Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 85
C
Cost Effectiveness Study of Various Sustainable Building Standards in
Response to NDAA 2012 Section 2830 Requirements
This appendix contains a reprint of the study prepared by Sarah Slaughter for the Committee to
Evaluate Energy-Efficiency and Sustainability Standards Used by the Department of Defense for Military
Construction and Repair, dated September 10, 2012.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-1
OCR for page 86
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
STUDY
OF
VARIOUS
SUSTAINABLE
BUILDING
STANDARDS
IN
RESPONSE
TO
NDAA
2012
SECTION
2830
REQUIREMENTS
PREPARED
BY:
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
DATE:
September
10,
2012
PURPOSE:
National
Research
Council
Committee
to
Evaluate
Energy-‐Efficiency
and
Sustainability
Standards
Used
by
the
Department
of
Defense
for
Military
Construction
and
Repair
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-2
OCR for page 87
1
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
OVERVIEW
In
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830(a),
Congress
required
the
Department
of
Defense
to
submit
a
report
that
includes
a
cost-‐benefit
analysis,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
for
specific
building
standards
and
rating
systems
(ASHRAE
189.1
and
90.1,
LEED
Silver,
Gold,
and
Platinum,
and
other
ANSI
accredited
standards
such
as
Green
Globes).
It
also
required
the
DOD
to
provide
a
policy
prescribing
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
the
cost-‐effective
pursuit
of
design
and
building
standards
that
include
specific
energy-‐efficient
standards
and
sustainable
design
attributes
based
on
those
findings.
At
the
request
of
the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense
for
Installations
and
Environment,
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
appointed
an
ad
hoc
committee
to
review
the
literature
on
the
state-‐of-‐the-‐knowledge
about
the
economic
efficiency
of
sustainable
buildings,
to
evaluate
a
consultant-‐generated
methodology
and
analysis
of
the
economic
efficiency
of
the
specified
building
design
standards,
and
to
identify
potential
factors
and
approaches
that
the
DOD
should
consider
in
developing
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
its
entire
portfolio
of
facilities
that
includes
standards
for
energy-‐efficiency
and
sustainable
design.
This
report
outlines
the
methodology
and
findings
by
the
consultant
to
analyze
the
cost-‐benefit,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
for
the
specified
building
design
standards
and
ratings
systems.
The
second
part
of
the
study
tested
the
applicability
of
the
analytical
tools
to
DOD
facilities
going
forward,
as
input
to
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy.
The
consultant
developed
and
applied
the
methodology
for
this
study
building
on
existing
research,
methods,
best
practices,
and
tools
to
analyze
the
economic
efficiency
of
the
specified
building
standards
and
rating
systems
and
to
provide
input
into
the
development
of
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy.
The
methodology
was
developed
to
address
robustness,
validity,
and
replicability
of
the
analysis
of
the
specific
building
design
standards
and
rating
systems,
and
to
ensure
applicability
to
DOD
facilities.
The
methodology
(described
in
the
Methodology
section
of
this
report)
consists
of
the
following
elements:
1. Economic
Efficiency
Analysis:
This
study
follows
standard
economic
analysis
methodologies
and
data
collection
approaches
to
calculate
long-‐term
cost-‐
benefits
(Present
Value
Net
Savings),
return
on
investment,
and
payback,
as
required
in
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830.
The
study
developed
an
analytical
approach
to
assess
the
long-‐term
cost-‐benefits
of
alternatives
for
a
range
of
scenarios
that
represent
uncertain
future
conditions.
This
approach
was
applied
using
a
set
of
tools
developed
specifically
for
this
study
to
provide
sensitivity
analyses
of
the
results
under
different
scenarios,
specifically
for
variations
in
the
discount
rate,
time
period,
and
price
escalation
rates
for
energy
and
water
costs.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-3
OCR for page 88
2
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
This
study
also
utilized
the
NIST
Building
Life-‐Cycle
Cost
(BLCC)
software
to
calculate
present
value
net
savings,
(adjusted)
rate
of
return
on
investment,
and
payback.
2. Prototype
Buildings
and
Locations:
This
study
established
a
common
basis
on
which
to
calculate
the
long-‐term
cost-‐benefits,
return
on
investment,
and
payback
using
prototype
buildings
and
selected
locations
to
represent
the
heating
and
cooling
loads
and
local
factor
prices
that
influence
the
economic
efficiency
calculations.
Specifically,
this
study
utilized
the
results
and
characteristics
of
two
building
prototype
models
from
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory
(PNNL)
study
that
are
most
applicable
to
DOD
facilities,
specifically
the
“medium
office”
and
“small
hotel”
models
(corresponding
to
administrative
buildings
and
barracks,
respectively).
This
study
also
utilized
a
subset
of
five
locations
from
the
DOE
PNNL
set
of
15
locations
that
reflect
the
diversity
of
geographic
regions
across
the
continental
US
to
create
the
baseline
prototype
buildings.
3. Benefit
and
Cost
Categories:
This
study
includes
existing
reporting
categories
for
DOD
under
the
Annual
Energy
Management
Report
to
Congress
and
other
reports
for
the
analysis
of
costs
and
benefits
for
high
performance
buildings.
The
benefit-‐cost
categories
are:
Investment
(initial
investment
and
major
repair/replacement
costs);
Operations,
Maintenance,
and
Repair
(OM&R)
costs,
including:
Energy
use
(building
and
supporting/site
facilities);
Water
use
(building
and
supporting/site
facilities);
Solid
waste
(municipal
and
hazardous);
and
Building/site
O&M
(general,
cleaning,
and
landscaping).
The
strategy
for
data
collection
addressed
the
issues
of
validity
and
accuracy
of
the
results.
In
discussions
with
staff
from
ASHRAE,
Green
Building
Initiative,
and
the
US
Green
Building
Council,
the
cost
and
benefit
data
for
the
analysis
of
the
specified
building
rating
systems
(Green
Globes
and
LEED)
was
developed
using
data
from
actual
certified
commercial/private
projects
that
are
similar
to
(and
brought
into
conformance
with)
the
characteristics
of
the
selected
prototype
buildings
(i.e.,
medium
office
and
small
hotel)
and
selected
locations.
The
ASHRAE
standards
data
were
generated
using
the
PNNL
building
models
for
the
two
prototype
buildings
in
the
selected
locations.
Separately,
and
in
parallel
with
the
analysis
of
the
specified
standards
and
rating
systems,
the
consultant
worked
with
DOD
installation,
HQ,
construction
agent
and
OSD
teams
to
test
the
applicability
of
the
analytical
approach,
process,
and
tools
to
DOD
military
construction
and
renovation.
SUMMARY
OF
RESULTS
In
direct
response
to
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830,
to
provide
a
cost-‐benefit
analysis,
return
on
investment
and
long-‐term
payback
for
the
specified
design
standards,
this
study
analyzed
the
(Present
Value)
Net
Savings,
(Adjusted)
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment,
and
Payback
in
accordance
with
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
Circular
A-‐94
Revised
(1992).
