Energy Efficiency in Multifamily Affordable Housing: How can precedents of high performance affordable housing inform energy efficient

building practices in this sector?

Joshua Lehman

Brown University May 12, 2009 Committee: Kurt Teichert, Brown University (Advisor) Marc Zuluaga, Steven Winter Associates, Inc. Christopher Bull, Brown University Abstract: Twelve multifamily affordable housing buildings in New York City were surveyed and an analysis of their energy performance was performed. Data was obtained through field visits and analysis of utility records. Two of the buildings were constructed with high energy performance goals in mind, and achieved the ENERGY STAR for Homes label. It was found that the ENERGY STAR buildings used 26% less energy than the control group average, and in return paid 30% less in utility costs over the course of 2008. The energy savings of this building were found to have come from a variety of measures, the most common theme among them being that a third party worked with a hands-on owner to verify appropriate design and installation of the buildings envelope and mechanical systems. Some buildings in the control group performed more efficiently than the control group, but the ENERGY STAR buildings were among the most efficient buildings by every metric. There was a great disparity in the energy use per square foot between buildings. One building used 122 kBTU/SF per year, while another used 60 kBTU/SF per year less than half. The building with the smallest heating density performed at 3.9 BTU/SF/HDD, while the greatest heating density was 12.78 BTU/SF/HDD a ratio greater than 3:1. It is concluded that many high-performance energy measures can be implemented within the budget of an affordable housing project and provide a substantial return on investment.

Lehman 2 Chapters: 0. Glossary of Acronyms and Conversion Factors 1. Introduction a. Environmental implications of energy use i. Effect on local air quality ii. Global greenhouse gas emissions b. Economic implications of energy use 2. Definition of Metrics and the ENERGY STAR for Homes Program a. British Thermal Units/Square Foot (BTUs/SF) b. British Thermal Units/Square Foot/Heating Degree Day (BTUs/SF/HDD) c. ENERGY STAR for Homes 3. Review of Literature a. Reviews of current knowledge and research needs b. Multifamily building energy benchmarking surveys c. Individual building studies 4. Methods a. Description of sample i. ENERGY STAR buildings ii. Other studied buildings b. Data collection c. Heating fuel analysis d. Unit electricity use assumptions e. Total building energy use calculations 5. Energy Performance of Studied Buildings a. kBTU/SF b. Heating BTU/SF/HDD c. Electric kBTU/SF d. Total energy costs e. Energy use breakdown (BTUs) f. Energy cost breakdown 6. Factors in Energy Efficiency a. Heating system i. Boilers ii. Distribution and controls iii. Thermal envelope b. Domestic hot water i. Boilers ii. Controls iii. Water efficiency c. Lighting d. Ventilation i. Controls ii. Balancing e. Laundry and Dryer Machines f. Air Conditioning g. Occupant Behavior

Lehman 3 7. Conclusion a. Quantitative Environmental Benefits of High Performance Design i. Community air quality improvement ii. Greenhouse gas emission reductions b. Economic Benefits of High Performance Design i. Effect on financing ii. Effect on tenants c. Evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Rating System d. Summary and recommendations for future research Bibliography Appendix A: Estimation of Total Heating Fuel Use with Summer Gas Consumption Appendix B: Whole Building Energy Use Calculations Appendix C: Heating Density (BTU/SF/HDD) Calculations Appendix D: Electric Use Calculations Appendix E: Utility Costs Comparison Appendix F: Unit Electricity Use Assumption

Lehman 4 0. Glossary of Acronyms and Conversion Factors Acronyms: ACH ACH50 AFUE ASHRAE BTU Cfm DHW ECM EERE EF EIA GHG Gpm Hcf HDD HERS HSPF HVAC IPCC kWh LEED NYSERDA PM10 RECS SEER SF USGBC VOC = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Air Changes per Hour Air Changes per Hour at a pressure difference of 50 pascals Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air conditioning Engineers British Thermal Unit Cubic Feet per Minute Domestic Hot Water Energy Conservation Measure U. S. Department of Energys Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program Efficiency Energy Information Administration Greenhouse Gasses Gallons Per Minute Hundred Cubic Feet Heating Degree Day Home Energy Rating System Heating Seasonal Performance Factor Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Kilowatt Hour Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (administered by the USGBC) New York State Energy Research and Development Administration Particulate Matter with a Diameter of 10 Micrometers or Less Residential Energy Consumption Survey Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio Square Feet U. S. Green Building Council Volatile Organic Compound

Conversion Factors: 1 kBTU 1 hcf of natural gas 1 therm 1 kWh = = = 1,000 BTUs 1 therm 100,000 BTUs 3412 BTUs

Lehman 5 1. Introduction In response to the environmental implications of energy use, studies are needed to evaluate energy efficiency in the built environment. This study examines twelve multifamily affordable housing buildings located in New York City. The buildings are analyzed and compared with regard to their energy efficiency through the analysis of utility bills and on-site inspection. The intention of this study is to investigate the reasons why some buildings underperform despite having many similarities to other buildings that use less energy. Two buildings are used here as examples of high-performance design. They are treated as such because energy efficiency was treated as a high priority during their design and construction, and because experts in energy efficiency guided designers and contractors throughout the building process. In recognition of this effort, these buildings were granted the ENERGY STAR for Homes label from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They are occasionally referred to hereafter as the two ENERGY STAR buildings. There are many ways in which a multifamily building owner can reduce utility costs. This study explores many of the systems that can be improved in order to reduce energy use and overall operating costs. Many simple measures (such as showerhead replacements or effective control systems) can pay for themselves fully within one year. Other energy conservation measures have a much less predictable payback period, and some have benefits which are not financial, such as improved air quality, comfort, and durability of building systems. This study explores the disparities in energy performance between buildings by studying building systems. The quantitative and qualitative benefits of energy efficiency are analyzed and recommendations are made to builders, policymakers, and the research community. a. Environmental implications of energy use i. Global greenhouse gas emissions

Energy use in buildings typically causes emissions of greenhouse gasses in two ways: (1) directly, through on-site combustion of fuels for space heating/cooling and domestic hot water heating, or (2) indirectly, through the use of energy resources like electricity or steam which are produced off-site using GHG-emitting resources. For example, the buildings in this study all use natural gas for space heating and hot water heating. The burning of approximately 108 therms of natural gas releases one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere (the average building in this study consumed 34,410 therms of natural gas over the course of one year, emitting 319 tons of CO2)1. Emissions due to residential electricity use are more difficult to estimate because electric utility systems are connected to a central grid, and the supply comes from multiple power plants using different resources. Most of the power supplied to New York City and the rest of the Northeast comes from power plants that burn natural gas or oil2. These fuels burn cleaner than coal, releasing fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants (for example, they emit approximately 1.3 and 1.9 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, respectively, compared to 2.1 pounds of CO2 per kWh for coal3). The Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. is the electricity provider for all of New York City. This company utilizes 16 electricity plants in New York City and Westchester. Of these, nine run primarily on natural gas, four run mainly on oil, two run on nuclear power, and one relies on the combustion of municipal waste. The U.S. Environmental

Lehman 6 Protection Agency estimates that in aggregate, these facilities emit one ton of carbon dioxide for each 2.2 megawatt-hours of electricity produced. Nationally, one ton of CO2 is emitted to produce 1.5 megawatt-hours of electricity4. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 estimates that 3 gigatons of carbon dioxide are emitted globally each year through on-site fuel combustion in residential buildings, while an additional 5.6 gigatons are emitted by electricity plants and municipal energy systems for residential end uses5. 22% of worldwide CO2 emissions are released by the United States, approximately onefifth of which is produced by residential energy use6. The US residential sector therefore emits more carbon dioxide than any other individual nation except for China, Russia, India, and Japan7,8. Residential energy use in the United States is accountable for approximately 1,200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually9. Worldwide emissions from residential energy use are about 8,600 million metric tons per year 10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its 2004 report that the great majority of greenhouse gas emission reductions from residential energy use can be achieved through increased energy efficiency. The report also claims that most of these reductions (about 29% of current emissions) can be accomplished through cost-effective energy measures11. i. Local air quality

The combustion of natural gas on-site has a negative impact on local air quality. Each of the buildings studied use natural gas for space and hot water heating, laundry, and cooking. The combustion is normally vented directly outside, with the exception of cooking ranges. In densely populated areas, the combined emissions of multiple buildings and vehicles can drastically worsen air quality. Roughly 85% of natural gas consists of methane (CH4). It also contains some amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and inert elements such as helium, and nitrogen12. The perfect, complete combustion of methane would release only water vapor and carbon dioxide: CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2O However, the combustion process of a residential water heater, boiler, or laundry machine is not perfect. The major ground-level air quality concerns from residential natural gas combustion are the release of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds 13. The combustion of one therm of gas (which typically contains 100,000 BTUs) releases 379 g of nitrogen, mostly in the form of nitrogen oxides (NOx)14. Nitrogen oxides form tropospheric ozone when they react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in sunlight. The inhalation of ozone causes damage to lung tissue and interferes with lung function. Nitrogen oxides also react with water vapor, ammonia and other compounds to form various particles, including nitric acid, which can also decrease lung function and worsen respiratory diseases 15. Gas-fired equipment also release carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is released as a product of incomplete combustion, and is released in greater amounts by less efficient boilers. CO can cause symptoms similar to flu at low concentrations, and can be deadly at higher levels 16. The combustion of one therm of natural gas releases approximately 3.8 g of carbon monoxide17.

