Yr 445 370 -16.8
Base energy charges All $/Yr 462 462 0.0
Total All $/Yr 11,834 7,489 -36.7

B-22
 Table B-9. Lifecycle Cost Calculations for the Base-Case and Sustainable Buildings

Difference
Base-Case Sustainable (Sustainable -
Cost Element Units Building Building Base) % Difference Comments
Investment cost
Total first cost $ $2,400,000 $2,437,578 $37,578 1.6%
Present value $ $2,400,000 $2,449,565 $49,565 2.1% Present value investment cost differs from first
(investment cost) cost in the sustainable building because of
replacement costs for lighting controls and
economizers, which are assumed to have a 15-
year life.
Annual energy costs
Annual electricity cost $/Yr $9,123 $5,374 ($3,749) -41.1%
Annual natural gas $/Yr
cost $2,249 $1,653 ($595) -26.5%
Annual fixed costs $/Yr $462 $462 $0 0.0% Represents fixed energy connection charges.
B-23

Total annual energy $/Yr

cost $11,834 $7,489 ($4,345) -36.7%
Present value of energy costs
Present value
(electricity cost) $ $151,985 $89,525 ($62,461) -41.1%
Present value (natural
gas cost) $ $39,022 $28,690 ($10,332) -26.5%
Present value (fixed $ Not included Not included in Not Not Fixed charges not included in the lifecycle cost
energy costs) in the lifecycle the lifecycle cost applicable applicable calculation. Because they are not impacted by
cost the sustainable design options, they have no
impact on the cost-effectiveness calculations.
Present value (total
energy cost) $ $191,007 $118,214 ($72,793) -38.1%
Lifecycle cost $ $2,591,007 $2,567,780 ($23,228) -0.9%
 ENERGY-10 and DOE-2.1E
While ENERGY-10 was designed for use with small buildings (i.e., 10,000 ft2 or less in floor area), its
ability to quickly assess the energy-use and lifecycle cost impact of design changes was used even
with this study's larger, 20,000-ft2 building. The same features that make ENERGY-10 quick and
easy to use also limit its flexibility, and the base-case building in DOE-2.1E and ENERGY-10
exhibited some differences in cooling load and fan power.

The two models handle fundamental building characteristics in significantly different ways,
including the limited equipment choices in ENERGY-10 and the fact that ENERGY-10 only models
one or two zones. While a single zone may be appropriate for small buildings such as houses and
small retail buildings, larger buildings may have substantial variation in thermal loads across the
building, requiring some way to provide for individually served thermal zones. In addition,
ENERGY-10’s feature to automatically set up daylighting zones places the daylight sensor in the
center of the zone, which in this case is close to a window, and therefore overestimates daylighting
savings.

ENERGY-10 provides for a very simplified user entry using its "autobuild" procedure to create a very
basic "shoe box" building model; however, the desire to match the prototype building led the team
to specify a building description that closely matched the characteristics of the ASHRAE 90.1-1999
compliant base-case building modeled in DOE-2.1E.

In developing the specific features of the base-case building in ENERGY-10, careful attention was
paid to the fundamental building characteristics so that they would be the same in the base-case
ENERGY-10 and DOE-2.1E models. Less attention was focused on the final building energy use or
EUI (kBtu/ft2/yr). However, there were limits to how well the fundamental descriptions for
infiltration, cooling equipment efficiency, and the presence of a building return air plenum could
be matched between the ENERGY-10 and the DOE-2.1E base-case buildings. In the end, the base-
case building simulations in the DOE-2.1E and ENERGY-10 models resulted in the buildings having
very similar overall site energy consumption (within 1% of each other) and very similar scheduled
energy use (lighting and plug and hot water loads total within 2% of each other). However, the
ENERGY-10 base-case simulations showed higher cooling and fan energy consumption and lower
heating energy use consumption than in the DOE-2.1E simulations. This may be explained by the
known differences in implementation discussed above; the remaining difference may be attributable
to the different underlying simulation engines. Note that ENERGY-10 calculates very different
estimates of cost effectiveness measures for the energy-efficiency options, with an overall return on
investment of 11%. The differences remain an area of study.