These
potential
Net
Savings
can
also
be
viewed
as
the
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-4
OCR for page 89
3
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
potential
future
additional
costs
that
may
be
incurred
for
these
building
types
and
locations
under
these
scenarios.
The
Results
section
of
this
report
provides
the
Net
Savings
for
the
Long-‐Term
Cost-‐
Benefit
with
the
sensitivity
analysis,
as
well
as
the
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment
and
Payback,
for
each
specified
standard
and
rating
systems
using
the
two
building
types
(i.e.,
residential
and
office)
and
five
locations
that
represent
the
variety
of
climate
conditions
and
markets
across
the
continental
U.S.
Specifically,
this
study
analyzed
the
economic
efficiency
of
buildings
built
under
the
guidance
of:
ASHRAE
Standards
90.1-‐2010
and
189.1-‐2011;
LEED
Silver,
Gold
and
Platinum
Certifications;
and
Green
Globes
One,
Two,
Three
and
Four
Certifications.
The
results
of
the
analysis
in
this
study
indicate
that
the
building
standards
and
rating
systems
provide
buildings
that
are
economically
efficient
depending
on
building
type
and
location.
Specifically,
the
Long-‐term
Cost-‐Benefit
analysis
of
ASHRAE
Standard
90.1-‐
2010
provided
significant
Net
Savings
in
energy
reductions
for
both
building
types
and
in
all
5
locations.
ASHRAE
Standard
189.1-‐2011
provided
greater
Net
Savings
than
90.1-‐2010
across
all
locations
for
both
building
types
in
both
energy
and
water
cost
reductions.
In
particular,
the
water
cost
reductions
equaled
approximately
50%
of
the
Annual
Savings
across
the
building
types
and
locations.
ASHRAE
189.1-‐2011
also
includes
the
requirement
for
on-‐site
energy
generation,
and
these
incremental
initial
construction
costs
were
included,
and
the
on-‐site
energy
was
used
to
offset
the
building
energy
used,
so
the
overall
building
energy
reductions
were
greater
for
189.1-‐2011
than
for
90.1-‐2010.
Buildings
built
under
the
guidance
of
the
LEED
rating
system
(Silver,
Gold
and
Platinum
Certification
levels)
and
the
Green
Globes
rating
system
(One,
Two,
Three
and
Four
Globes
certification
levels)
are
economically
efficient
depending
on
building
type
and
location,
and
are
highly
sensitive
to
the
incremental
initial
construction
cost.
The
LEED
Volume
Certification
program
could
further
increase
cost-‐effectiveness
through
pre-‐
approval
of
standardized
designs
and
management
procedures,
and
coordinated
procurement
programs.
In
addition,
the
recent
DOD
guidance
(2010)
specifying
that
40%
of
all
points
in
those
rating
systems
must
be
in
energy
and
water
categories
will
increase
the
economic
efficiency
(as
measured
in
this
study)
of
DOD
buildings
using
these
rating
systems.
It
must
be
noted,
however,
that
these
results
are
highly
dependent
on
the
data
provided
for
these
data
samples,
particularly
the
reported
initial
construction
costs.
The
sensitivity
analysis
incorporated
variations
in
energy
and
water
price
escalations,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
capital
(represented
by
the
discount
rate).
The
results
indicate
that
Net
Savings
for
the
specified
buildings
standards
and
rating
systems
would
increase
significantly
with
annual
price
escalations
of
2%
for
energy
and
4%
for
water
and
wastewater,
which
has
been
experienced
in
some
locations
of
the
US.
The
building
standards
and
rating
systems
could
reduce
the
vulnerability
of
DOD
installations
to
price
shocks
–
and
increase
cost-‐effectiveness
-‐
by
reducing
the
use
of
these
resources.
The
sensitivity
analysis
results
also
indicate
that,
even
if
the
prices
for
energy
and
water
decrease
and
the
cost
of
capital
increases
(represented
by
a
discount
rate
of
3%),
most
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-5
OCR for page 90
4
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
facilities
built
under
the
guidance
of
the
standards
and
rating
systems
remain
economically
efficient.
INPUT FOR DOD COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY
This
study
recognizes
that
the
core
purpose
of
military
construction
and
renovation
is
to
provide
high
performance
facilities
that
are
effective
and
efficient.
Specifically,
the
results
of
this
study
and
the
application
of
the
analytical
approach
can
be
used
to
identify
opportunities
to
improve
effectiveness
and
efficiency,
such
as
to
reduce
the
resource
usage
(and
the
related
burden
on
neighboring
communities),
reduce
vulnerabilities
to
price
increases,
and
increase
overall
resiliency
by
reducing
the
“baseload”
resource
requirements
under
normal
and
extreme
conditions.
The
primary
objective
of
this
study
is
to
ensure
the
usefulness
of
the
analytical
approach
and
results
to
aid
decision-‐making
for
strategic
investments
in
DOD
capital
facility
assets.
The
results
of
the
economic
evaluation
of
the
building
standards
and
rating
systems
presented
in
this
report
have
direct
applicability
to
the
development
of
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy
for
cost-‐effective
military
construction
and
renovation.
This
study
highlighted
opportunities
for
cost-‐effective
high
performance
buildings
built
under
the
guidance
of
the
specified
standards
and
rating
systems
for
different
building
types,
specifically
for
a
residential
facility
and
an
office
building,
in
both
energy
and
water
usage.
It
also
examined
the
potential
economic
value
in
different
locations
that
represent
the
variety
of
climate
zones
and
urban/rural
markets
across
the
U.S.,
incorporating
local
factor
unit
prices
and
conditions
that
affect
cost-‐efficiency.
The
sensitivity
analysis
provides
insight
into
the
variability
of
cost-‐effectiveness,
in
particular,
potential
escalation
of
energy
and
water
prices
and
changes
in
the
cost
of
money
(as
represented
by
the
discount
rate).
The
implication
of
the
results
of
the
economic
evaluation
of
the
specified
building
standard
and
rating
systems
for
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy
for
cost-‐effective
military
construction
is
that
ASHRAE
189.1-‐2011
(which
includes
ASHRAE
90.1-‐2010
by
reference)
would
likely
provide
economically
efficient
high
performance
military
facilities.
The
voluntary
ratings
systems
of
LEED
and
Green
Globes
can
provide
important
guidance
for
overall
high
performance
facilities
(including
attributes
not
measured
in
this
study)
as
well
as
third
party
verification,
and
buildings
certified
under
these
rating
systems
would
be
cost-‐efficient
if
the
incremental
initial
investment
costs
are
within
a
margin
(in
these
samples,
if
the
incremental
initial
investment
cost
is
less
than
20%
of
the
baseline
investment
cost)
and
the
annual
savings
are
sufficient
to
offset
that
incremental
cost.
