National Commercial Construction Characteristics and Compliance with Building Energy Codes: 1999-2007

Eric Richman and Emily Rauch, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)1 Jaclyn Phillips and Kimberly Petty, Washington State University Jessica Knappek, Columbia Basin Community College Priscilla Lopez-Rangel, Western Washington University

ABSTRACT

As States adopt the latest energy standards, which continue to be developed with more stringent requirements, a better understanding of actual compliance with standards and associated common construction practice can be important. Claims are often made that energy- related standards impose excessive burdens on building owners and the construction industry. Other claims indicate that many energy-code requirements are common practice and will have little impact on the building community. Information collected on current construction practice is critical in the analysis of the effect of energy code adoption and in understanding the rational possibility of specific future code development. Because an increased focus is placed on energy consumption in the building sector, the effective analysis of code impacts, as well as energy efficiency projects and programs, will become more important. Decision makers need better information on the current state of new commercial construction to accurately assess the impacts of codes, standards, incentives and policies. Regional and national studies exist that provide survey data for only selected types of buildings in specific locations. This paper presents an assessment of how current new commercial construction complies with applicable energy codes on a national basis for a range of code levels represented by buildings designed in the 1999 – 2007 timeframe. This analysis makes use of a recently updated commercial buildings database with more than 130 energy-related building characteristics from over 340 new commercial buildings across the United States. Energy code compliance for the buildings in this sample is assessed using the COMcheck™ energy standard compliance software tool to determine how closely new construction across the Nation is to meeting current and recently adopted energy codes such as ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1. The results present an interesting look at where code requirements stand with respect to current construction and provide insights into the challenges faced by the building community to meet these standards.

Summary

The National Commercial Construction Characteristics (NC3) data set was developed to help provide answers to questions on current commercial design practices, which are important inputs to analysis of commercial building energy consumption. The data set is populated with over 130 possible building characteristics for 340 buildings from across the Nation. The building characteristics were extracted from sets of real building plans and specifications acquired from the F.W. DODGE Plans Service Division of McGraw Hill. These represent buildings that were in the bid process during the summer of 2001 through the spring of 2007. It

1 Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-291 is understood that changes are made to buildings during construction, but these sets of plans do provide complete designs that are representative of expected common construction practice. As of the date of this report, the NC3 data set has been used to support several internal and external analysis efforts including: support for state code adoption, analysis of the potential effect of Federal energy tax credit legislation, and the assessments of lighting power density (LPD) and window wall ratios to support code adoption and development of the 90.1 energy standards jointly sponsored by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The most recent use has been assistance in the development of Department of Energy Benchmark building prototypes used in a variety of building energy analysis efforts. Another application is the assessment of current constructed building stock compliance with national energy codes to provide some idea of how commercial buildings across the Nation are meeting minimum energy code levels with and without State-adopted code requirements. The compliance results provided in this paper clearly show that, for envelope requirements, the majority of newly constructed commercial buildings in the U.S. that were built to meet the ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1- 1989 standard far exceeded it. However, at least 1/4 of those built to meet the 90.1-1999 standards did not meet minimum code requirements. For lighting requirements, a majority of the buildings are also meeting or exceeding the 90.1-1989 standards, but between approximately 20% and 30% of buildings designed to meet the 90.1-1999 standard would not comply.

Introduction

This adoption of codes, the development of the codes themselves, and the interest in national energy use creates a need for understanding how well current buildings are complying with energy codes, and how code compliance affects those being constructed. In analyzing these types of issues, data on how commercial buildings are currently being constructed commonly emerges as a critical missing element. For example, as many states consider the adoption of a new energy code, they have the desire to know what effect a new code will have on commercial building energy use across their state. To determine this, it is necessary to understand the energy impacts of currently constructed buildings, and to compare this with the energy code implications to then calculate potential energy savings. On a national basis it can be desirable to understand the effect energy code adoption has on national energy consumption. Again, it can be useful to understand current practice on a national scale to produce a more accurate estimate of national energy impact. Some data on building characteristics is available for small case-study type samples, covering individual states and regions, or at an overview level. One recently completed study completed for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and known as the 2006 non-residential baseline presents characteristics of approximately the same number of buildings as NC3 data set but only for buildings in the Northwest. The Commercial Building Energy Conservation Survey (CBECS) data source provides less detailed building data from surveys but covers the entire country. To provide the necessary detailed characteristics on a national scale, the National Commercial Construction Characteristics (NC3) data set was developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) as a data source to help answer energy and code related questions.

