Energy Efficiency Codes and Standards for Illinois

Currently, approximately 36 states have some statewide building energy code in place. In Illinois, about 25% of local jurisdictions have some building energy code; the majority of these having adopted some version of the BOCA energy code. In order to develop a cost- effective, enforceable statewide code for Illinois, we reviewed a number of national consensus standards and model codes for both residential and commercial buildings. Based upon this review, we recommend that Illinois adopt the 1992 CABO Model Energy Code for low-rise residential buildings, and the ASHRAE 90.1 code for commercial and high-rise residential buildings with Illinois-specific modifications to increase lighting and chiller efficiencies. Cost and savings analyses show that these two codes will be extremely cost-effective from both building owner and societal perspectives. The codes will increase the energy-efficiency of buildings, over those being built today by 10 to 18% while not radically departing from current construction practices.

Technical Analysis

In order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of requirements of an energy code for Illinois, we performed research on current construction practices in the state. Based upon these findings, prototype single houses and multi-family structures were derived; prototype office and retail buildings were also created. These same prototypes were then redesigned to comply with the 1992 CABO Model Energy Code (for the residential prototypes) and the ASHRAE 90.1 standard (for the commercial prototypes). The incremental cost and savings for building efficiency measures employed to meet this higher level of stringency were compared from three perspectives: participant (using retail energy prices), total resource (using utility avoided costs), and societal (using utility avoided costs plus an adjustment factor to account for environmental externalities). For each perspective, the prototype buildings were modelled in the north, central, and southern portions of the state to account for temperature variations.

The results for the MEC residential building case are presented in Table 2-1. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed assuming that all incremental construction costs associated with the MEC were inflated by 100%. The results from this sensitivity analysis are also presented in Table 2-1.

Eleven other modifications on the MEC case residential building assumptions were also modelled (with increased wall insulation, higher performance windows, lower infiltration, and duct insulation). Again, costs and savings were compared for all three perspectives. Additionally, a sensitivity analyses was performed assuming that all construction costs were inflated by 100%. The results of these benefit cost analyses are detailed in Chapter 4 of this report. Many of the modifications increasing the stringency of the MEC were cost-effective from all perspectives, including low-emissivity windows, reduced air changes, and duct sealings. While these construction practices represent a significant departure from current construction practices and therefore are not included in the draft code proposed in this report, it is recommended that these modifications be considered for inclusion (or perhaps considered for inclusion in future code updates).

Table 2-1. Benefit Cost Ratios* for Proposed Illinois Residential Building Code

SINGLE FAMILY - ACEEE Construction Costs

                    Perspective    Gas Heat       Electric             Heat Pump Heat   
                                                  Resistance Heat                       
      NORTH         participant    14.7           50.0                 32.5             
                  total resource   7.2            32.3                 20.0             
                     societal      11.3           52.1                 32.4             
     CENTRAL        participant    14.4           61.5                 41.5             
                  total resource   14.2           20.1                 12.8             
                     societal      22.9           32.9                 21.1             
      SOUTH         participant    32.4           74.1                 54.5             
                  total resource   7.6            5.6                  5.3              
                     societal      11.9           9.2                  8.8              

MULTI-FAMILY - ACEEE Construction Costs

                    Perspective    Gas Heat       Electric             Heat Pump Heat   
                                                  Resistance Heat                       
      NORTH         participant    5.3            14.5                 8.2              
                  total resource   2.2            9.3                  5.3              
                     societal      3.4            15.0                 8.6              
     CENTRAL        participant    8.9            12.4                 7.0              
                  total resource   2.7            5.1                  5.7              
                     societal      4.1            8.4                  9.3              
      SOUTH         participant    5.8            11.6                 6.8              
                  total resource   2.0            4.8                  2.7              
                     societal      3.1            7.8                  4.5              

*A benefit cost ratio measures the benefits in terms of reduced cost over the lifetime of a measure versus the cost of implementation. A ratio of 1.0 indicates the same benefit and cost, and therefore no net benefit. Ratios greater than 1.0 demonstrate increasingly greater benefit than cost over the lifetime of the energy-efficiency measures included in the code.

Table 2-1. Benefit Cost Ratios for Proposed Illinois Residential Building Code (continued)

SINGLE FAMILY - with 100% increase in incremental costs

                    Perspective    Gas Heat       Electric             Heat Pump Heat   
                                                  Resistance Heat                       
      NORTH         participant    7.4            25.0                 16.2             
                  total resource   4.1            22.9                 14.2             
                     societal      6.4            37.0                 23.0             
     CENTRAL        participant    7.2            30.7                 20.8             
                  total resource   8.2            15.0                 9.6              
                     societal      13.2           24.6                 15.8             
      SOUTH         participant    16.2           37.0                 27.2             
                  total resource   4.9            4.5                  4.3              
                     societal      7.7            7.5                  7.0              

MULTIFAMILY - with 100% increase in incremental costs

                    Perspective    Gas Heat       Electric             Heat Pump Heat   
                                                  Resistance Heat                       
      NORTH         participant    2.6            7.3                  4.1              
                  total resource   1.3            6.1                  3.5              
                     societal      2.0            10.0                 5.7              
     CENTRAL        participant    4.4            6.2                  3.5              
                  total resource   1.7            3.4                  3.8              
                     societal      2.6            5.5                  6.2              
      SOUTH         participant    2.9            5.8                  3.4              
                  total resource   1.2            3.2                  1.9              
                     societal      1.9            5.3                  3.1              