It
must
be
noted,
however,
that
those
results
are
highly
sensitive
to
the
heating
and
cooling
loads
for
different
climate
zones
and
to
the
local
factor
unit
prices.
Consideration
of
specific
choices
associated
with
the
application
of
those
standards
for
design
development
and
implementation
should
be
evaluated
grounded
in
the
specific
local
context.
The
second
portion
of
this
study
tested
the
applicability
of
the
analytical
approach,
process
and
tools
developed
for
this
research
to
military
construction
and
renovation
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-6
OCR for page 91
5
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
projects
going
forward,
as
further
input
for
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy.
The
results
from
example
applications
of
the
analytical
approach
using
empirical
data
from
actual
DOD
buildings
were
reviewed
with
staff
from
the
selected
installations,
HQ,
construction
agents,
and
the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense.
The
exercise
provided
important
feedback
for
the
potential
application
of
the
economic
efficiency
evaluation
process
for
DOD
military
and
construction
going
forward.
In
particular,
the
discussion
raised
certain
challenges
and
opportunities
associated
with
economic
efficiency
evaluations.
First,
the
analytical
approach
of
economic
efficiency
analysis
would
be
most
effectively
applied
across
a
portfolio
of
projects
-‐
with
respect
to
the
overall
installation
requirements
-‐
that
increase
mission
effectiveness
and
economic
efficiency.
Second,
the
application
of
an
economic
efficiency
analysis
requires
access
to
credible
and
verifiable
data
on
the
initial
investment
costs,
major
repair/replacement
costs,
and
operations,
maintenance
and
repair
costs
over
the
expected
life
of
the
facility.
The
DOD
components,
installations
and
construction
agents
are
initiating
specific
programs
to
collect
information
on
energy
and
sustainability
performance
for
capital
facility
assets,
including
both
the
expected
and
actual
performance
of
the
facilities.
The
effective
use
of
an
economic
efficiency
analysis
approach
may
require
additional
data
collection
to
aid
decision-‐making.
Finally,
further
research
is
needed
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
industry
development
as
a
whole
may
increase
the
cost-‐effectiveness
of
military
construction
and
repair.
The
Department
of
Defense
has
incorporated
life
cycle
cost
analysis
into
all
military
construction
and
renovation
projects,
and
the
DOD
components
have
launched
several
initiatives
to
incorporate
economic
assessment
into
decision
making
for
military
construction
and
renovation.
This
study
provides
the
results
of
the
economic
evaluation
of
the
specified
building
standards
and
rating
systems,
and
the
applicability
of
the
analytical
approach,
as
input
into
the
development
of
the
DOD
comprehensive
strategy
going
forward.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-7
OCR for page 92
6
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
Table
of
Contents
OVERVIEW
..............................................................................................................................................................
1
SUMMARY
OF
RESULTS
.....................................................................................................................................................
2
INPUT
FOR
DOD
COMPREHENSIVE
STRATEGY
......................................................................................................
4
SCOPE
AND
BACKGROUND
................................................................................................................................
8
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
POLICY
ON
SUSTAINABLE
FACILITIES
............................................................
8
DEFINITION
OF
TASK
.........................................................................................................................................................
9
METHODOLOGY
FOR
ECONOMIC
EVALUATION
OF
SPECIFIED
RATING
SYSTEMS
AND
STANDARDS
AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF
ANALYTICAL
TOOLS
................................................................
11
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
ANALYSIS
...........................................................................................................................
12
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
FOR
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
ANALYSIS
...............................................................
14
Sensitivity
Analysis
on
Study
Period
..........................................................................................................................
16
Sensitivity
Analysis
on
Discount
Rate
........................................................................................................................
17
Sensitivity
Analysis
on
Factor
Price
Escalation
....................................................................................................
18
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
USING
PROTOTYPE
BUILDINGS
AND
CLIMATE
ZONES
.................................
20
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
FOR
BENEFIT
AND
COST
CATEGORIES
.................................................................
21
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
FOR
DATA
COLLECTION
FOR
PROTOYPE
BUILDINGS
....................................
23
STUDY
METHODOLOGY
FOR
DATA
COLLECTION
FOR
STANDARDS
AND
RATINGS
SYSTEMS
......
25
ASHRAE
Standards
Data:
Building
Models
.............................................................................................................
26
LEED
Data:
Certified
Buildings
from
US
Green
Building
Council
(USGBC)
..............................................
27
Green
Globes
Data:
Certified
Buildings
from
Green
Building
Initiative
(GBI)
.........................................
29
RESULTS
OF
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
EVALUATION
OF
SPECIFIED
BUILDING
STANDARDS
AND
RATING
SYSTEMS
..............................................................................................................................................
32
ASHRAE
90.1-‐2010
–
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
RESULTS
ACROSS
BUILDING
TYPES
AND
LOCATIONS
..........................................................................................................................................................................
33
Long-‐term
Cost-‐Benefit
...................................................................................................................................................
34
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment
.......................................................................................................................................
37
Payback
..................................................................................................................................................................................
38
Summary
Results
for
ASHRAE
90.1-‐2010
................................................................................................................
38
ASHRAE
189.1-‐2011
–
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
RESULTS
ACROSS
BUILDING
TYPES
AND
LOCATIONS
..........................................................................................................................................................................
40
Long-‐term
Cost-‐Benefit
...................................................................................................................................................
41
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment
.......................................................................................................................................
44
Payback
..................................................................................................................................................................................
45
Summary
Results
for
ASHRAE
189.1-‐2011
.............................................................................................................
46
LEED
–
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
RESULTS
ACROSS
BUILDING
TYPES
AND
LOCATIONS
...................
48
Long-‐term
Cost-‐Benefit
...................................................................................................................................................
50
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment
.......................................................................................................................................
54
Payback
..................................................................................................................................................................................
55
Summary
Results
for
LEED
............................................................................................................................................
56
GREEN
GLOBES
–
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
RESULTS
ACROSS
BUILDING
TYPES
AND
LOCATIONS
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
58
Long-‐term
Cost-‐Benefit
...................................................................................................................................................
59
Rate
of
Return
on
Investment
.......................................................................................................................................
63
Payback
..................................................................................................................................................................................
63
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-8
OCR for page 93
7
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
.............................................................................................................................
64
Summary
Results
for
Green
Globes
SUMMARY
OF
RESULTS
OF
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
EVALUATION
...........................................................
65
APPLICABILITY
OF
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
STUDY
TO
DOD
MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
AND
RENOVATION
......................................................................................................................................................
69
IMPLICATIONS
OF
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
EVALUATION
FOR
MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
AND
RENOVATION
INVESTMENTS
......................................................................................................................................
70
APPLICABILITY
OF
ANALYTICAL
FRAMEWORK
FOR
DOD
MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
...................
72
Timing
of
Economic
Efficiency
Analysis
for
Decision
Support
.......................................................................