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-292 Data Set Development

The NC3 data set was originally suggested as a means of providing answers to questions on current commercial lighting technology. The benefits of collecting building characteristics beyond lighting and square footage were quickly realized, and an effort to create a current practice data set of new construction stock was launched. Initial work on the design of the data set and collection methodologies began in early 2001 and an expansion took place throughout 2007. Appendix A includes this list of over 130 data collection items, which includes lighting characterizations and detailed square footage take- offs to include heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); water heating; and envelope characteristics. Attempts were made to include all characteristics that might be available from building plans and specifications and that would be of interest to current and future analysis and building modeling needs. At the same time, a list of building types of interest was prepared with primary focus on building types that were common and would represent a majority of new construction in the U.S. These same building types would also correspond to those used in nationally available energy codes and standards and the widely used CBECS data sources. The match with CBECS data sources would provide the ability to leverage specific CBECS data as enhancements to the NC3 data set. The F.W. DODGE Plans Service Division of McGraw Hill maintains sets of plans for buildings recently designed and currently in the construction bidding stage and makes those available for contractors interested in bidding. PNNL contracted with this service to obtain a total of over 340 sets of plans and specifications of various types of commercial buildings across the Nation. The buildings included in the data set were selected with the following general guidelines in mind with resulting quantities shown in Table 1.

• New buildings – not remodeled facilities or additions • Relatively clean examples of the building types of interest – avoiding mixed use • Not extremely small – buildings smaller than 1,000 to 2,000 square feet may not reasonably represent “complete” buildings of a particular type • Not extremely large – buildings over one-half million square feet were not expected to exhibit fundamental differences from those of 100,000 square foot • Distributed across the Nation – as evenly distributed as practical

Table 1. Distribution of NC3 Sample by Building Type

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-293 A set of extraction procedures was created that provided a means of ensuring reasonable consistency with the collected data between building samples. The extraction of the raw data from the building plans and specifications was done by engineering student interns under the direction and guidance of staff at PNNL. During the 2001/2002 efforts, 162 buildings were completed and during the 2006/2007 effort, an additional 182 new buildings were added. Extensive quality assurance checks of existing buildings and new buildings were completed by early 2008, and the data was placed in the MySQL database format.

Data Set Capabilities

The data set in its current form is able to provide important building energy related characteristics for a wide variety of commercial building attributes. These characteristics can be provided in meaningful categorizations and comparisons on their own and can be related to important external factors, such as weather and energy code requirements. A major advantage of the dataset over others is the ability to present collected characteristics on a national basis. This includes simple characteristics sorts to identify common practices, identification of trends by weather location, and lighting power density by building, space, and technology, as well as potential code compliance. Figures 1 through 10 highlight just a few examples of the variety of capabilities of the data set. They provide a glimpse of the information available from the over 100 major commercial building practice characteristics. Some of the available characteristics, such as insulation levels, may serve to simply confirm existing understandings. However, others, such as window wall ratio and lighting technology mix, can provide interesting and useful information and may conflict with generally accepted practice. The data set contains useful information for whole building modeling, such as shape type (Figure 1) and insulation levels shown with average as well as minimum and maximums of the dataset in Figures 2 through 4. Other useful modeling and characterization information includes building component structure and surface types. These data for wall components are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Another useful building characteristic of great interest to energy modelers is window wall ratio, which has been used as part of the development of many energy codes. Historically, they have been thought to be in the range of 20% and higher. The NC3 data provides new information that the ratios are not that high for most building types (Figure 7). The data set’s level of detail is able to provide characteristics such as window wall ratio by orientation, as illustrated by the south facing values in Figure 8. One particularly powerful capability of this data is the detail available on installed lighting technologies and power densities. Figure 9 identifies the amount of T12 fluorescent lighting still being installed in new buildings. Figure 10 provides a similar representation of the relative prevalence of incandescent technologies. Figures 11 and 12 show the designed lighting powers densities for selected building types and space types in the data set. Figure 11 shows building level power density with the average and minimum/maximum providing an assessment of the variability of densities by building type. Figure 12 provides the aggregated power density for selected space types across the data set split by its contribution by lighting technology. These samples show the basic data set capability. Variations and other aggregations and detailed splits can be produced to provide a wide variety of information.