Lehman 7 Volatile organic compounds are also released in greater amounts by less efficient boilers. They can occur as products of combustion, and some VOCs can be found in the natural gas itself before combustion. VOCs cause irritation to the eyes, skin, and lungs. The combustion of one therm of natural gas releases about 0.25 g of VOCs18. Particulate matter that is present in natural gas is also released during combustion. Small particles can also cause a decrease in lung function and capacity through inhalation. Some of the particulates most common from natural gas combustion contain barium, nickel, vanadium, or zinc. In total, approximately 0.35 g of particulate matter is released by the combustion of one therm of natural gas19. b. Economic implications of energy use The United States spent $141 billion on residential electricity on 2006, at an average cost of 10.4 cents per kWh20. In New York City, electricity prices averaged 15.3 cents per kWh21 because of the increased complexity of distributing electricity throughout the city, and because most electric plants in the Northeast rely on more expensive fuels which pollute less. In the same year, the United States spent $60 billion on natural gas for residential uses. The national average price of one therm of gas is $1.3722, and in New York City the average price is $1.68 per therm23. Electricity and natural gas prices fluctuate seasonally. Electricity prices are higher in the summer when demand is highest and air conditioning systems are running. Natural gas prices are influenced by a number of factors, and tend to rise during the summer despite the fact that demand is lower. The main reason for this is the severity of the hurricane season. Severe series of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have raised prices dramatically in the past because they slow down the supply pipeline. After hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005, 8 billion cubic feet of gas were restrained from the market, causing gas prices to peak24. Since the natural gas market competes with the oil market, the two fuels compete with each other in terms of pricing. When oil prices climbed to over $134 in 2008, pressure was lifted on natural gas prices, and demand increased, allowing gas prices to rise as well25. Since natural gas is a cleaner and more efficient fuel than oil, demand is slowly increasing and raising prices26. 2. Definition of Metrics and the ENERGY STAR for Homes Program a. British Thermal Units/Square Foot (BTUs/SF) Dividing total building energy usage in BTUs (or kBTUs) by square footage is the most common method of comparing the energy usage of buildings in a given sector. Since all of the buildings in this study are completely affordable housing, there is a financial restraint on unit size. Since affordable housing prices are determined as a percent of income, apartment units therefore must be built at or below a given size depending upon the building costs per SF, such that the owner receives their desired return. Both electricity use, commonly referred to in terms of kilowatthours (kWh), and gas use, usually given in hundreds of cubic feet (hcf) or therms (1 hcf 1 therm), can easily be converted into BTUs. This metric is employed here to form a basis of comparison between buildings in this study and also to make the data presented here comparable to other studies.

Lehman 8 The average residential building in the United States uses 96.6 kBTUs/SF per year, and the average household in New York uses 95.4 BTUs/SF per year27. These numbers are similar to those derived from this study, as mentioned below. All buildings in this study perform an identical function, and have the same occupancy type. Since all units in these buildings are provided for low-income residents, there is an economic restraint on how many units a developer must supply in order to compensate for building costs on a per square foot basis. That is, given the income restraints of affordable housing units, a developer can only supply so many amenities and so much space in each unit. The buildings studied here averaged 1044 total square feet of total built space per unit, with a standard deviation of 115. For the purpose of this study, there was no significant effect of building size on the energy use of the building in terms of BTUs/SF (building size ranged from 43,000 to 130,000 square feet). Figure 1 below shows gross building square footage plotted against total building energy density (in kBTUs/SF) for all buildings in this study. Figure 1: Building Energy Densit/y as a Function of Square Footage

While the best-fit line indicates that some increase in efficiency is gained by larger buildings with bigger mechanical systems and less exterior wall area per unit of conditioned floor area, the R2-value of the line is 0.1626. The plot shows that there are smaller buildings that operate at the efficiency levels of larger buildings, but a few of the smaller buildings stand out in their inefficiency. The low R2-value confirms that there is little causality between the size of a building and its overall energy efficiency in terms of BTUs/SF.

Lehman 9

b. British Thermal Units/Square Foot/Heating Degree Day (BTUs/SF/HDD) Dividing a buildings energy usage by heating degree days (HDD) is a technique used to normalize the energy efficiency of buildings across various climates. One heating degree day indicates a day when the average daily temperature was one degree below some reference temperature, typically 65 F. Therefore, if it were 50 F in one location for a whole week, that location would have experienced 105 HDD (15 HDD x 7 days = 105 HDD). New York City averages 4224 HDD each heating season.28 The metric BTUs/SF/HDD is usually applied to the total amount of energy used in heating a building, therefore producing a number which indicates the heating density of the building. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses this metric to compare heating efficiency in buildings across the United States. EIA estimates that the multifamily residential buildings in the United States use an average 12 BTUs/sf/HDD of heating fuel per year29 (it should be noted that this number makes the buildings in this study all seem above average, although the real cause for this difference is most likely that the buildings studied here have been built relatively recently). The New York State Energy Research and Development Administration (NYSERDA) performed a survey of 175 buildings across New York, whose climates ranged from 4,500 to 9,000 annual heating degree days, and found the average annual heating use of these buildings to be 14 BTUs/SF/HDD30. In this study, the quantity of energy used towards heating is divided by heating degree days in order to express heating efficiency in terms of BTUs/SF/HDD. In other words, there may not be a directly linear relationship between the heating degree days of a buildings climate and that buildings heating load. Using this common metric makes the data in this study comparable to other buildings and studies. The same average daily temperature data is applied to all projects, because all of the buildings are within seven miles of each other. The range of dates used in calculating heating degree days always matches the range of dates of the utility bill from which the fuel data is taken. This study makes no claims as to the validity of this technique, as it is very likely that the relationship between Heating Degree Days and heating energy demand in buildings is not linear. All of the buildings analyzed in this work are located in New York City, and all but one are in the Bronx. The same heating degree day data were applied to the analysis of all of their bills, and the data is presented here using this metric as a means of comparison to the other studies performed nationally, in New York State, and in New York City. Studies which have used this technique to study buildings in New York City are mentioned below. c. ENERGY STAR for Homes The ENERGY STAR label is given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to products which meet its minimum guidelines of energy efficiency31. The ENERGY STAR for Homes program includes requirements to maximize the efficiency of a buildings thermal envelope, air distribution system, HVAC and domestic hot water heating equipment, lighting fixtures, and appliances. Once the criteria have been met and verified by a third party inspector, the project is granted status as an ENERGY STAR building. The ENERGY STAR program

Lehman 10 predicts that a qualified home can prevent the emissions of 4,500 lbs of greenhouse gasses each year, and save residents $200-$400 annually on utility costs32. The ENERGY STAR for Homes rating system has two compliance paths: the National Performance Path and the National Prescriptive Path. The National Prescriptive Path requires that a set of guidelines are followed with regard to the design of various building systems. This set of guidelines, called the Builder Option Package, includes specifications for cooling and heating equipment, thermostats, ductwork leakage, the thermal envelope, windows, hot water heaters, lighting, and appliances33. The National Performance Path requires that a project be rated in accordance with the Home Energy Rating System (HERS). The building is given a HERS Index, which is a score based upon a comprehensive review by a certified third party. A HERS Index of 100 indicates that a building uses as much energy as a reference case that emulates the average American home.34 Each point lower or higher indicates a 1% variation in energy use from the base case. Therefore, a HERS Index of 95 indicates that a building uses 5% less energy than the reference case.35 The HERS Index value necessary to attain the ENERGY STAR label varies according to the climate zone where the project is located. New York City is in Climate Zone 5, and therefore a building must have a HERS Index of 85 or lower to qualify. 36 ENERGY STAR projects following either path must also be verified and field-tested by an accredited provider, and complete a Thermal Bypass Inspection Checklist which requires a thorough review of a buildings thermal envelope and air barriers. The third party inspector must be an accredited Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Rater. This third party is completely independent, meaning that its function cannot be performed by either a contractor already involved in the building, or the building owner. This ensures that any recommendations made are purely in the interest of increasing the performance of the building. 3. Review of Literature a. Reviews of current knowledge and research needs Improving the energy efficiency of the United States building stock is commonly seen as a great opportunity to reduce the nations energy use and greenhouse gas emissions per capita. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Navigation for a Sustainable Future Strategic Plan lists increasing the energy efficiency of buildings as a top priority. The first goal listed in this plan is to:
Provide guidance on techniques to achieve 30, 50 and 70% reduction of building energy usage based upon the energy codes in place at the turn of the millennium. The goals are to move 30% toward net zero-energy use buildings by 2008, 50% by 2012 and 70% by 2015. (Net zero energy buildings [use] equal or less energy than they produce on an annual basis.)37