73
Current
DOD
Data
Collection
for
Strategic
Investment
in
DOD
Capital
Facility
Assets
......................
74
Industry
and
Market
Factors
for
Long-‐term
Cost
Efficiency
of
Military
Construction
and
Renovation
............................................................................................................................................................................
77
APPENDIX
A:
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
DATA
............................................................................................
80
TABLE
A.1:
PRICE
ESCALATION
2010-‐2011
AND
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL
ESCALATION
FOR
ENERGY,
WATER/SEWER,
AND
MUNICIPAL
WASTE
........................................................................................................................
80
TABLE
A.2:
(OMB)
DISCOUNT
RATE
FOR
COST-‐EFFECTIVENESS
2007-‐2012
........................................................
80
APPENDIX
B:
PROTOTYPE
BUILDINGS–CHARACTERISTICS
...............................................................
82
SMALL
HOTEL
.........................................................................................................................................................................
82
MEDIUM
OFFICE
.....................................................................................................................................................................
84
APPENDIX
C:
DEFINITIONS
OF
BENEFIT-‐COST
CATEGORIES
.............................................................
86
APPENDIX
D:
BASELINE
PROTOTYPE
BUILDINGS
RESOURCE
USAGE
AND
FACTOR
UNIT
.......................................................................................................................................
88
PRICES
BY
LOCATION
APPENDIX
E:
FEDERAL
STATUTES
FOR
LIFE
CYCLE
COST
ANALYSIS
..............................................
90
APPENDIX
F:
REFERENCES
FOR
FEDERAL
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
BENEFIT-‐COST
CATEGORIES
.......................................................................................................................................................
91
APPENDIX
G:
ASHRAE
DATA
GENERATION
METHODOLOGY
.............................................................
92
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-9
OCR for page 94
8
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
SCOPE
AND
BACKGROUND
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
POLICY
ON
SUSTAINABLE
FACILITIES
Recognizing
the
significant
role
of
buildings
in
solving
national
issues
such
as
energy
independence
and
security,
and
the
opportunity
for
federal
leadership,
Congress
and
two
Presidential
administrations
have
enacted
laws
and
issued
Executive
Orders
directing
federal
agencies
to
develop
high-‐performance,
energy
efficient,
and
sustainable
federal
buildings.
To
implement
these
mandates,
federal
departments
and
agencies
have
issued
policies
for
sustainable
building
design.
The
Department
of
Defense
(DOD)
and
its
components
manage
more
than
500,000
buildings
and
structures
worldwide,
containing
more
than
2.1
billion
total
square
feet
of
space.
The
annual
energy
budget
for
these
facilities
is
more
than
$4
billion.
The
DOD's
Sustainable
Building
Policy
includes
supplementary
information
(October
2010)
that
specifies
that:
1. All
new
building
design
and
construction
shall
conform
to
the
Guiding
Principles
in
the
High
Performance
and
Sustainable
Buildings
Memorandum
of
Understanding.
2. DOD
components
will
design,
build,
and
certify
as
appropriate,
all
new
construction
projects,
at
a
minimum,
to
the
Silver
level
of
the
Leadership
in
Energy
and
Environmental
Design
(LEED)
green
building
rating
system
(or
equal).
Beginning
in
FY12
for
projects
in
the
planning
stage,
the
sum
of
energy
and
water
efficiency
credits
shall
equal
or
exceed
40
percent
of
the
points
required
for
a
LEED
Silver
(or
equal)
rating;
this
highlights
the
importance
of
pursuing
additional
energy-‐
and
water-‐related
credits
in
areas
such
as
cool
roofs
and
day
lighting.
3. All
repair/renovation
projects
in
existing
buildings
shall
also
conform
to
the
Guiding
Principles
where
they
apply.
The
DOD
components
will
design,
execute
and
certify
major
repair/renovation
projects
to
be
LEED
Silver,
at
a
minimum,
where
appropriate.
4. Reducing
total
cost
of
ownership
is
intrinsic
to
sustainable
buildings.
The
DOD
components
shall
incorporate
life
cycle
and
cost/benefit
analysis
into
design
decisions
for
new
construction
and
renovation/repair
projects.1
Concerns
have
been
raised
in
Congress
that
DOD
buildings
conforming
to
this
policy
may
not
be
cost
effective
or
achieving
federal
mandates
for
energy
efficiency.
In
response
to
these
concerns,
the
National
Defense
Authorization
Act
(NDAA)
for
Fiscal
Year
2012,
Section
2830,
requires
the
Department
of
Defense
(DOD)
to
submit
a
report
to
the
congressional
defense
committees
on
energy
efficiency
and
sustainability
standards
used
1
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense,
Deputy
Under
Secretary
of
Defense
(Installations
&
Environment)
Dorothy
Robyn
(2010).
“Department
of
Defense
Sustainable
Buildings
Policy
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-10
OCR for page 95
9
NDAA
Final
Report
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
9/10/12
by
the
DOD
for
military
construction
and
repair.
The
report
must
include
a
cost-‐benefit
analysis,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
for
the
following
building
design
standards:
• American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating,
and
Air-‐Conditioning
Engineers
(ASHRAE)
Standard
189.1-‐2011
for
the
Design
of
High-‐Performance,
Green
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
Buildings
• ASHRAE
Energy
Standard
90.1-‐2010
for
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
• Leadership
in
Energy
and
Environmental
Design
(LEED)
Silver,
Gold,
Platinum,
and
Volume
Certifications
• Other
American
National
Standards
Institute
(ANSI)
accredited
standards,
such
as
Green
Globes.
The
report
must
also
include
a
copy
of
the
DOD
policy
prescribing
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
the
pursuit
of
design
and
building
standards
that
include
specific
energy-‐
efficient
standards
and
sustainable
design
attributes
based
on
the
cost-‐benefit
analysis,
return
on
investment,
and
demonstrated
payback
for
the
aforementioned
building
design
standards.
DEFINITION
OF
TASK
At
the
request
of
the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense
for
Installations
and
Environment,
an
ad
hoc
committee
was
appointed
by
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
to:
(1)
evaluate
the
completeness,
accuracy,
and
relevance
of
a
literature
review
that
synthesizes
the
state-‐of-‐the-‐knowledge
about
the
costs
and
benefits,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
of
specified
design
standards
related
to
sustainable
buildings;
(2)
evaluate
a
consultant-‐generated
methodology
and
analysis
of
the
cost-‐benefit,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
for
the
specified
building
standards
and
rating
systems
in
NDAA
2012
Section
2830,
and
the
test
for
the
potential
applicability
of
the
analytical
approach
to
military
construction
and
renovation
using
empirical
data
from
DOD
buildings;
and
(3)
identify
potential
factors
and
approaches
that
the
DOD
should
consider
in
developing
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
its
entire
portfolio
of
facilities
that
includes
standards
for
energy-‐efficiency
and
sustainable
design.