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-294 Figure 1. Shape Type by Building Type Figure 2. Slab Perimeter Insulation R- Figure 3. Cavity Wall R-Value By Value ASHRAE Climate Zone

35

30 30 25 40 20 25 35 15 20 30 10 Shape Type Count Type Shape 5 15 25 0 l 20 i l e c c n t 10 i i s l a o l i f l l o o e C a vity R -V a lu e e ef a l h t C C t ef f f ue t h et d a e o R-Value Perimeter f o o o r e c M c c r r o 15 o e S hr O o F u h H O O S at t h p S t l la l R y t M l i e r y r s a a 5 e m r y s a t r r e e g u e a e 10 r i a S a a c R H m d F H a d o S W m r t t L e i n n r o n 0 5 G M e e P c i i t e t a a Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 S p p 0 t n I u Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 O ASHRAE Climate Zones ASHRAE Climate Zone Doughnut FingersBenchmark BuildingL-shaped Types Rectangle Spider U-shaped Other

Figure 5. Wall Structure Type by Figure 4. Continuous Wall R-Value by Figure 6. Wall Surface Type by Building Building Type ASHRAE Climate Zone Type

40 100% 100%

75% 75%

30 50% 50%

25%

25% Type Surface Wall 20 0% l l ll l l l i o o e g e e a a t e t n " e o o e e t i 0% e c s t y d n r o r c i M h h r r o v e c i f u e r o a i ll t l i f f c c a a H WallStructure Type " l f e r L l o e h f f o R p G o c c M r c c c s i a r n a t n t i S S c u i i i o o y o e i O h r F h e f e f fe e a l l e d a a c t o O O t o t h t d ContinuousR-Value e u h g t l f f f t M h o r e e v O ll e y y t s l h co c c r rh o i r S r e t o e c F u t H " e r s e a a t O O O p o h l L m a a 10 h i S t t t M a a a e s O l R S r l a g u d e i " l e r s s d r i m R e m r t y e a e W m F H s a y r G a e a d i n H g u S r e t S r t s r i a a R H L e o t a F s n A a d m H t i P c n W d e L S m t s M e e i e i n n i t r o n e s S t M i a c e t A a P i p e t a p t a p n S t I u 0 p u O n I Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 O Brick Masonry Block Metal ASHRAE Climate Zone Masonry Metal Concrete Wood Concrete Stucco/ Plaster Vinyl Siding

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-295 Figure 7. South Orientated Window Figure 8. Total Window Wall Ratio by Figure 9. T12’s as a Percent of Total Wall Ratio by Building Type Building Type Fluorescent Lighting

80%

12%

100% 60% 10%

75% 8%

40% 6% 50% 4% WWR (Percent) WWR (Percent) WWR 25% 20% 2%

0% 0%

l l l f i l l l l t 0% " e ai h t d t re e f fe ue h r e et t a o co re o n Hotel f M ra Motel c c s o h h o o l Retail h i c o c a a l l e l e l ll e e t fi O e o o o t t i d r " t e g f S S F u l l e e o c o r n r e a te c c h p S t H s r a o i n t i i "Other" O t C C M t o f o a e a i o f f l R a a u o e h o f h a o M f f O l ri ry s t C h r iv "O m t s o c F O c t u C H M O ry e e R p O Mall Strip re Resturant a e e h S l h t L i ry t h Fast Food u a S l S t O s t r e i a S a c H e y s l " l d t m e

a Warehouse a R r r y a y a e g d m d F H r r a e S iu r t a e t Office Large t m e R Small Office rg W a F a e d a e m n ro c is S n n W o S d H H e L a m Grocery Store ri r i n t s o t Medium Office G e e r n s M L M i i G o n Primary School P c t t P c e e A ti i e a a e t S a a S p p p p Secondary School t t n u In I u