Table B-10 shows the ENERGY-10 description of the base-case building and of a low-energy version
(i.e., sustainable design) of that base-case building. The low-energy building was developed by
selecting from among the potential sustainable design options.

Table B-11 shows the results of the ENERGY-10 simulations of the base-case and sustainable
buildings. Table B-12 shows the estimated cost impacts of the sustainable design options from
ENERGY-10. These cost estimates were used to generate the lifecycle cost analysis used in the
screening effort, but these are not the costs used in the final simulation of the sustainable building
in DOE-2.1E. See Section B.4 for documentation of the final simulation of the sustainable building.

B-24
 Table B-10. Summary of Base-Case and Sustainable Buildings

Description Base-Case Building Sustainable building

Building characteristics
Weather file Baltimore Baltimore
Floor area (ft²) 20,164 20,164
Surface area (ft²) 31,240 31,240
Volume (ft³) 262,132 262,132
Total conduction loss coefficient
(Btu/hr-ºF) 3,276 1,556
2 o
Average U-value (Btu/hr-ft - F) 0.105 0.050
Wall construction Buscase 6, R=8.9 Steelstud 6 poly, R=18.1
Roof construction Buscase, R=15.9 Flat, R=38.0
Floor type, insulation Slab on grade, Reff=67.6 Slab on grade, Reff=118.3
4,060 low-E
aluminum/thermobreak,
Window construction Buscase, U=0.67 Btu/hr-ft2-oF U=0.31 Btu/hr-ft2-oF
3 ft overhangs on east, south,
Window shading None and west windows
Wall total gross area (ft²) 11,076 11,076
Roof total gross area (ft²) 10,082 10,082
Ground total gross area (ft²) 10,082 10,082
Window total gross area (ft²) 2,208 2,280
Windows (north/east/south/west:roof) 23/23/23/23:0 23/7/46/7:12
Glazing name Buscase, U=0.56 Double low-E, U=0.26
Operating parameters
Direct expansion cooling with Direct expansion cooling with
HVAC System gas furnace gas furnace
Rated output (heat/sensible cool/total
cool) (kBtu/h) 288/315/420 206/256/341
Rated air flow/minimum outside air
(cfm) 12,597/1,585 9,527/1,585
Heating thermostat 70.0°F, set back to 65.0°F 70.0°F, set back to 65.0°F
Cooling thermostat 75.0°F, set up to 80.0°F 75.0°F, set up to 80.0°F
Heat/cool performance Efficiency=80, EER=10.1 Efficiency=90, EER=13.0
Economizer?/type No/not applicable Yes/fixed dry bulb, 60.0°F
Duct leaks/conduction losses (total %) 2/0 2/0
Peak gains; internal lights, external
lights, hot water, other; watt/ft² 1.38/0.00/0.20/0.72 1.03/0.00/0.20/0.72
Added mass? None None
Daylighting? No Yes, continuous dimming
Infiltration (in²) Air changes per hour (ACH)=0.1 ACH=0.1

B-25
Table B-11. Annual Energy Use, Cost, and Emissions from ENERGY-10

Base-Case Building Sustainable Building

Simulation dates Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31
Energy use (kBtu) 904,917 495,861
Energy cost ($) 16,058 9,208
Saved by daylighting (kWh) − 25,011
Total electric (kWh) 183,542 108,238
Internal lights (kWh) 78,793 33,793
Cooling/fan (kWh) 35,242/17,106 19,066/2,977
Other (kWh) 52,402 52,402
Peak electric (kW) 83.8 50.6
Fuel (hot water/heat/total) (kBtu) 62,791/215,826/278,617 62,791/63,730/126,520
Emissions (CO2/SO2/NOx) (lb) 279,585/1,481/789 160,414/869/460
Construction costs 3,146,828 3,195,257
Lifecycle cost 3,815,530 3,668,552

Table B-12. Cost of Modeled

Energy Conservation Measures From ENERGY-10

Daylighting Cost
Daylighting 13,371
Glazing (windows) 4,980
Shading 13,359
Energy-efficient lights 7,259
Insulation 18,868
Passive solar heating -5,400
Economizer 5,041
High-efficiency HVAC 7,006
Total 66,500
Total after HVAC downsizing 59,494

B-26