The
consultant,
working
with
the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense
and
the
military
components,
and
in
conjunction
with
representatives
of
the
organizations
for
the
specified
standards
and
rating
systems
organizations,
developed
a
methodology
for:
1)
analyzing
the
cost-‐benefit,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
achievable
using
sustainable
building
standards
specified
in
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830
using
an
example
building;
and
2)
gathering
and
analyzing
empirical
data
from
DOD
buildings
to
evaluate
the
cost
benefit,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
achievable
using
sustainable
building
standards
specified
in
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830.
The
consultant
then
gathered
and
analyzed
example
building
data
to
calculate
the
cost-‐benefit,
return
on
investment,
and
long-‐term
payback
achievable
using
sustainable
building
standards
specified
in
the
NDAA
2012
Section
2830.
The
methodology
for
this
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-11
OCR for page 184
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
Final
Report
Figure
2
Incremental
First
Costs
vs
Energy
Savings
y
=
0.0719x
+
0.0962
Incremental
First
Cost
-‐
$/ft2
R²
=
0.83284
Medium
Of•ice
y
=
0.0894x
+
0.1384
R²
=
0.90076
Small
Hotel
Linear
(Medium
Of•ice)
Linear
(Small
Hotel)
Energy
Savings
-‐
%
7.0
Incremental
First
Costs
The
data
in
Tables
3
and
4
formed
the
basis
for
all
of
the
first
cost
calculations
used
in
this
study.
These
incremental
first
costs
account
for
all
of
the
upgrades
due
to
more
stringent
criteria
for
the
envelope,
lighting,
HVAC
and
SWH.
These
incremental
costs
do
not
account
for
any
of
the
first
costs
for
the
PV
systems
so
they
need
to
be
calculated
separately.
Table
3
Incremental
First
Costs
for
the
Medium
Office
Medium
Office
(PNNL
19004)
CZ
City
Energy
Incremental
Incrementa Slope
Savings
FC
l
(%)
($)
FC
($/ft2/%
($/ft2)
)
1
Miami
47
175,176
3.27
0.0695
2
Phoenix
53
206,606
3.85
0.0727
3
Atlanta
42
211,909
3.95
0.0941
4
Baltimor 43
196,787
3.67
0.0854
e
6
Helena
45
127,134
2.37
0.0527
6
OCR for page 185
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-5
Final
Report
Table
4
Incremental
First
Costs
for
the
Small
Hotel
Small
Hotel
(PNNL
17875)
CZ
City
Energy
Incremental
Incrementa Slope
Savings
FC
l
(%)
($)
FC
($/ft2/%)
($/ft2)
1
Miami
27
129,607
3.00
0.1111
2
Phoenix
29
138,752
3.21
0.1107
3
Memphis
32
127,498
2.95
0.0922
4
Baltimore
34
120,879
2.80
0.0824
6
Helena
32
114,183
2.64
0.0825
8.0
First
Costs
–
Standard
90.1-‐2010
The
initial
step
in
determining
the
first
costs
is
to
calculate
the
percentage
of
energy
savings
between
the
baseline
Standard
90.1-‐2004
and
90.1-‐2010.
In
order
to
perform
this
calculation
the
electrical
and
gas
energies
are
added
together
using
kWh
as
the
common
metric
which
is
listed
as
Energy
in
Tables
5
and
6.
Table
5
Standard
90.1-‐2010
Medium
Office
First
Costs
90.1-‐ 90.1-‐
Incremental
90.1-‐ 90.1-‐
2004
2010
2004
2010
CZ
City
Energy
Energy
Save
FC
FC
Baseline
Total
(kWh)
(kWh)
(%)
($/ft2 ($)
($)
($)
)
1
Miami
802,795
609,372
24.09
1.68
89,801
6,052,000
6,141,801
2
Phoenix
805,658
604,243
25.00
1.82
97,456
5,970,500
6,067,956
3
Memphis
788,061
566,718
28.09
2.64
141,712
5,754,000
5,895,711
4
Baltimore
823,329
579,172
29.65
2.53
135.714
6,273,000
6,408,714
6
Helena
856,362
621,534
27.42
1.45
77,472
5,944,500
6,021,972
Table
6
Standard
90.1-‐2010
Small
Hotel
First
Costs
90.1-‐ 90.1-‐
Incremental
90.1-‐ 90.1-‐
2004
2010
2004
2010
CZ
City
Energy
Energy
Save
FC
FC
Baseline
Total
(kWh)
(kWh)
(%)
($/ft2)
($)
($)
($)
1
Miami
905,411
803,172
11.29
1.25
54,204
5,049,888
5,104,092
2
Phoenix
891,109
777,857
12.71
1.41
60,807
4,977,888
5,038,695
3
Memphis
939,094
806,713
14.10
1.30
56,166
4,825,388
4,881,554
4
Baltimore
1,001,871
845,071
15.65
1.29
55,642
5,172,960
5,228,602
6
Helena
1,067,193
892,747
16.35
1.35
58,327
4,990,888
5,049,215
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-101
OCR for page 186
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-6
Final
Report
9.0
Renewable
Energy
–
Photovoltaic
Panels
Photovoltaic
panels
were
modeled
with
EnergyPlus
for
Std.
189.1-‐2009
to
comply
with
the
annual
on-‐site
renewable
energy
requirements
which
are
presented
in
Table
7.
Table
7
Annual
On-‐Site
Renewable
Energy
Criteria
Standard
Criteria
189.1-‐2009
189.1-‐2011
Prescriptive
Criteria
6.0
kBtu/ft2
(20
kWh/m2)
Single
Story
Buildings
(7.4.1.1)
x
Conditioned
Space
Floor
=
6.0
kBtu/ft2
(20
Area
kWh/m2)
x
Total
Roof
Area
All
Other
Buildings
=
10.0
kBtu/ft2
(32
kWh/m2)
x
Total
Roof
Area
HVAC
High
Efficiency
4.0
kBtu/ft2
(13
kWh/m2)
Single
Story
Buildings
Modification
(7.4.3.1)
x
Conditioned
Space
Floor
=
4.0
kBtu/ft2
(13
Area
kWh/m2)
x
Total
Roof
Area
All
Other
Buildings
=
7.0
kBtu/ft2
(22
kWh/m2)
x
Total
Roof
Area
The
major
difference
between
Standards
189.1-‐2009
and
189.1-‐2011
is
the
area
multiplier.
In
Std.
189.1-‐2009
the
area
multiplier
is
the
conditioned
space
but
was
changed
in
Std.
189.1-‐2011
to
be
the
total
roof
area,
see
Table
8.
Table
8
Conditioned
Space
and
Roof
Areas
Area
Medium
Office
Small
Hotel
Conditioned
53,660
ft2
(4,985
43,200
ft2
(4,013
Space
m2)
m2)
Roof
17,867
ft2
(1,660
10,800
ft2
(1,003
m2)
m2)
This
change
has
no
impact
for
one
story
buildings
but
has
a
major
impact
on
multi-‐story
buildings
such
as
those
being
analyzed
in
this
project,
see
Table
9.