O Inpatient Health Care O Bechmark Building Types Outpatient Health Care

Figure 10. Incandescent Lighting as a Figure 11. Lighting Power Density by Figure 12. Lighting Power Density by Percentage of Total INC + CFL Lighting Building Type – Avg, Min, Max Space Type and Lighting Technology

9 100% 2.0 8 1.8 7 1.6 75% 6 1.4 5 1.2 4 1.0 50% 3 0.8 0.6 2 25% Density Power Lighting 0.4 1 Density Power Lighting 0.2 0 0.0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 0% 12 5) 4)

(n= Lab Hall

(n= 31 Stair l (n= 30s (n= 3 t (n= 15l e (n= 36 Exam Stage Living Retail c Lobby i ood (n= 6 Dining Library Hotel Storage Motel Laundry Retail Hotel (n= Off Retai Worship Religiou Exercise "Other" ealthcare (n= 1 Fast F cery Store (n= 9 Restroom Pharmacy Elec/Mech Food-prep WarehouseMulti-Family (n= 9 (n=isted 4 Living (n= 12 Restauran Office-encl Classroom Office-open Conference Strip Mall Strip Gro Resturant nt H

Fast Food Fast tient Healthcare Ass ExercisePrimary Center School (n= 9 (n= 14 Sp orts C o u rt Warehouse Large Office Large Small Office Inpa Secondary Schoo Space Type Grocery Store Outpatie Room Dressing Medium Office Primary School Building Types

Secondary School FL CFL INC MH Unknown Bechmark Building Types Inpatient Health Care Health Inpatient

Outpatient Health Care Health Outpatient

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-296 National Energy Code Compliance Comparison

One important capability of the NC3 data is supporting the assessment of how commercial buildings are complying with applicable energy codes. The data is able to provide an unbiased basis for looking at compliance trends among new buildings. The energy code compliance software tool COMcheck 3.5.3 developed under the Building Energy Code Program (BECP) program at PNNL was used to determine the compliance of each building as a percentage above or below the compliance level for envelope and lighting requirements. These percentages indicate how close to compliance each building is as it is currently designed. Compliance was calculated for the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989, 90.1-1999, and 90.1-2004 standards where applicable. The 90.1-1989 and 1999 standards were the current adopted standard for many of the buildings in the data set. The remaining buildings are under state-specific codes or no code. Figures 13 and 14 show how buildings with 90.1-1989 or 90.1- 1999 requirements comply with the envelope provisions of their code. Figures 15 through 18 show compliance to the older 90.1-1989 and more recent 90.1-2004 standards for buildings with no code or a state-specific code in place. Figure 13 shows that most buildings with older 90.1- 1989 requirements are easily complying. Buildings with a 90.1-1999 code requirement show approximately 2/3 compliance (Figure 14). Buildings with no code or a state specific code are also easily complying with the older 90.1-1989 code level and 2/3 are also complying with the higher code level of 90.1-2004 (Figures 15 through 18). Similar lighting compliance trends are shown in Figures 19 through 24. The remaining compliance figures show how buildings are meeting specific code levels for all buildings of a particular type, regardless of that building’s code requirement. In these figures the required code for each building is identified by its bar color and pattern according to the following key:

No Code State 90.1-1989 90.1-1999 90.1-2004

For example Figure 25 shows that all of the primary school samples comply with the 90.1-1989 envelope requirements. This includes those with 90.1-1989 as a requirement, as well as those with 90.1-1999, no code or state-specific code requirements. The remaining primary school compliance figures (Figures 26 and 27) show compliance to higher level codes, and it is clear that a building’s required code level does not always dictate its compliance or non- compliance. In all of the remaining envelope compliance figures (28 through 36), the results are similar. The final set of figures (37 through 48) present similar results for lighting power density compliance among various building types and show the same primary trends as in the envelope compliance.