Research needs stressed by the report include developing standards for building energy efficiency, generating baseline data about energy efficiency of the current building stock, and determining the total environmental impacts of buildings38. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) National Research Agenda gives six outcomes on which research in the area of sustainable building should focus. Two of these outcomes are listed as metrics, benchmarks, and databases; and policy analysis and

Lehman 11 development; and standards, codes, and rating systems39. The USGBC lists construction and operation processes, performance metrics, building envelopes, lighting, and HVAC systems as major areas of research40. b. Multifamily building energy benchmarking surveys In addition to the EIA and NYSERDA studies mentioned previously, multiple studies have compared the energy usage of buildings in New York City in terms of BTUs/SF/HDD. In 2003, Marc Zuluaga published a survey of the heating density of 103 multifamily affordable housing buildings that were built under the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The buildings were located all across the state of New York, and ranged in size from 20,000 square feet to 2,000,000 square feet. The buildings were nevertheless very similar in their construction, as they were built under the same program, using even the same funding allocation. Despite this, there was still a wide range in the normalized energy usage of the various buildings. The study found that the average New York City gas-heated building used 9.9 BTUs/SF/HDD. It should be noted that in this study, as well as all other studies mentioned here, hot water heating use was assumed to be constant throughout the year. Therefore, the procedure used to estimate the total gas use attributable to space heating produces a larger estimate than the procedure used by this study would give (see Heating fuel analysis). It should therefore be expected that the heating densities given in this study be slightly lower than other studies41. A 1999 study by consulting firm Steven Winter Associates, Inc. surveyed poorperforming multifamily housing buildings in New York City which were candidates for the New York State Weatherization Assistance Program. The 401 buildings studied included structures over 50 years old, many of which had no energy efficiency improvements in their lifetime. This group of buildings averaged 24 BTUs/SF/HDD for heating fuel42. This study differs from the New Buildings Institute study on the energy performance of buildings certified under the USGBCs LEED rating system in that it uses the application of specific energy conservation measures as a predictor of energy savings instead of using the results of a more general rating system. The LEED rating system gives credit to buildings for many things which do not affect building energy performance, and energy efficiency is only addressed by two out of the seventy-six potential credits given by the flagship New Construction rating system. The study performed by the New Buildings Institute compared the energy use of various buildings based upon their level of point achievement in the LEED rating system43. The faults in the New Buildings Institute study have been criticized specifically by Henry Gifford. In A Better Way to Rate Green Buildngs, Gifford argues that buildings should be awarded based on their actual energy use, as documented by their first year of utility billing 44. Gifford also emphasizes that the New Buildings Institute compares the median energy use of LEED for New Construction buildings to the mean energy use documented in the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS).45 In contrast, this study will refer to the ENERGY STAR rating system because of the programs focus on energy-efficiency, but will focus more on specific ECMs. The ENERGY STAR label, as mentioned above, is granted to projects which demonstrate a percentage of energy savings by computer modeling. There is a considerable international focus on energy efficiency as well, seemingly spearheaded by Scandinavian countries. The work of Sjgren et al. 46 looks at specific case

Lehman 12 studies of buildings located in Sweden in order to derive relationships between heat loss and a variety of variables, including district heating use and electric use. The study produces varied results, concluding that attempting to derive heat loss from energy use profiles is highly sensitive to assumptions made with regard to electricity use. The data from Sjgren et al.s work show the average of the buildings studied to use roughly 120 kBTU/SF. This is understandably higher than the results of this and other studies given the buildings location. c. Individual building studies Many studies of energy efficiency profile the energy performance of a particular building or development. These studies are typically focused on projects built as examples of low-energy buildings. These are similar to this work in that they rely on buildings meant to perform as examples of high-performance design. Torcellini et al. 47 investigate the design and construction process of energy efficient buildings. The study chronicles the design and construction of a building located in Georgia that is estimated to have saved 63% in annual energy costs. The energy use reduction was modeled in advance, and is due mainly to the incorporation of passive solar systems, efficient lighting strategies, and other energy conservation measures. It should be noted that the study differs from this one thin that the upfront costs for the case-studied project would be prohibitive for an affordable housing project. Smith at al. 48 investigate the differences between the energy model of a building near Pueblo, Colorado, and the as-built case. The building was modeled to use 69.5% less energy than a similar project, due to a very efficient building envelope and a strong emphasis on thermal masses and passive systems instead of having installed heating or cooling systems. In reality, the building used 56% less energy than a base-case building. The authors claim that the discrepancy is due to the difficulty of accurately modeling solar gains and the effect of windows, screens, and shading devices using available energy modeling software. The discrepancies between estimated and actual energy savings in the ENERGY STAR buildings in this study are discussed below. Thormark49 studied the lifecycle energy use of a select group of Swedish buildings built under the CEHPEUS (Cost Efficient Passive Houses as European Standard) program. The study concluded that a significant amount of the total energy use of a building during its lifecycle (roughly 40%) was contained in the embodied energy of a buildings production. Furthermore, it states that 37-42% of this energy could be saved through the incorporation of recycled materials in building construction. On average, the four buildings in this study used roughly 150 kBTU/SF. Other studies will be mentioned throughout the analysis of this study. Most of this literature refers to specific building systems and how they can be improved. Reference numbers from large-scale surveys by the United States Federal Government and other research bodies are also used to compare the selected buildings in this study to the housing stock of the whole United States and of the world.

Lehman 13

4. Methods a. Description of sample Twelve buildings were selected for analysis in this study. Two of the projects studied earned the ENERGY STAR label, while the other ten were selected as a representation of buildings designed and constructed using practices common to affordable, multifamily housing developments in New York City during the same time period. For the purpose of having a reasonable comparison between the selected buildings, all projects used in this study were chosen based on building type and use, location, and year of completion. All projects studied are affordable, multifamily housing projects. The buildings are all located in New York City, with all but one of them in the Bronx. All projects are targeted for families (2-3 bedroom units) although some have studio or 1 bedroom apartments for individuals or couples. The buildings all use natural gas for space heating and domestic hot water heating. Residents in all these projects pay rent on their apartments and pay their own electric bills, while the landlord pays for all gas bills and common electricity use. The buildings were all completed recently, which ensures that they were all built using current construction practices, under similar government guidelines, and that the mechanical systems are fairly new. All projects also have one year of utility bills with full occupancy in order to complete a full and accurate analysis and comparison of the data. Figure 2 presents important characteristics of the buildings. For confidentiality purposes, the buildings are referred to by arbitrary naming. The two ENERGY STAR buildings will be referred to as building E1 and building E2. The buildings in the control group will be referred to as building S3 through building S12. Figure 2: Characteristics of Buildings in Study Sample
Building ID # Building E1 Building E2 Building S3 Building S4 Building S5 Building S6 Building S7 Building S8 Building S9 Building S10 Building S11 Building S12 Location Bronx Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Square Footage Number of Units Year Built 52,000 54 2006 42,694 33 2006 77,768 80 2001 98,519 88 2006 115,500 110 2005 100,012 88 2006 54,471 59 2006 129,672 124 2004 89,205 84 1997 80,479 79 2004 66,155 61 2000 73,601 85 2005 ENERGY STAR Label Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No

i.

ENERGY STAR buildings

Two affordable housing projects with a particular emphasis on energy efficiency were selected for this study as models for high performance design. Both of these projects have earned the ENERGY STAR label, and are referred to as buildings E1 and E2. They are the first two buildings in New York City go achieve this credential. Building E2 is located in Brooklyn, whereas all other buildings in this study are in the Bronx. However, it is assumed that any social or climatic differences are negligible.

Lehman 14 It is important to note that these buildings have been selected as the models for energyefficient housing because of their ambitious pursuit of energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR label is merely an indicator of their commitment and of the kinds of energy conservation measures that were implemented. Both projects demonstrated a projected energy savings of greater than 15% compared to the 2004 International Residential Code standards by using advanced building modeling software. None of the buildings in this study are provided with any kind of on-site, active renewable energy source, so all energy savings found in this study are the result of more efficient building practices. ii. Other studied buildings