Table
9
Annual
On-‐Site
Renewable
Energy
Criteria
Code
Medium
Small
Hotel
Requirement
Office
(kWh)
(kWh)
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-102
OCR for page 187
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-7
Final
Report
Std.
189.1-‐2009
99,700
80,260
Std.
189.1-‐2009
-‐
High
Efficiency
HVAC
64,805
52,169
Std.
189.1-‐2011
53,120
32,096
Std.
189.1-‐2011
-‐
High
Efficiency
HVAC
36,520
22,066
The
next
requirement
in
determining
the
PV
first
cost
was
to
calculate
the
number
of
PV
panels
required
for
each
building
type
in
each
city.
An
analysis
was
completed
using
the
PVWatts
calculator
developed
by
NREL
which
is
readily
available
at
their
internet
web
site.
The
results
for
a
4kW
panel
are
presented
in
Table
10.
Table
10
PV
Panels
Energy
Performance
CZ
City
Solar
4
kW
DC
Radiation
produces
annual
(kWh/m2-‐day)
AC
(kWh)
1
Miami
5.26
5,357
2
Phoenix
6.57
6,468
3
Memphis
5.18
5,352
4
Baltimore
4.66
4,911
6
Helena
4.71
5,040
Using
the
energy
performance
of
an
individual
panel,
the
number
of
panels
required
can
be
calculated
as
well
as
their
total
first
costs.
A
4
kW
DC
panel
was
assumed
to
have
a
de-‐
rated
factor
of
0.77
which
would
produce
3.1
kW
AC.
Goodman
reported
the
cost
in
2010
for
PV
systems
as
$4.59/W
for
commercial
roof
top
installations.
However,
the
costs
have
been
steadily
decreasing.
A
realistic
estimate
for
2012
per
Eric
Bonnema
of
NREL
is
$4.00/W
so
this
value
was
used
for
this
analysis.
Thus,
the
total
cost
for
a
4kW
panel
is
$16,000.
Using
this
price
the
total
panel
costs
and
the
building
costs
per
square
foot
can
be
calculated.
The
modeling
of
Std.
189.1-‐2009
(Liu)
used
the
high
efficiency
HVAC
requirements,
see
Table
11.
Table
11
Annual
On-‐Site
Renewable
Energy
–
Standard
189.1-‐2009
Medium
Office
Small
Hotel
C City
Energ Panel FC
FC
Energ Panel FC
FC
Z
y
s
($)
($/ft2 y
s
($)
($/ft2
(kWh)
(No.)
)
(kWh)
(No.)
)
1
Miami
62,847
11.73
187,70 4.35
50,619
9.45
151,18 2.82
8
6
2
Phoenix
62,767
9.70
155,26 3.59
50,619
7.83
125,21 2.34
8
7
3
Memphis
62,750
11.72
187,59 4.34
50,619
9.46
151,32 2.82
3
7
4
Baltimor 62,842
12.80
204,73 4.74
50,619
10.31
164,91 3.08
e
9
6
6
Helena
62,561
12.41
198,60 4.60
50,619
10.04
160,69 3.00
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-103
OCR for page 188
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-8
Final
Report
6
5
For
purposes
of
this
study
the
energy
savings
and
first
costs
for
Std.
189.1-‐2011
also
assumed
the
high
efficiency
HVAC
requirement,
see
Table
12.
Table
12
Annual
On-‐Site
Renewable
Energy
–
Standard
189.1-‐2011
Medium
Office
–
36,520
Small
Hotel
–
22,066
kWh
kWh
CZ
City
Panel
FC
FC
Panel
FC
FC
(No.)
($)
($/ft2)
(No.)
($)
($/ft2)
1
Miami
6.82
109,07 2.52
4.12
65,906
1.23
6
2
Phoenix
5.65
90,340
2.09
3.41
54,585
1.02
3
Memphis
6.82
109,17 2.53
4.12
65,967
1.23
8
4
Baltimore
7.44
118,98 2.75
4.49
71,891
1.34
2
6
Helena
7.25
115,93 2.68
4.38
70,051
1.31
7
10.0
First
Costs
–
Standard
189.1-‐2011
The
data
available
for
this
study
included
an
energy
analysis
for
Std.
189.1-‐2009
but
nothing
for
Std.
189.1-‐2011.
No
data
on
first
costs
for
either
standard
was
available
so
it
had
to
be
estimated.
The
starting
point
was
to
identify
the
major
differences
in
the
criteria
between
Standards
189.1-‐2009
and
189.1-‐2011.
Many
features
were
the
same
between
these
two
standards
including
all
of
envelope
criteria
plus
the
HVAC
and
SWH
equipment
efficiencies.
There
were
two
differences
that
were
explicitly
accounted
for
in
this
study,
the
interior
lighting
power
and
PV
requirements.
The
first
costs
for
Std.
189.1-‐2011
include
all
of
the
building
envelope,
lighting
and
equipment
upgrades
plus
the
first
costs
for
the
PV
system.
In
order
to
determine
the
building
first
costs
the
building
energy
is
required.
The
building
energy
was
calculated
using
Eq.
1.
Energy
of
189.1-‐2011
=
Energy
of
189.1-‐2009
–
Int.
Ltg.
189.1-‐2009
+
Int.
Ltg.
of
90.1-‐
2010
x
LPD
Factor
in
189.1-‐2011.
(1)
In
Standard
189.1-‐2011
Table
7.4.6.1A
LPD
Factors
when
Using
the
Building
Area
Method
lists
the
LPD
Factor
of
0.95
for
offices
and
1.00
for
hotels.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-104
OCR for page 189
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-9
Final
Report
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
energy
use
associated
with
the
interior
lighting
has
been
accounted
for
directly.
However,
the
impact
of
the
reduced
lighting
energy
will
increase
the
heating
loads
and
reduce
the
cooling
loads
in
the
building
but
that
has
not
been
included.
The
first
costs
for
Standard
189.1-‐2011
are
presented
in
Tables
13
and
14.
The
energy
listed
for
Standards
90.1-‐2004
and
189.1-‐2011
is
the
total
site
energy
for
the
building
with
the
gas
usage
converted
into
kWh.