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-297 Figure 13. Envelope Compliance for Figure14. Envelope Compliance for Figure 15. Envelope Compliance Buildings with 90.1-1989 Code Buildings with 90.1-1999 Code to 90.1-1989 for Buildings Requirements Requirements with No Code

70 70 60

50 60 60 40 50 50 30 40 40 20 30 30 10

20 0 20 Percent Compliance Percent Compliance Percent

Percent CompliancePercent -10 10 10 -20 0 0 -30 -10 -10 -40

-20 -50 -20 90.1-1989 Building Samples 90.1-1999 Building Samples Building Samples

Figure 16. Envelope Compliance Figure 17. Envelope Compliance to Figure 18. Envelope Compliance to 90.1-2004 for Buildings 90.1-1989 for Buildings with State to 90.1-2004 for Buildings with No Code Specific Code with State Specific Code

60 80

40 60 80

20 40 60

20 0 40

0 -20 20

-20 -40 0 Percent Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent -40 Percent Compliance -20 -60 -60 -40 -80 -80

-60 -100 -100 Building Samples Building Samples Building Samples

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-298 Figure 19. Lighting Compliance for Figure 20. Lighting Compliance for Figure 21. Lighting Compliance Buildings with 90.1-1989 Buildings with 90.1-1999 to 90.1-1989 for Buildings Code Requirement Code Requirement with No Code

100 150 150

80 100 100

60 50 50

0 40 0 Percent Compliance Percent Compliance Percent Compliance Percent -50 20 -50

-100 0 -100

-150 -20 -150 90.1-1989 Building Samples 90.1-1999 Building Samples Building Samples

Figure 22. Lighting Compliance Figure 23. Lighting Compliance to Figure 24. Lighting Compliance to 90.1-2004 for Buildings 90.1-1989 for Buildings with to 90.1-2004 for Buildings with No Code State-Specific Code with State-Specific Code

100 80 120 80 60 100

80 60 40

60 40 20

20 40 0 20 0 -20 0 -20 Percent Compliance Percent Com pliance Percent Compliance -40 -20 -40 -60 -40 -60

-60 -80 -80

-80 -100 -100 Building Samples Building Samples Building Samples

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-299 Figure 25. Envelope Compliance to Figure 26. Envelope Compliance to Figure 27. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- 90.1-1989 Primary School Buildings 90.1-1999 Primary School Buildings 2004 Primary School Buildings

50 70 50

40 60 40 30 50 30 20 20 40 10

30 10 0 -10

Percent Compliance 0

20 P erce n t C o m p lia n c e P erce n t C o m p lia n c e -20 -10 10 -30

0 -20 -40

NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

State 90.1-1999None 90.1-198990.1-2004 90.1-1999None State 90.1-198990.1-2004 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989State 90.1-2004

Figure 28. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 29. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 30. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- 1989 Medium Office Buildings 1999 Medium Office Buildings 2004 Medium Office Buildings

70 80 80 60 60 60 50 40 40 40 30 20 20 20 0 0 10 -20 -20 Percent Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent 0 -40 -10 -40 -20 -60 -60 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

State 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989 State 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989 State 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-300 Figure 31. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 32. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 33. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- 1989 Retail Buildings 1999 Retail Buildings 2004 Retail Buildings

60 60 40 30 50 40 20 40 20 10 30 0 0 -10 20 -20 -20 -30

10 Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent -40 -40 0 -50 -60 -10 -60 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

90.1-1989 None State 90.1-1999 90.1-1989 90.1-1999 State None 90.1-1989 None State 90.1-1999

Figure 34. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 35. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- Figure 36. Envelope Compliance to 90.1- 1989 Hotel Buildings 1999 Hotel Buildings 2004 Hotel Buildings

50 40 70 40 30 60 30 20 20 50 10 10 40 0 0 -10 30 -10 -20 -20 20 Percent Compliance Percent Percent Compliance Percent -30 Percent Compliance Percent -30 10 -40 -40 0 -50 -50 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

None State 90.1-1989 90.1-1989 State None None 90.1-1989 State

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-301 Figure 37. Lighting Compliance to Figure 38. Lighting Compliance to Figure 39. Lighting Compliance to 90.1- 90.1-1989 Small Office Buildings 90.1-1999 Small Office Buildings 2004 Small Office Buildings