A group of 10 different New York City buildings were selected as a sample of multifamily, affordable housing projects built using standard construction practices. These buildings are meant to be similar to the two ENERGY STAR buildings except that high performance goals were never set during their development. They share all of the characteristics with the ENERGY STAR buildings that are mentioned above. b. Data collection Utility bill data for this study was collected through contact with building managers and utility companies. Energy use and date range of each bill was obtained from the utility companies using each buildings various account numbers. Natural gas use is metered differently in some buildings, but in most cases involves three meters: one for space heating and domestic hot water heating, one for cooking ranges, and one for laundry. Electricity bills for common area use are derived from one meter. c. Heating fuel analysis As mentioned, all buildings surveyed for this study use natural gas for space heating purposes. Gas metering can be and is set up in many ways. All of these buildings use natural gas for space heating, domestic hot water heating, and laundry, and most also use natural gas for cooking ranges. Laundry and cooking gas are generally metered separately. A few of the buildings in this study have separate gas meters for space heating and domestic hot water heating, so the quantity of gas used for space heating can be read directly from the utility bill history. If domestic hot water heating and space heating fuel use are recorded by the same meter, the analysis becomes more complex. Since gas meters are read monthly, it is safe to assume that during summer months, these bills represent only the amount of fuel used for hot water heating. A problem arises when we try to find how much of the fall, winter, and spring months bills account for space heating versus hot water heating. An easy assumption would be to say that domestic hot water consumption stays constant throughout the year. After deriving the average daily consumption for the summer, this number can be extrapolated throughout the entire year. Data collected for this work and other studies strongly contradicts this intuitive assumption that summer hot water heating represents one quarter of annual gas use for this purpose. Therefore, this study uses a different approach to estimate the total annual fuel consumption for domestic hot water heating using summertime fuel use. For buildings in this study whose domestic hot water heating fuel use was metered separately, fuel use for hot water heating during the three summer months represented an average

Lehman 15 of 19% of the annual metered gas used for hot water heating (See Appendix A). In-depth work by Goldner on domestic hot water load sizing studied multifamily housing stock in New York City and found summertime fuel use for domestic hot water heating purposes to represent 21% of annual consumption50. Other data collected by Papakostas shows summertime domestic hot water fuel use to represent an average of 18% of annual consumption51. Using this information, this study uses 19% as an estimate of the portion of total hot water heating fuel that is used during the summer. The percentages derived from buildings within this study with individually metered hot water heating were given the most weight because the data is relatively new, and the buildings are most similar to others in the study which this method is being used upon. Once the domestic hot water baseline gas use has been subtracted from the total yearly gas use, the remainder is assumed to have been used for heating purposes. This quantity of gas is converted to BTUs and divided by total building square footage and HDD in order to derive the buildings total heating energy density, according to BTUs/SF/HDD. d. Unit electricity use assumptions The utility bills obtained for this analysis cover all charges for which the building owner pays. In order to calculate the entire amount of energy used by a building, one would have to add the electricity bills paid by the tenants. Since such information is deemed private, some assumptions were made as to the average energy usage of each unit. According to the Energy Information Administrations Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), the average multifamily residential unit in New York uses 4,018 kWh of electricity each year.52 Although private units electric bills could not be obtained for these buildings, the billing data was obtained for some superintendents apartments whose electricity is covered by the building owners. These units used an average of 5,075 kWh annually. This number could be higher than the RECS average for multifamily units in New York because the bills are not being paid by the occupants. Therefore, the weighted average selected for each unit in this study is 4,500 kWh annually, or roughly 15 kBTU/SF (See Appendix F). e. Total building energy use calculations The total building energy use for each building was compiled by adding all utility billing information for one whole year. Gas use was converted from therms to BTUs and electric bills were converted from kWh to BTUs before all energy bills were summed. The raw energy usage was normalized across buildings by dividing total use in BTUs by square footage.

Lehman 16

5. Energy Performance of Studied Buildings a. Total Building kBTU/SF Figure 3: Annual Energy Use of Studied Buildings

Figure 4 shows each buildings annual energy use in kBTU/SF, with the previously mentioned assumption with regard to apartment electricity use applied to all buildings. The two ENERGY STAR buildings are shown in red on the left, and labeled building E1 and building E2. The control group of buildings are shown to the right in blue, and are labeled S3 through S12. The ENERGY STAR buildings perform more efficiently on average, using an average of 75.00 kBTU/SF, which is 25% less than the control group average of 100.48 kBTU/SF. If we were to say that the ENERGY STAR buildings were examples of energy efficiency, then we would have the problem that other buildings performed better. However, the fact that the two ENERGY STAR buildings in this study perform among the most efficient buildings indicates that the emphasis of their design teams on energy efficiency helped ensure the good performance that they attained.

Lehman 17 b. Space Heating BTU/SF/HDD

Figure 4: Heating Density of Studied Buildings

Figure 5 displays the heating density of all twelve buildings. The two ENERGY STAR buildings are shown on the left in red. The average BTUs of gas required per square foot per heating degree day for these two buildings was 7.5, while the average for the remaining buildings was 11.2. Despite the fact that many of the buildings in the control group were built by the same developers and design teams, there is much variability in the heating density of these buildings. As in the comparison of each buildings total energy use in Figure 4, some buildings performed more efficiently than the ENERGY STAR buildings by this metric. The ENERGY STAR buildings still remain among the most efficient, indicating that their pursuit of high performance design helped to ensure that the buildings were not overpaying for utilities and wasting energy.The energy performance of the other buildings is more sporadic, although a few reached greater efficiencies than even the ENERGY STAR buildings. The pursuit of high performance goals seems to ensure that a building will be highly efficient in comparison to other buildings built at the same time.

Lehman 18

c. Electric kBTU/SF Figure 5: Electricity Density of Studied Buildings (Common Area Bills Only)

Figure 6 shows the electricity usage of all twelve buildings. The data plotted are derived only from the common electric bills that serve functions such as ventilation, elevators, and hallway, entryway and stairwell lighting. The assumptions made for the electricity use of individual units were not applied here as the same value per unit was applied to each building. The two ENERGY STAR buildings (average of 9.01 kBTU/SF) perform close to the control group average (9.97 kBTU/SF). The electricity bills of building E2, however, include the usage of a daycare center located on the buildings ground floor. The daycare center uses an estimate of 32% of the total electricity use represented by the common area bills (based on its probable electric needs, it is assumed that it uses 3,000 kWh per month). If this quantity is subtracted from building E2s electric bill, the building uses 6.46 kBTU/SF, and the ENERGY STAR buildings average 7.49 kBTU/SF, 25% less than the control groups mean.

Lehman 19 d. Total energy costs Figure 7: Total Energy Costs per SF

Figure 7 shows the total energy costs of all buildings studied. The ratio between the costs of the buildings with the highest and lowest utility bills per square foot is 2.72:1, which shows that significant cost savings can be attained by building an energy-efficient project. The two ENERGY STAR buildings are on the left. Both ENERGY STAR buildings energy bills were below average. Building E1 had the lowest energy bills of all buildings, and paid 50% less than the control group average of $1.47 per SF, at $0.74 per square foot. The electric bills for building E2 include the use by a daycare center on its main floor (see section 3.c), but the buildings energy bills are still only $1.32 per SF, 10% lower than the control groups average. Excluding the assumed electricity use of the daycare center mentioned in 3.c, building E2s annual electric bill would be $0.90 per SF, and the ENERGY STAR buildings would save an average of $0.65 per SF, or 44% of all energy bills.

Lehman 20 e. Energy use breakdown (BTUs) Figure 8: Energy Breakdown by End Use (% of Total BTUs, Common Area Bills Only)

Figure 8 shows the average percentages of each buildings energy use (in BTUs) needed for major building systems. On average, half of the energy use serves to heat the building. The second largest end-use is hot water heating. Space heating and hot water heating are the two main functions of on-site gas combustion, which in terms of BTUs constitute 88% of all energy usage. Electric uses tend to require less energy in BTUs, although electricity costs more per BTU than gas, as will be explained below. It is important to note that Figure 8 displays the BTU equivalent of used energy. These numbers are not directly proportional to greenhouse gas emissions, because a large amount of electric energy is lost during transmission between generation and the end user. It is important to note that while the BTU usage for gas applications was measurable for each building by analyzing utility bills, the electric breakdown was assumed based upon probable, calculated loads by different electric building systems. These loads were arrived at by using the wattage requirements for appliances such as lighting fixtures and ventilation fans to model daily usage and create an estimate of the percent of total electric use attributable to each system. The numbers were derived by the author and verified by industry experts.

Lehman 21

f. Energy cost breakdown Figure 9: Energy Use Breakdown by Cost (Common Area Bills Only)

Figure 9 shows the average annual cost of common area electric and gas utilities for the buildings in this study. The same assumptions regarding the breakdown of electricity end-uses were applied here as to the data in Figure 8. The average cost for electricity and gas was $1.44 per square foot. Gas used for space heating comprised 36% of these costs, followed by domestic hot water heating, which accounted for 24%. Improvement of space and hot water heating efficiency therefore provides a good opportunity to cut utility costs. Electricity accounts for 36% of these costs, even though electric uses accounted for only 12% of total BTU usage (see Figure 8). Therefore, although electricity use accounts for a smaller proportion of raw energy use, electricity conservation still provides an excellent opportunity for cost savings.