Table
13
Standard
189.1-‐2011
Medium
Office
First
Costs
90.1-‐ 189.1-‐
Building
PV
90.1-‐ 189.1-‐
2004
2011
Incremental
2004
2011
CZ
City
Energy
Energy
Save
FC
FC
FC
Baseline
Total
(kWh)
(kWh)
(%)
($/ft ($)
($)
($)
($)
2)
1
Miami
802,795
623,50 22.3
1.55
83,009
109,07 6,052,00 6,244,08
8
6
0
5
2
Phoenix
805,658
605,32 24.9
1.81
96,895
187,23 5,970,50 6,157,73
5
5
0
5
3
Memphis
788,061
598,54 24.1
2.27
121,61 230,79 5,754,00 5,984,79
0
8
6
0
6
4
Baltimor 823,329
619,55 24.8
2.11
113,29 232,27 6,273,00 6,505,27
e
4
2
4
0
4
6
Helena
856,362
652,35 38.9
2.05
109,80 225,73 5,944,50 6,170,23
7
2
9
0
9
Table
14
Standard
189.1-‐2011
Small
Hotel
First
Costs
90.1-‐ 189.1-‐
Building
PV
90.1-‐ 189.1-‐
2004
2011
Incremental
2004
2011
CZ
City
Energy
Energy
Sav FC
FC
FC
Baseline
Total
(kWh)
(kWh)
e
($/ft ($)
($)
($)
($)
(%)
2)
1
Miami
905,411
733,94 18.9
2.10
156,797
65,90 5,049,888
5,206,685
8
6
2
Phoenix
891,109
727,48 18.4
2.03
142,398
54,58 4,977,888
5,120,286
1
5
3
Memphis
939,094
727,86 22.5
2.07
159,559
65,96 4,825,388
4,980,947
0
7
4
Baltimor 1,001,87 738,89 26.2
2.16
165,328
71,89 5,172,960
5,338,288
e
1
3
1
6
Helena
1,067,19 765,54 28.3
2.33
170,788
70,05 4,990,888
5,161,676
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-105
OCR for page 190
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-10
Final
Report
3
9
1
11.0
Summary
Tables
15
and
16
present
the
Standard
90.1-‐2010
and
189.1-‐2011first
costs
and
site
energy
consumptions
for
both
building
types
so
all
of
the
information
is
conveniently
located
and
summarized
for
quick
reference.
Table
15
Summary
of
Results
for
Standard
90.1-‐2010
Medium
Office
Small
Hotel
CZ
City
FC
Elec.
Gas
FC
Elec.
Gas
($)
(kWh)
(Mcf)
($)
(kWh)
(Mcf)
1
Miami
6,141,801
575,130
113
5,104,092
584,536
724
2
Phoenix
6,067,956
563,558
135
5,038,695
543,719
776
3
Memphis
5,895,711
507,455
196
4,881,554
516,889
960
4
Baltimore
6,408,714
474,919
345
5,228,602
498,256
1149
6
Helena
6,021,972
465,091
518
5,049,215
478,914
1371
Table
16
Summary
of
Results
for
Standard
189.1-‐2011
Medium
Office
Small
Hotel
CZ
City
FC
Elec.
Gas
FC
Elec.
Gas
($)
(kWh)
(Mcf)
($)
(kWh)
(Mcf)
1
Miami
6,244,085
588,664
117
5,206,685
517,411
718
2
Phoenix
6,157,735
561,436
145
5,120,286
496,353
766
3
Memphis
5,984,796
509,573
293
4,980,947
471,153
851
4
Baltimore
6,505,274
484,121
449
5,338,288
456,958
934
6
Helena
6,170,239
466,415
616
5,161,676
440,558
1077
The
analysis
used
to
develop
these
first
costs
and
energy
consumptions
has
required
many
simplifying
assumptions.
The
fundamental
approach
was
to
assume
a
linear
relationship
between
the
first
costs
and
the
energy
savings.
Fortunately
the
energy
savings
of
the
AEDG
exceeded
that
of
Standards
90.1-‐2010
and
189.1-‐2011
so
all
of
the
first
costs
were
interpolated
and
did
not
need
to
be
extrapolated,
see
Table
17.
Table
17
Range
of
Energy
Savings
(%)
Document
Medium
Small
Office
Hotel
AEDG
42
-‐
53
27
-‐
34
Std.
90.1-‐2010
24
-‐
30
11
-‐
16
Std.
189.1-‐ 22
-‐
39
19
-‐
28
2011
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-106
OCR for page 191
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-11
Final
Report
An
estimate
of
the
first
costs
and
energy
savings
for
Standard
90.1-‐2010
and
189.1-‐
2011
has
been
completed.
A
simplified
linear
approach
was
used
to
determine
the
results
since
no
reports
have
been
published
that
contain
the
required
data.
Two
major
differences
between
the
standards
were
specifically
analyzed,
the
interior
lighting
power
densities
and
the
annual
on-‐site
renewable
energy
requirements.
While
the
direct
energy
consumption
of
the
interior
lights
was
analyzed
the
impact
of
the
reduced
lighting
power
was
not
accounted
for
in
terms
of
increasing
the
heating
loads
and
reducing
the
cool
loads.
Correct
modeling
of
the
interactions
was
beyond
the
scope
of
this
project
and
is
best
done
thorough
detailed
hourly
simulation
models
such
as
EnergyPlus.
All
of
the
results
presented
in
Tables
16
and17
include
the
energy
consumptions
associated
with
the
interior
equipment
in
each
of
the
buildings.
Interior
equipment
refers
to
any
electrical
device
that
plugs
into
an
outlet
(typically
not
hard
wired)
and
any
interior
process
loads.
Plug
loads
in
offices
would
include
computers,
monitors,
printers,
copy
machines,
vending
machines,
refrigerators,
coffee
makers,
and
desk
lamps
for
task
lighting.
In
addition,
hotels
would
also
have
televisions,
microwave,
hair
dryers,
table
and
floor
lamps
in
each
guest
room.
Process
loads
include
the
clothes
washers
and
dryers
in
hotels.
Table
18
is
the
summary
of
the
interior
equipment
energy
consumptions
that
were
modeled
in
the
EnergyPlus
simulations.
Table
18
Interior
Equipment
Energy
Consumptions
Medium
Office
Small
Hotel
Standard
kWh
Mcf
kWh
Mcf
90.1-‐2010
211,799
0
164,169
388
189.1-‐2011
235,822
0
158,386
388
12.0
REFERENCES
ASHRAE.
(2004).
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard
90.1-‐2004:
Energy
Standard
for
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
Buildings.
Atlanta,
GA:
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air-‐Conditioning
Engineers.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-107
OCR for page 192
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-12
Final
Report
ASHRAE.
(2009).
ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES
Standard
189.1-‐2009:
Standard
for
the
Design
of
High-‐Performance
Green
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
Buildings.
Atlanta,
GA:
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air-‐Conditioning
Engineers.
ASHRAE.
(2010).
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard
90.1-‐2010:
Energy
Standard
for
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
Buildings.
Atlanta,
GA:
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air-‐Conditioning
Engineers.
ASHRAE.
(2011).
ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES
Standard
189.1-‐2011:
Standard
for
the
Design
of
High-‐Performance
Green
Buildings
Except
Low-‐Rise
Residential
Buildings.
Atlanta,
GA:
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air-‐Conditioning
Engineers.
Crawley,
D.B.,
L.K.
Lawrie,
F.C.
Winkelmann,
W.F.
Buhl,
Y.J.