100 100 80

80 60 80 40 60 60 20 40 0 40 20 -20 0 Percent Com pliance 20 Percent Com pliance Percent Com pliance -40 -20 -60 0 -40 -80

-20 -60 -100 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

State None 90.1-198990.1-1999 State None 90.1-198990.1-1999 State None 90.1-198990.1-1999

Figure 40. Lighting Compliance to Figure 41. Lighting Compliance to Figure 42. Lighting Compliance to 90.1-1989 Retail Buildings 90.1-1999 Retail Buildings 90.1-2004 Retail Buildings

100 100 100 90

liance 80 liance 80 liance p p

80 p 60 70 60 40 60 40 20 50 20 40 0 Percent Com Percent Percent Com Percent Com Percent -20 30 0 20 -40 -20 10 -60 0 -40 -80 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

None 90.1-1999State 90.1-1989 None 90.1-1999State 90.1-1989 None 90.1-1999State90.1-1989

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-302 Figure 43. Lighting Compliance to Figure 44. Lighting Compliance to Figure 45. Lighting Compliance to 90.1-1989 Restaurant Buildings 90.1-1999 Restaurant Buildings 90.1-2004 Restaurant Buildings

60 80 60

40 60 liance liance liance 40 p p p 40 20 20 20 0 0 0 -20 Percent ComPercent Percent Com -20 Percent Com -20 -40

-40 -40 -60

-60 -60 -80 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

90.1-1989State 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989State 90.1-1999None 90.1-1989State 90.1-1999None

Figure 46. Lighting Compliance to Figure 47. Lighting Compliance to Figure 48. Lighting Compliance to 90.1-1989 Grocery 90.1-1999 Grocery 90.1-2004 Grocery

80 70 80 liance liance70 liance 60 60 p p p 50 60 40 40 50 20 30 40 20 0 Percent Com Percent Percent Com Percent 30 Com Percent 10 -20 20 0 -40 10 -10

0 -20 -60 NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples NC3 Building Samples

None 90.1-1989State None 90.1-1989State None 90.1-1989State

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-303 Conclusions and Recommendations

The availability of accurate new building construction data is an important part of building energy analysis and can provide critical information. This data set provides one source of this data. While the data set can be considered small compared to other collections such as CBECS, its strength lies in its detail and consistency of collection. Its sample size of approximately 340 buildings distributed across the country can not be considered statistically significant in representing the US. However, many of the building type samples and the entire set itself provide sample sizes above the generally accepted minimum threshold of 20 to 30 samples needed for some assurance or representation of a large set of data. Window wall ratios, long thought to be relatively high, are found to be lower than expected, which can have an impact on the development of code requirements. The still relatively large presence of T12 fluorescent technology in new building construction is a surprising trend. This could indicate slowness in the market to adopt newer technologies and/or a lack of code stringency or enforcement that might force these less efficient lamps out of new construction. Evaluation of code compliance for the envelope of current commercial construction shows that nearly all of the buildings are already being designed to meet the older 90.1-1989 code levels and the majority of them also meet the newer 1999 code requirements regardless of actual code level requirements. The data provides two primary observations:

• The presence of building energy code requirements does not by itself produce compliance. Among buildings with a specific code level requirement, most comply but in some cases up to half do not. • Buildings in jurisdictions with older (less stringent) codes show almost complete compliance. This is believed to be a result of the continued improvement in construction practice in part spurred by increasing code level stringency in surrounding regions.

In general, it is clear there are other factors at play in achieving energy code compliance beyond adoption of a set of code requirements. Other probable factors in producing these mixed (over- and under-compliance) results include:

• A strong consistency in construction practice that can override energy issues or requirements and reduce compliance • Construction practice change over time that elevates energy related construction beyond code requirements (i.e., in states where older codes are in place) • Lack of enforcement and/or education, which does not ensure that all buildings are forced to comply with adopted codes.