Lehman 22

6. Factors in Energy Efficiency The purpose of this section is to analyze the basic differences in individual building systems which affect building energy performance. The data in sections 3 and 4 show a wide discrepancy in the energy use of the buildings in this study, despite the fact that the buildings are extremely close to one another and serve identical functions. This section will discuss the reasons for these variations by discussing individual building systems. Buildings seeking high energy performance typically do so through the implementation of various energy conservation measures (ECMs). Occupant education and behavior is another major factor that affects building energy use which will be discussed later. It is important to note that most building systems greatly affect each others performance. Analyzing building systems individually is important when considering energy conservation measures, but a holistic approach is necessary when analyzing a specific buildings energy use. a. Heating system The buildings in this study used an average of 52% of their total energy use for space heating purposes. The energy densities of the two ENERGY STAR buildings (E1 and E2) were 6.41 and 5.21 BTU/SF/HDD respectively, while the control group average was 8.71 BTU/SF/HDD. The heating density of the least efficient building in this study was 3.3x that of the most efficient building. This difference is due to a variety of factors, including boiler efficiency, distribution system, and building envelope. i. Boilers

Proper boiler selection and sizing has a dramatic effect on building energy use. The two ENERGY STAR buildings in this study both have boilers which operate at 87% efficiency. The average boiler efficiency for the control group was 82%. An undersized boiler will not meet the heating requirements of a building, so HVAC designers tend to overestimate the required capacity. An oversized boiler, on the other hand, reduces efficiency, especially during the shoulder months such as October and March, when heating loads are lighter and large boilers switch on and off frequently. Buildings S3, S4, and S7 deal with this issue by using a series of boilers, such that some can be turned off during the shoulder months. All of the buildings in this study have non-condensing, sealed combustion boilers. Noncondensing boilers have a maximum efficiency of 87%, and some manufacturers claim to produce condensing boilers with an efficiency of up to 98%53. Condensing boilers reach a higher efficiency by taking advantage of the high temperature (350-390 F) of flue gasses normally vented directly outdoors. In a condensing boiler, heat is recovered from the flue gasses and applied to the water returning from circulation. This is accomplished mostly through condensation of water vapor in the flue gasses. The condensation takes place in either a secondary heat exchanger or in the primary heat exchanger, if there is enough surface area in the primary heat exchanger to allow condensation. The condensation of the water vapor releases the latent heat of the water vapor from vaporization into the heat exchanger. However, condensing boilers are always tested under ideal conditions, with return water temperatures at optimal levels.

Lehman 23 The efficiencies of condensing boilers when installed drop by 4-5% due to real, imperfect conditions and especially unpredictable return water temperatures. Return water temperatures are especially important, since a return temperature that is higher than designed will prevent water from condensing, therefore making the boiler operate at the same efficiency as an identical boiler designed without condensing surface areas in the primary or secondary heat exchangers. Condensing boilers should therefore never be considered unless the circulation system piping is designed specifically to minimize return water temperature. The UK-based firm The Carbon Trust estimates that condensing boilers operating in the United Kingdom typically run at 82-89% efficiency. As affordable housing projects, it would therefore seem impractical for any of the buildings in this study to accommodate the added cost of a condensing boiler into their budgets. A sealed combustion boiler has a restricted air supply that, unlike atmospheric boilers, does not rely on indoor air. The air supplied for combustion in a sealed combustion boiler can therefore be pre-processed in order to optimize combustion efficiency in the furnace (usually through preheating or causing turbulence). Atmospheric boilers use combustion air from louvers in the boiler room which are permanently open, and are generally less efficient than sealed combustion boilers. The reason for this is that atmospheric boilers have little resistance to drafts flowing through the boiler and flue, therefore causing large standby losses. This problem is exacerbated by oversized atmospheric boilers. Atmospheric boilers are therefore dramatically less efficient during shoulder months than during the peak of the heating season. Figure 10: Heating BTUs/SF/HDD Fluctuations by Month

Figure 10 shows heating density variations by month for the studied buildings. The important feature of this graph is that most of the buildings heating density remains consistent throughout the year, including the shoulder months. The exceptions seem to be building S7 (see section 5.a.ii), and (to a lesser extent) building S11. The relative consistency of the heating density of the buildings studied is expected from buildings with sealed combustion boilers and proper control systems. Buildings with atmospheric boilers will tend to have much higher heating densities during shoulder months due to efficiency losses from starting and stopping often. Poor control systems can also raise the heating density of a building during shoulder months.

Lehman 24

ii.

Distribution and controls

As mentioned above, the range of boiler efficiencies in this study was only 82-87%. There are therefore other factors which also contribute to the 3.3:1 ratio in heating densities between the most and least efficient buildings. The efficiency of a buildings heat distribution system and the effectiveness of its controls greatly affect its heating density. All of the buildings in this study used hydronic distribution systems, which cycle heated water throughout the building by pumping. Hydronic systems are commonly more efficient than air distribution, which are usually impractical in large-scale applications such as multifamily housing, and steam distribution, in which pumps are not needed but temperature control is more difficult in apartments, which could lead to overheating. The discrepancy in heating density between the buildings in this study can be partially explained by the different control systems used by each building. Building S7, for example, relies on one centralized control which operates based on one interior temperature sensor and one exterior sensor. The control unit is programmed to operate the buildings eight boilers dedicated to space heating, using only some of the boilers at times when there is a small heating demand. A major fault in this system is that the building has 59 apartment units on 11 floors, but yet the entire building is treated as one zone (meaning the heating is controlled by only one indoor temperature sensor). Although the system may heat the area in the proximity of the sensor well, there will be a large difference between that space and other locations in the building. The stack effect refers to the phenomena of hot air rising up through a building, causing upper floors to accumulate much of the heat meant for lower floors. With the entire buildings heating system being run based on one sensor on the first floor, the top floors of building S7 will be overheated. Therefore, energy is being wasted to heat the upper floors more than is needed. Occupants on these top floors may open their windows during the winter to try to cool their units. This would exacerbate the effect, as the hot air rising to the top floors would escape, sucking more air up through the building and causing more energy waste. A much better practice, as is employed in both ENERGY STAR buildings, is to give each unit a separate thermostat. This increases occupant comfort, saves on utility bills, and cuts down on temperature complaints (temperature issues are the #1 complaint in nearly all multifamily buildings). The building staffs understanding of HVAC control systems is another key factor in the performance of a buildings mechanical systems. Controls that are improperly set or require adjustment by season or by occupants request can be easily be changed in a way that exacerbates the problem or energy waste in general. Similarly, it is important in a building with thermostats in each unit that the occupants have some education or reference about how their control systems function. iii. Building envelope

One more very important part of a buildings heating system is the thermal envelope. In order for a buildings heating and cooling systems to perform efficiently in a temperate climate such as that in New York City, the building must be properly air sealed and should have high caliber insulation with as few gaps as possible. In many buildings, improper air sealing is the greatest cause of energy waste. Improper air sealing in the building envelope allows air and moisture to pass into the building, causing

Lehman 25 heat loss and mold problems. Improper air sealing of apartment units wastes energy as air leaks into the walls and into other units. This wastes conditioned air by sucking it out of occupied spaces and exacerbates problems like moisture control and the stack effect, since hot air will be sucked out of lower floors and drawn up the building. Air sealing is one of the major reasons that ENERGY STAR requires third party verification of the building. Air leakage is typically measured using a blower door test, where all intentional openings are sealed and a fan with controllable and measurable capacity is placed in the doorway. The fan is then turned on and the number of air changes per hour (ACH) of the space is measured, along with the pressure differential inside and outside the door. The unit ACH50 refers to the number of air changes per hour that occur when the pressure difference is 50 Pascals. A recent study by Brennan54 found the average infiltration of 150 homes to be 6.23 ACH50, significantly higher than the ENERGY STAR requirement of 5 ACH5055. Brennans study found that most buildings fell within the same range, but some stood out as significantly higher (above 20 ACH50) 56. The results of Brennans study show how ignoring air barriers can lead to catastrophic results, and how important third party verification of building design and construction can be. A detail-oriented inspection of the thermal envelope by the developer or by a third party is also the best way to ensure that a building does not have breaks in its thermal protection. The fact that ENERGY STAR buildings are required to have a third party to verify proper installation of the building envelope and air barriers undoubtedly helped improve their heating efficiency. Insulation is measured in terms of an R-value. Lawton et al. 57 and Cui et al. 58 studied the effects of thermal bridging on a walls insulation value. Lawton et al. found that making a wall structure out of alternating horizontal and vertical girts improved the effective R-value of the entire wall, while Cui et al. found similar results when reducing the total area of thermal breaks in composite walls. This minimized the total area of thermal bridging, and, in Lawton et al.s study, improved the effective R-value by an average of 26% 59. Studies like those done by Lawton et al. and Cui et al. emphasize the importance of checking section drawings to avoid thermal breaks in difficult areas such as stud locations, connections between walls and floors or ceilings, and window and door openings. b. Domestic hot water Domestic hot water heating accounted for an average of 34% of total energy use for the buildings in this study. Buildings E1 and E2 used 3.62 and 4.41 BTU/SF/HDD, respectively, while the control group used an average of 5.75 BTU/SF/HDD for DHW heating. There was still a wide range in the amount of gas required for domestic hot water heating between buildings, with the most efficient building (S12) using 2.85 BTU/SF/HDD and the least efficient building (S7) using 8.47 BTU/SF/HDD. A very important factor in a buildings gas needs for domestic hot water is leakage in pipes and plumbing fixtures. Even a small leak can waste gallons of water a day, causing a proportional waste of energy. It is no wonder that building S7 (as the highest consuming building in this study for DHW gas) had initially installed a faulty model of kitchen sinks, causing the owner to replace every sink in the building within a year of the buildings completion.