Huang,
C.O.
Pedersen,
R.K.
Strand,
R.J.
Liesen,
D.E.
Fisher,
M.J.
Witte,
J.
Glazer.
(2001).
EnergyPlus:
Creating
a
New-‐
Generation
Building
Energy
Simulation
Program.
Energy
and
Buildings
33:319–331.
Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Science.
Goodrich,
A.,
T.
James,
M.
Woodhouse.
(2012).
Residential,
Commercial,
and
Utility-‐Scale
Photovoltaic
(PV)
System
Prices
in
the
United
States:
Current
Drivers
and
Cost-‐Reduction
Opportunities.
Golden,
CO:
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory,
Technical
Report
NREL/TP-‐6A20-‐53347.
Jaing,
W.
R.E.
Jarnagin,
K.
Gowri,
M.
McBride,
B.
Liu.
(2008).
Technical
Support
Document:
The
Development
of
the
Advanced
Energy
Design
Guide
for
Highway
Lodging
Buildings.
Richland,
WA:
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory,
PNNL-‐17875.
Liu,
B.
and
J.
Zhang.
(2011).
189.1
Progress
Indicator
Report:
Energy
Use
Comparison
between
189.1-‐2009
and
90.1-‐2010.
ASHRAE
Standard
189.1
Committee,
ASHRAE
Annual
Meeting,
June
29,
2011,
Montreal,
Canada.
Long,
N.,
E.
Bonnema,
K.
Field,
and
P.
Torcellini.
(2010).
Evaluation
of
ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES
Standard
189.1-‐2009.
Golden,
CO:
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory,
Technical
Report
NREL/TP-‐550-‐47906.
Thornton,
B.A.,
W.
Wang,
M.D.
Lane,
M.I.
Rosenberg,
B.
Liu.
(2009).
Technical
Support
Document:
50%
Energy
Savings
Design
Technology
Packages
for
Medium
Office
Buildings.
Richland,
WA:
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory,
PNNL-‐19004.
Thornton,
B.A.,
M.I.
Rosenberg,
E.E.
Richman,
W.
Wang,
Y.
Xie,
J.
Zhang,
H.
Cho,
V.V.
Mendon,
R.A.
Athalye,
B.
Liu.
(2011).
Achieving
the
30%
Goal:
Energy
and
Cost
Savings
Analysis
of
ASHRAE
Standard
90.1-‐2010.
Richland,
WA:
Pacific
Northwest
National
Laboratory,
PNNL-‐
20405.
13.0
WEB
SITES
PVWatts:
www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-108
OCR for page 193
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-13
Final
Report
ASHRAE
DATA
METHODOLOGY:
Water
Use
Analysis
The
following
is
a
summary
of
water
use
savings
estimates
made
by
WMI.
The
starting
point
for
all
of
the
estimates
was
the
water
use
given
in
the
data
temples.
Plumbing
Fixtures:
To
calculate
the
saving
for
plumbing
fixture
related
measures
WMI
uses
a
model
that
considers
multiple
factors.
The
number,
type,
and
flow
rate
of
the
existing
fixtures
help
us
to
determine
the
overall
existing
condition
of
the
domestic
fixtures.
Often,
the
fixture
flow
rates
differ
from
the
designed
flow
rates.
For
example,
many
1.6
gpf
toilets
fitted
with
1.6gpf
diaphragm
flushometers
typically
use
between
1.8
and
2.5
gpf.
Once
existing
flow
rates
are
determined,
frequency
of
usage
is
then
calculated
based
on
building
demographic
information.
Usage
is
affected
by
many
factors:
the
population
of
a
facility,
the
hours
of
use,
the
average
number
of
times
a
person
will
use
the
facilities.
Another
factor
is
the
split
of
the
population
between
male
and
female.
Studies
have
shown
that
on
the
average
people
need
to
use
the
toilets
an
average
of
once
every
two
hours
and
when
available,
men
will
use
the
urinals
about
75%
of
the
time.
The
basic
formula
is
as
follows:
Existing
usage
model
=
Population
x
uses
per
day
(decreased
by
the
flush
factor)
x
days
of
use
per
year
x
the
average
existing
flow
rates
of
the
fixtures.
Post-‐program
usage
model
=
Population
x
uses
per
day
(decreased
by
the
flush
factor)
x
days
of
use
per
year
x
the
average
proposed
flow
rates
of
the
fixtures.
Showers
are
also
included
in
the
hotel
template
calculations.
These
were
based
on
an
average
of
sampled
flow
rates
for
showers
in
hotels
throughout
the
US
and
usage
was
calculated
using
a
conservative
shower
duration
length
of
8
minutes
per
shower.
The
post-‐program
annual
gallons
saved
=
the
difference
between
the
two.
ASHRAE
189.1
was
used
as
the
basis
for
efficient
plumbing
fixture
selection
and
use.
Landscape:
Water
use
for
landscape
irrigation
in
high
performance
landscapes
is
based
on
proper
selection
of
plant
material,
proper
soil
preparation,
and
watering
based
on
the
actual
needs
of
the
plant
material
in
the
landscape.
The
basic
principles
of
good
landscape
water
practices
include:
1. Design
Landscape
to
keep
water
(rainwater,
storm
water,
and
irrigation
water)
where
it
falls.
2. Prepare
soil
shape
and
content
to
capture
and
hold
water
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-109
OCR for page 194
Dr.
Sarah
Slaughter
[App. G]-14
Final
Report
3. Design
landscape
to
minimize
the
need
for
irrigation
water
(eliminate
irrigation
systems
where
possible)
4. Minimize
turf
areas
and
choose
adapted
and
drought
tolerant
plant
materials
5. Meter
or
sub-‐meter
installed
irrigation
systems
6. Capture
and
use
on-‐site
sources
of
water
and/or
reclaimed
water
7. Design
efficient
irrigation
system
using
US
EPA
WaterSense
principles
8. Practice
proper
maintenance.
Water
use
is
based
on
evapotranspiration
of
the
plant
material
actually
used.
The
equation
is:
Water
Demand
=
[Area
of
landscape
X
(ETo
X
Kc)-‐
Effective
rainfall)]
X
[FF]
X
0.623
DU
• ETo
–
Reference
evapotranspiration
• Kc
–
Crop
Coefficient
• Effective
rainfall
–
assume
25%
(WaterSense)
• DU
–
Distribution
Uniformity
• FF
–
Freeze
factor
when
system
off
in
Winter
• O.623
–
Gallons
per
inch
on
one
square
foot
of
area
Monthly
evapotranspiration
for
each
site
was
taken
into
consideration
along
with
plant
material
and
practices
common
to
those
areas.
Savings
were
based
on
the
difference
between
the
amounts
of
water
given
in
the
data
templates
and
the
water
use
based
on
good
practice
for
all
of
the
eight
principles
outlined
above.
These
principles
are
reflected
in
ASHRAE
189.1
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
C-110