Because the ASHRAE/IESNA standards and other national codes are “minimum standards” and not advanced design guides, it is expected that some new buildings will be naturally designed above these standards. This also reinforces the idea that buildings can and are designed above code requirements without any apparent hardship. At the same time, it is clear that more is needed to ensure that code requirements that are in place are applied in building design and verified for compliance.

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-304 References

Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. COMcheck™. Energy Code Compliance Tool. Available online: http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck/

F.W. DODGE. 2002. Dodge Plans Via The Internet. Available online: http://dodge.construction.com/Plans/Electronic/ViaInternet.asp

DodgeView. 2002. Dodge Plans data take-off tool. Available online: http://dodge.construction.com/Plans/Electronic/ViaInternet.asp

American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers. 1989. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE/IESAN/ANSI Standard 90.1-1989. ASHRAE, Atlanta, Georgia.

American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers. 1999. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE/IESAN/ANSI Standard 90.1-1999. ASHRAE, Atlanta, Georgia.

American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers. 2004. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE/IESAN/ANSI Standard 90.1-2004. ASHRAE, Atlanta, Georgia.

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-305 Appendix A NC3 Collected Building Characteristics

GENERAL BUILDING DATA ENVELOPE SPEC DATA Dodge Number Major Window Frame Type Plan Year Number of Glazing Panes Building Description Solar Coatings Building Type Low-E Summed Size Percent of Windows Operable Parking Garage Summed Size Percent of Windows Inset/Shaded Footprint Size Window SHGC Stories Above Ground Window SC Stories Below Ground Window-U Footprint Length Door Type Footprint Width Standard Door Count (double =2) Long Axis Orientation Rollup Door Count Shape Type Vestibules Shared Walls Major and Minor Floor Type Daylight Sensors Specified Major and Minor Floor Footprint Percent Occupancy Sensors Specified Major and Minor Floor Cavity-R City Major and Minor Floor Cont-R State Major and Minor Perimeter Slab-R County Major and Minor Below Grade Wall Cavity-R ASHRAE Climate Zone Major and Minor Below Grade Wall Cont-R Benchmark ID No. Major and Minor Wall Structure Type Bldg Type PBA Major and Minor Wall Surface Type Bldg Type PBA Plus Major and Minor Gross Wall Area Percent Listed Size Major and Minor Wall Cavity-R No Elec Major and Minor Wall Cont-R Partial Elec Major and Minor Roof Structure Type No Spec Major and Minor Roof Surface Type Partial Arch Major and Minor Roof Area Percent No Mech Major and Minor Roof Low Albedo Partial Mech Major and Minor Roof Cavity-R Major and Minor Roof Cont-R SPACE TYPE SPECIFIC DATA Window Area N,S,E,W or NE, NW, SE, SW Square Footage by Space Type Wall Area N,S,E,W or NE, NW, SE, SW Fixture Counts by Space Type WATER HEATING DATA HVAC DATA Major and Minor System Type Major and Minor Heat Equip Type Major and Minor Equip Type Major and Minor Heat Fuel Major and Minor Equip Fuel Major and Minor Heat Dist Type Number of Major and Minor Units Major and Minor Heat Percent Area Served Major and Minor Equip Total Capacity MBTU Major and Minor Total Heat MBTU Major and Minor Total Recovery GPH Major and Minor Cool Equip Type Major and Minor Total Tank Size (Gallons) Major and Minor Cool Fuel Major and Minor Cool Dist Type LIGHTING FIXTURE DATA Major and Minor Cool Percent Area Served Fixture Code or Label Major and Minor Total Cool MBTU Description Major and Minor Zoning Type Lens Type Major and Minor Controls Type Number of Lamps per fixture Major and Minor Supply Fan CFM Lamp Shape Type Major and Minor Supply Fan Total S.P. Lamp Technology Major and Minor Return Fan CFM Lamp Wattage Major and Minor Return Fan Total Static Pressure Ballast Type (For Efficiency) Building Mgmt System Ballast Type (Other) Unitary/Split (<65K MBTU) Equip Count (Cooling Only) Unitary/Split (<65K MBTU) Total MBTU Economizer Exhaust Air Heat Recovery

2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3-306