Lehman 26

i.

Boilers

Sizing and efficiency of domestic hot water heating systems are key components to limiting energy used for water heating. All of the buildings in this study supplied hot water with a sealed-combustion storage hot water heater equipped with a recirculation pump. The range of DHW boiler efficiencies for the buildings in this study was 82-87%. As with boilers used for space heating, oversized DHW boilers cause efficiency losses by switching on and off more frequently. Proper hot water storage tank sizing is also important since an undersized tank will empty too quickly and force the boiler to perform many short cycles to maintain an available hot water supply. ii. Controls

The domestic hot water control systems of all buildings surveyed were mostly very similar. Domestic hot water controls are typically set so that the hot water delivered to every unit is at least 120 F. To accomplish this, the output temperature setting on most DHW boilers is 130 F. The DHW temperature of an apartment on the top floor of a building should be checked occasionally to ensure that water temperature does not go too high in order to avoid scalding of the building occupants, and to reduce energy waste. Another aspect of controlling domestic hot water deliver is the installation of recirculation pumps. A recirculation pump delivers hot water to apartments faster than a lowpressure water system because it continuously recirculates water throughout the building so that hot water is available on demand. Otherwise, a building occupant would have to wait for hot water to reach the fixture, which would waste water and gas since the wasted water had previously been heated. Many building researchers, including Gifford 60, admit that running recirculation pumps constantly may be the only way to ensure that domestic hot water reaches adequate temperatures on demand in all units for apartment buildings. A 1999 study by Goldner claims that DHW heating costs can be greatly reduced by running recirculation pumps only when return water temperatures to the DHW heater fall below 110 F61. Gifford and others, however, state that although a recirculation pump can run constantly, this does not mean that the DHW heater is constantly running. There are some losses from the water to the heater and then to the air62, but the savings projected by Goldner may be overestimated. This is one aspect of multifamily building efficiency that could require further investigation. iii. Water efficiency

Efficient water use implies efficient use of water heating fuel. The ENERGY STAR buildings in this study were built with low-flow fixtures (0.5 gpm bathroom faucets and 2 gpm showerheads), while the control group buildings mostly had fixtures with standard flow rates (1 gpm bathroom faucets and ~3 gpm showerheads). Low-flow fixtures typically have the fastest payback period of all energy conservation measures, as the quantity of water and heating fuel saved by each installation quickly adds up to the material and labor costs. Payback periods for these fixtures are typically less than six months for residential applications.

Lehman 27 Huge energy waste is apparent in building S7, which initially had installed kitchen sinks that leaked in nearly every unit. This was costly in that the first sinks wasted huge quantities of water and energy, and also because the owner had to replace the sink in every unit. c. Lighting Electric use for lighting composed an average of 5% of the total energy use of each building studied. The utility costs attributable to lighting were significantly lower in the ENERGY STAR buildings due to a variety of factors, which are outlined here. Recent attention has been given to more efficient lighting devices. Since 2000, there has been a dramatic increase in the production of energy efficient bulbs such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), and T8 and T10 fluorescent tube lamps. Improving to these technologies has a payback period of only one or two years. A comparison of the common area lighting of the buildings studied shows that the control group buildings typically installed 0.8 watts of corridor lighting per square foot, while the ENERGY STAR buildings installed 0.4 watts per square foot. The ENERGY STAR buildings accomplished this reduction by avoiding overlighting and installing efficient fixtures. The reduction in lighting energy used by the ENERGY STAR buildings is also due greatly to the control systems installed. For example, building E2 turns off half of the hallway lighting fixtures at night when they are controlled by motion sensors. Stairwell lighting in the ENERGY STAR buildings is provided by bi-level fixtures. In order to comply with New York building codes, stairwell and hallway lighting can never be completely turned off. There is a lower lighting requirement for when these spaces which are used for egress during an emergency are unoccupied than for when people are present. Bi-level lighting fixtures are designed to operate at low output and increase to full output when triggered by a motion sensor, therefore fulfilling building code requirements while minimizing energy waste. Having light sensors controlling outdoor lighting can also reduce energy waste. Many of the buildings in the control group, including buildings S3 and S4, had outdoor lighting for parking and other purposes on at maximum capacity during field visits, despite the fact that the buildings were surveyed during sunny, summer days. Controls such as motion sensors and light sensors are low-cost measures that result in a fast payback for the building owner. d. Ventilation Ventilation accounted for an estimate of 4% of each buildings total energy use. It is important to realize that this estimation is based only upon the electricity used to operate ventilation fans and, in some cases, their control mechanisms. Much of the energy waste associated with poorly-performing ventilation systems comes from over-ventilation, where excessive amounts of conditioned air are drawn out of the building. Many ventilation systems can also be oversized because of an excessively large safety factor used by the design team, because the system is expected to be imbalanced, or for other reasons (in a properly installed system, there should be no need for a factor of safety). Fitzgerald estimates that the increase in utility costs associated for over-sizing roof ventilation fans is $1.90 to $3.82 per cfm per year63.

Lehman 28

i.

Balancing

A common problem with ventilation is that too much air is removed from top floors, and an inadequate amount of air is removed from lower floors. A balanced system will ventilate all floors evenly, while an imbalanced system will over-ventilate top floors and under-ventilate lower floors. This causes air quality problems on lower floors, and it draws significant amounts of conditioned air out of the top floors, therefore wasting energy being used to heat and cool those spaces. Sometimes, design teams expecting a certain lack of balance will oversize ventilation fans, therefore worsening over-ventilation issues on the upper floors and wasting electric power by operating a larger fan. If exterior walls are leaky on the upper floors, unconditioned outdoor air will enter through the walls, causing issues with moisture and further heating and cooling losses. Both ENERGY STAR buildings installed a ventilation balancing system in order to ensure even ventilation on all floors that met the design case scenarios. The system employed consists of a small unit placed in every ventilation intake throughout the building. Each unit has a small rubber bladder that expands when the air flow entering the duct increases. The bladder blocks part of the intake so that the airflow is kept at the design cfm rate even though air is moving faster into the duct. The installed units on the top floors will expand larger, and do more to decrease airflow, while the units on lower floors will expand less, allowing the ventilation ducts to intake roughly the same amount of air from the bottom floors as on the top floors. No other buildings in this study applied a balancing system to their ventilation risers, and there was a noticeable decrease in the air intake from the duct openings between the upper and lower floors. Duct leakage is a major problem for poorly-performing ventilation systems. Improperly manufactured and installed ductwork can have unintentional openings into the wall cavities where ductwork is installed. Sucking air out of walls decreases the amount of air that is ventilated from occupied spaces and decreases the ventilation systems balance. If apartment units are not well air-sealed, the balancing problem is exacerbated. Duct leakage problems are also common around intentional openings. If a ventilation grate is not installed properly, the duct can have unintentional openings into wall cavities (for example, if the opening in the duct placed too far behind where the drywall is installed). One solution applied to buildings with duck leakage issues are sealant products that can be mechanically applied to the inside of ventilation ducts at any point during or after construction. Both ENERGY STAR buildings used a sealant product that claims to seal all ductwork holes 1/8 wide or smaller, therefore dramatically reducing the amount of ventilation power wasted by drawing air out of unoccupied spaces. None of the buildings in the control group had a sealant applied to its ventilation risers. ii. Controls

Roof fans servicing kitchens in the two ENERGY STAR buildings are set on timers so that they run constantly during peak hours in the morning and evening when many people shower and cook, but at other times they only run intermittently. Therefore, the ventilation fans run at full capacity when they are needed, but do not waste electricity by running constantly during the middle of the day when few people are home. The background ventilation rate that is

Lehman 29 required by New York City building codes is met because roof fans that exhaust air from bathrooms run constantly. e. Laundry and Dryer Machines Laundry and dryer operation accounted for 2% of all energy use in the buildings studied. All buildings used gas-powered laundry machines and dryers. Both ENERGY STAR buildings used ENERGY STAR labeled horizontal, front loading washing machines. Horizontal machines use substantially less water and energy than vertical washing machines since vertical machines need to fill the entire container with water, while horizontal machines only fill part-way. Most of the control group buildings also used ENERGY STAR washing machines or other efficient, front-loading machines. There were a few exceptions where buildings used vertical washers, and building S3 even used half vertical and half horizontal washing machines. ENERGY STAR labels washing machines, but not dryers. Compared to the average washing machine on the market, EERE estimates that an ENERGY STAR washing machine reduces operating costs by 42% over the course of its lifetime (a 54% reduction in water costs, and a 31% decrease in energy costs)64. f. Air Conditioning Since this study lacked access to apartment unit bills, the electricity used to cool apartment units cannot be quantified. However, a few observations can be made about the apparent cooling efficiency of these buildings. Of the buildings studied, only buildings S9-S12 provided central air conditioning in the entryway and hallways. This is a significant reason why these buildings used more electricity per square foot than others (see Figure 6). Buildings E1 and E2 provide air conditioning for some common rooms, which accounts for the fact that their electricity use was near the control group average despite having highly efficient lighting and ventilation systems. The largest cooling load in all of the buildings comes from air conditioning in units. Most of the buildings studied give occupants the option to rent a window air conditioning unit for the summer. A few buildings, such as building S12, supply all units with a through-wall air conditioner. Through-wall AC units often cause air leakage and heat loss issues because of improper installation. The thermal resistance of the wall at the location of the air conditioner is also greatly reduced, making window AC units a more energy-efficient choice. Window air conditioning units can also cause energy waste due to improper installation. Building E2 attempts to avoid this problem by having a fixed third pane in all unit windows with a removable insulated panel. During cooling months, if an occupant rents a window air conditioning unit, the insulated panel can be removed and the AC unit fits directly into the gap. g. Occupant Behavior Energy conservation measures such as the ones above can be applied in any building project, but mean little without proper education of a buildings inhabitants and operational staff. For instance, energy-efficient lighting does not save energy if occupants never turn off their lights and thermal control devices accomplish little if they are set too high and occupants open