The ASHRAE 90.1 commercial building case and three modifications on this case commercial building assumptions were modelled (with two levels of increased lighting stringency, and with higher performance chillers). Costs and savings were compared from participant, total resource, and societal perspectives. Based upon these findings, it is recommended that Illinois adopt ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 with the first level of increased lighting stringency and higher performance chillers. The results of the analysis of the recommended code cases are shown in Table 2-2. The analysis indicated that the slightly more stringent lighting requirements and higher chiller efficiency cases did not represent significant modifications of current construction practices and were also highly cost-effective. Therefore, it is recommended that these modifications be included in this initial commercial building code.

Code Adoption and Implementation

Table 2-2. Benefit Cost Ratios for Proposed Illinois Commercial Building Code

OFFICE BUILDING

                   Perspective    Gas Heat           Electric Heat      
      NORTH        participant    28.8               44.6               
                  total resource  15.2               8.0                
                     societal     23.4               13.2               
     CENTRAL       participant    29.6               31.9               
                  total resource  11.0               4.6                
                     societal     17.2               7.9                
      SOUTH        participant    29.6               42.0               
                  total resource  10.2               3.4                
                     societal     15.9               5.6                

RETAIL BUILDING

                   Perspective    Gas Heat           Electric Heat      
      NORTH        participant    7.5                11.0               
                  total resource  3.7                2.0                
                     societal     5.7                3.3                
     CENTRAL       participant    7.9                7.3                
                  total resource  2.8                1.1                
                     societal     4.4                1.8                
      SOUTH        participant    7.9                3.0                
                  total resource  2.8                0.8                
                     societal     4.4                1.2                

Equipment Efficiency Standards

Minimum efficiency standards remove inefficient products from the market, thereby assuring that consumers purchase products of moderate or high efficiency. Energy and money are saved because the average efficiency of new equipment is increased. Minimum efficiency standards can affect energy use in Illinois in two ways. First, new Federal standards will affect the efficiency of equipment sold in Illinois. These include new standards contained in

the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), as well as revised Federal standards that DOE will promulgate in response to requirements in both EPACT and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) as amended. Second, Illinois could adopt state standards on products that are not covered by Federal standards.

Regarding new Federal standards, as part of this project we worked with DENR to use their present energy forecasting model to estimate energy savings in 2010 from the EPACT standards and from new standards DOE is likely to adopt in coming years. For the EPACT scenario, savings in 2010 are estimated at 1882 GWh and 9 million therms of natural gas. These savings are 2% of projected Illinois electricity sales in 2010, but less than 1% of projected gas sales. For the revised standards scenario, savings in 2010 total 6,824 GWh and 164 million therms. These savings are 5% of projected electricity sales in 2010 and 2% of projected natural gas energy use in 2010.

For products not covered by Federal efficiency standards, states may enact state-level efficiency standards. For this analysis we examined 14 types of equipment for which standards have been suggested in the literature ranging from general service incandescent lamps to industrial fans, pumps, and compressors. For nine of these product types, standards appear to be justified, including three for which standards can be adopted immediately and six that require limited research before standards can be adopted (specifics are summarized in Table 2-3). The other five equipment types require substantial research before standards can be adopted. Of the equipment evaluated, five types--distribution transformers, small motors, luminaries, packaged commercial refrigeration equipment, and fans/pumps/compressors--offer particularly large opportunities for savings, but only the first of these will not require extensive research before standards can be adopted. Based on these findings, we recommend that DENR consider conducting research on standards for specific products and subsequently seek authorization from the legislature to set standards through administrative action where standards meet specific criteria (e.g., benefits of standards are greater than costs).

Table 2-3. Summary of Next Steps for Equipment Standards on Different Products

Recommendations

Based upon the residential and commercial building simulation results, energy cost analyses, and consideration of compliance and enforcement issues, ACEEE recommends that Illinois adopt the 1992 CABO MEC (possibly with some of the cost-effective modifications discussed in Section 4) and the ASHRAE 90.1 code amended to include California Title 24 lighting and higher efficiency chiller standards. We also recommend that DENR consider action on state equipment efficiency standards, including research and action on individual standards where supported by such research.

Results of our analysis can be used to estimate the overall impact of the recommended code in Illinois over the next ten years. According to our estimates, the code recommended for low-rise residential buildings will save approximately $7.5 million in the first year and approximately $80 million in the tenth year (1993 $). Over this ten year period, savings total more than $400 million. This represents 6.8 trillion Btu saved in 2005, or a 1.6% reduction in current residential energy use in Illinois. Likewise, the code recommended for commercial and high-rise residential buildings will save approximately $2.1 million in the first year and approximately $23 million in the tenth year (1993 $). Over this ten year period, savings total more than $200 million. This represents 6.6 trillion Btu saved, or an approximately 1.8% reduction in current commercial energy use in Illinois. Thus, adoption of the recommended code would result in significant energy savings in the state.