Lehman 30 their windows during the winter. Efficient building systems can greatly reduce energy usage, but occupant behavior will also affect whole building energy usage. Occupant behavior is potentially the most difficult factor to quantify in terms of energy efficiency. Most studies of occupant behavior attempt to create models for how occupants control thermal comfort systems. For example, Nicol65 performed a study of building occupants in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and various locations in Europe. Nicol produces estimates of what indoor environmental conditions cause certain behaviors, such as the operation of windows, blinds, heaters, fans, and lights. One study which attempts to quantify the potential for occupant education to save energy was performed by Ouyang and Hokao66. Ouyang and Hokao performed a study of 124 households in Hangzhou City, China. The results of their study showed that occupant education produced a 10% reduction in household electricity use. If this were applied to all buildings in this study, this would correlate to a 450 kWh/year reduction in each tenants utility bills. This would save each unit approximately $65.85 per year on electricity. The ENERGY STAR buildings studied in this work supplied occupant education programs, and gave occupants information regarding how to use their thermostats, window air conditioners, and other systems. However, the effect of these programs could not be quantified. Since individual apartment bills were unavailable to this study, the assumption mentioned in the Methods of 4,500 kWh per unit was applied to all buildings in the study. It is also an individual occupants choice whether to use more efficient window air conditioning units or more efficient lighting within their apartments. Few apartment occupants, however, make a significant effort to use energy efficient products in their homes. Many recent articles investigate why Americans seem to under-invest in energy efficiency measures. Marilyn A. Brown, of the US Department of Energys Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, mentions the following causes for this phenomenon: uncertainty in fuel prices, lack of research and development, limited access to capital, supply limitations of energy efficiency improvements, lack of transparent information, and misplaced incentives (the concept that often in rented or leased spaces the building owner does not pay the utility bills and therefore does not receive a financial payback on energy conservation measures)67. 7. Conclusion a. Quantitative Environmental Benefits of High Performance Design i. Community air quality improvement

It was discussed in the Introduction that the on-site combustion of natural gas has a negative effect on local air quality through the emission of nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. Figure 11: Estimated Local Air Quality Pollutant Emissions (per 1,000 SF) Pollutant Control Group Avg. ENERGY STAR Avg. % Difference NOx 220.9 kg 151.4 kg 31% CO 2.5 kg 1.8 kg 31% VOCs 168.4 g 115.4 g 31% PM10 235.8 g 161.6 g 31%

Lehman 31

Figure 11 shows the estimated emissions of a few local air pollutants by the control group and the ENERGY STAR buildings. The ENERGY STAR buildings on average used 31% less natural gas on-site than the control group, therefore the estimated pollutant emissions are 31% less for these buildings. ii. Greenhouse gas emission reductions

The two ENERGY STAR case studied buildings demonstrated an actual energy savings of 25%. This correlates to an overall greenhouse gas emission reduction from 7.57 tons of CO2 per thousand square feet per year, to 5.47 tons, or 28%. If the two ENERGY STAR buildings had the same energy density as the control group average, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions would have been approximately 131,000 tons CO2 per year. If all residential buildings in the United States were to improve energy efficiency on this scale, the total reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from residential building operations would amount to 343 megatons of CO2 per year, or 1.3% of the worlds total CO2 emissions. If all residential properties worldwide achieved a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to energy use, a total of 2.4 gigatons of CO2 emissions would be prevented each year. b. Economic Benefits of High Performance Design The two ENERGY STAR buildings in this study paid an average of $1.03 per square foot in energy costs for 2008, 30% below the control group average of $1.47 per square foot. i. Effect on financing

Lower, more stable energy costs improve the ability of an affordable housing project to repay debt. Lower operating costs increase debt service coverage ratios for financing. All of the projects in this study received low-interest long-term financing from state or federal programs. A better understanding of utility cost projections will improve the accuracy of financial models. Authorities such as the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which financed many of these projects, model utility costs per room, whereas this study and others typically refer to metrics on a per square foot basis. As was mentioned above, there is a financial constraint on unit size in affordable housing buildings because rents are at mandated levels. The average total floor space per unit (note that this is not the same as the average unit size) for the buildings studied was 1,044 square feet, with a standard deviation of 115 square feet. Average energy costs per room are therefore roughly $1, 075.32 for the ENERGY STAR buildings, and $1,534.68 for the control group. This is clearly a significant difference for a project with restrictions on the amount of rent that can be charged. ii. Effect on tenants

All of the buildings in this study were funded with low-interest loans specifically for lowincome housing. In order to qualify as low-income housing, all units are priced for occupants who earn 80% or less of the area median income (AMI) so that 30% of income is spent on rent annually.

Lehman 32 Building occupants benefit from the energy efficient design features of the ENERGY STAR buildings through improved comfort and lower electricity costs. Reducing electricity costs for low-income residents increases their expendable income, therefore making rent payments more affordable and improving the local economy. c. Evaluation of the ENERGY STAR Rating System The two ENERGY STAR buildings, on average, performed better than the control group in every category of energy performance. The rating system is successful in its basic goal in that it creates relatively efficient buildings. This can be credited to the fact that the ENERGY STAR system covers a broad range of the variables that go into building construction, and that proper construction is verified by a third-party. The factors that had the greatest effect on the energy efficiency of the buildings studied were generally simple discrepancies. The ENERGY STAR buildings did not perform better because of super efficient boilers or on-site renewable energy. Energy efficiency was instead gained by attention to important details such as a tight thermal envelope, air sealing units and ventilation ducts, and applying proper control mechanisms to lighting and mechanical systems. Failures by the least efficient buildings illustrate this point. Building S3 has one of the highest heating densities of all buildings in this study. The owner has to do a complete window replacement for the entire building because the windows installed during construction were leaky, caused draftiness, and wasted energy. Building S7 is one of the least efficient buildings by many metrics. During construction, leaky kitchen sinks were installed and hot water pipes were left with no insulation. The sinks wasted water and fuel used for water heating, and condensation formed on the warm pipes in wall cavities, causing moisture issues in building materials. All of the sinks had to be replaced and insulation had to be added to the hot water pipes by breaking through drywall. The presence of third-party verification is therefore a key element in the ENERGY STAR rating system. The verification process, however, could be improved. The current provisions of ENERGY STAR require verification of design and installations up to and through construction. Once a building is occupied, a label is awarded and then forgotten about. With this method, it is possible that an ENERGY STAR building could waste energy if a building system functioned poorly, or if the building was not operated efficiently. An improvement to the rating system would be to require building owners to verify energy performance by submitting utility bill data periodically. This would make building managers cognizant of the energy performance of the building, and ensure that every building with an ENERGY STAR label truly did perform efficiently. d. Summary and recommendations for future research The results of this study emphasize the value of a detail-oriented design and construction process. The buildings that conformed to ENERGY STAR criteria perform among the best buildings in this study across all metrics of energy efficiency. Pursuing the ENERGY STAR label helped control the quality of new construction and ensure that the buildings did not consume an excessive amount of energy, as some buildings in the control group did. The performance of the ENERGY STAR buildings can be attributed to good design and close on-site inspection of building systems and envelope. Major sources of energy waste in the control group

Lehman 33 buildings were poor installations in the plumbing system, poor thermal control design, and leakiness in ventilation systems, air barriers, and thermal envelope. These problems were avoided in the ENERGY STAR projects because of the attention to detail in the design and construction process. The findings of this study are that the ENERGY STAR for Homes system succeeds in creating energy efficient housing. However, studies which investigate other building types would be helpful to give a more comprehensive analysis of the rating system. Another aspect of the ENERGY STAR system that further research should investigate is the cost premium associated with building an ENERGY STAR building, and whether that additional cost is returned to the developer. Studies of multifamily building efficiency in general would also benefit from a more thorough investigation of the metrics that are used to study them. The buildings in this study were all located in the same climate, and therefore experienced the same weather in 2008. However, as mentioned in the discussion of metrics, dividing heating fuel consumption per square foot by heating degree days may not be an appropriate way to compare the heating density of buildings in greatly different climates. The difference in heating degree days between a multifamily building in Washington D.C. and an identical one in New York City, for example, may not be proportional to the difference in these two buildings heating loads. This study uses data from a group of buildings so that sources of energy waste can be found in inefficient buildings. The results found here can be applied to benchmark other buildings and to compare other groups of buildings to those in this study. Future studies of this format should also be used to study the effectiveness of new rating systems, and of changes in the ENERGY STAR system. Since there was a discrepancy between the predictions of the energy models of the ENERGY STAR buildings and the actual energy usage, studies that explore the causes of these inaccuracies are also needed.

Lehman 34 Bibliography: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Research Strategic Plan 2005-2010: Navigation for a Sustainable Future 2005. Brennan, T. Air Barrier M&V A to Z: Measurement and Verification from Design Through Construction. Building Energy 09. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association. March 2009. Brown, M. A. Energy-Efficient Buildings: Does the Marketplace Work? Oak Ridge National Laboatory. United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. January 1997. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Top 20 Emitting Countries by Total Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions for 2005 [Online: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.html] Accessed December 17, 2008. The Carbon Trust. Micro-CHP Accelerator Interim Report United Kingdom. November 26, 2007. Cui, Y. Q. Wang Z. J. Zhang S M. Study on Heat Transfer of Light Steel-Framed Composite Walls in Cold Areas Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. Vol. 14. January 2007. Pgs. 63-66. Fitzgerald J. Multifamily Ventilation: A Big Waste And An Easy Save! Northeast Sustainable Energy Association. March 2007.Gifford, Henry. A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings [onlne: www.henrygifford.com. Accessed: October 2008] 2008. Gifford, H. Does Installing A Recirculation Pump Cause The Tankless Heater To Stay On, Eliminating Savings? GreenHomeGuide, U.S. Green Building Council. January 2007. [online: http://nyc.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/knowhow/entry/1117/] Goldner, F. S. Money Down the Drain: Controlling Hot Water Recirculation Costs Home Energy Online. November/December 1999. Goldner, F. S. Try These On for Sitze: New Guidelines for Multifamily Water Heating. Home Energy Mazagine Online. July/August 1996. Ileri, A. Moshiri, S. Effects of Common Fuel and Heating System Options on the Energy Useage, Pollutant Emissions and Economy Energy and Buildings 24. 1996. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. November 2007. Lawton, M. Roppel, P. Fookes, D. Teasdale St Hillaire, A. Schoonhoven, D. Real R-Value of Exterior Insulated Wall Assemblies Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2007. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Monthly Cooling and Heating Degree Day Data New York State and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Padian, F. L. A. Fuel Use in Multifamily Buildings Home Energy Magazine. November/December 1999.

Lehman 35 Padian, F. L. A. Energy Usage: How Efficient are Your Buildings? (or the 7 to 1 solution) Energy Efficiency. September 2006. Pgs. 13-32. Papakostas, K.T. Papageorgiou, N.E. Sotiropoulos. Residential Hot Water Use Patterns in Greece Solar Energy, Vol. 54, No. 6, Pgs. 369-374, 1995. Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). RESNET National Standard for Home Energy Audits 2009. Sjgren, J. U. Andersson, S. Olofsson, T. An approach to evaluate the energy performance of buildings based on incomplete monthly data Energy and Buildings, Vol. 39. Pgs. 945-953. 2007. Smith, M. W. Torcellini, P. A. Hayter, S. J. Judkoff, R. Thermal Performance Analysis of a High-Mass Residential Building National Renewable Energy Laboratory. United States Department of Energy. January 2001. Thormark, C. A low energy building in a life cycle its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential Building and Environment, Vol. 37. Pgs. 429-435. 2002. Torcellini, P.A. Hayter, S.J. Judkoff, R. Low-energy building design The process and a case study ASHRAE Transactions: Technical and symposium papers presented at the 1999 annual meeting in Seattle, Washington of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Volume 105, Part 2. Pgs. 802-810. 1999. Turner, C. Frankel, M. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings New Buildings Institute. March 2008. United States Department of Energy. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Consumption and Expenditures. Energy Information Administration. 2006. United States Department of Energy. Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. 2009. United States Department of Energy. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_rescom_dcu_SNY_a.htm] United States Department of Energy. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States. Energy Information Administration. July 2000. United States Department of Energy. Electric Power Annnual Energy Information Administration. 2006. United States Department of Energy. Natural Gas Prices Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm] United States Department of Energy. Residential Natural Gas Prices Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/rngp/index.html] United States Department of Energy. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2007 Flash Estimate Energy Information Administration. May 2008.

Lehman 36 United States Department of Energy. United States Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Import Volume (Dollars per Barrel). Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotusaw.htm] United States Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I July 1998. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Carbon Monoxide January 2009. [online: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html] United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2007. Office of Atmospheric Programs. September 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Impacts of NOx May 2008. [online: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html] United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. A Green Home Begins with ENERGY STAR Blue ENERGY STAR. 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes National Builder Option Package ENERGY STAR. 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes National Performance Path Requirements ENERGY STAR. 2008. United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. Make Laundry Simple. Save Money, Time and Your Clothes with ENERGY STAR Qualified Washers. ENERGY STAR. 2007. United States Green Building Council. A National Green Building Research Agenda USGBC Research Committee. February 2008. Zuluaga, M. Multifamily Benchmark: A fuel study provides benchmarking information for multifamily buildings Home Energy. March/April 2003. Pgs. 31-34.

Lehman 37 Appendix A: Estimation of Total Heating Fuel Use with Summer Gas Consumption Four buildings in this study had separate gas meters on their hot water heaters. Table 1, below, shows that on average, 19% of the total gas used for hot water heating can be attributed to a 90-day summer. Three gas bills from summer months are used to calculate the average daily summer gas use for hot water heating. This number is multiplied by 90 in order to estimate the fuel used in an average 90-day summer. Table 1: Domestic Hot Water Gas Use of Studied Buildings with Separate DHW Gas Meters Total DHW Summer Days in Average 90-day % of Property gas (therms) bills summer bills summer day summer use total Building S3 29,140 5,475 91 60.2 5,414 19% Building S4 25,698 4,798 91 52.7 4,745 18% Building S6 27,424 3,851 66 58.3 5,251 19% Building S11 29,174 5,433 91 59.7 5,373 18% Average = 19% In order to verify 19% as an appropriate estimate, the results were compared to the work of Papakostas et al. and Goldner. Table 2 shows the results of a study by Papakostas et al. which measured average daily heating fuel use of four multifamily buildings through the seasons. Even though the buildings in their study were located in Greece, the percentage of all gas used for domestic hot water that was needed during the summer was 18%. Numbers derived from Goldners study are shown in Table 3. Goldners numbers put summer DHW gas use at 21% of total. The numbers from both of these studies are close to the numbers from buildings in this study, and therefore 19% was used in the analysis of this study.

Table 2: Average Daily DHW Gas Consumption by Season (in therms), From Papakostas et al. Season Average daily DHW gas Percent of total Fall 96.5 20% Winter 147.1 31% Spring 152.8 32% Summer 85.8 18%

Table 3: Average Daily DHW Gas Consumption by Season (in Therms), From Goldner Season Avg daily DHW gas use of total Pct. Fall 52.49 24% Winter 60.41 27% Spring 61.69 28% Summer 45.95 21%

Lehman 38 Appendix B: Whole Building Energy Use Calculations Whole building energy use was calculated using one full year of utility bills from January 2008 to January 2009 (note that this denotes 366 days, as 2008 was a leap year). Conversion factors for kWh to BTUs and Therms to BTUs can be found in the Glossary of Acronyms and Conversion Factors. kBTUs/SF is derived by dividing total building energy use in kBTUs by square footage. Table 4 shows these calculations for all buildings. Table 4: Whole Building Energy Use Calculations
Property Building E1 Building E2 Building S3 Building S4 Building S5 Building S6 Building S7 Building S8 Building S9 Building S10 Building S11 Building S12 Electric kWh 129,680 119,760 222,960 182,800 303,840 174,800 173,360 322,560 290,800 296,320 193,680 336,640 Gas Therms 28,097 21,594 69,717 51,157 49,209 63,900 60,529 70,803 69,000 49,915 64,881 50,936 Electric kBTUs 442,468 408,621 760,740 623,714 1,036,702 596,418 591,504 1,100,575 992,210 1,011,044 660,836 1,148,616 Gas kBTUs 2,809,700 2,159,400 6,971,700 5,115,700 4,920,900 6,390,000 6,052,900 7,080,300 6,900,000 4,991,500 6,488,100 5,093,600 Total kBTUs 3,252,168 2,568,021 7,732,440 5,739,414 5,957,602 6,986,418 6,644,404 8,180,875 7,892,210 6,002,544 7,148,936 6,242,216 Square Footage 52,000 43,000 77,768 98,519 115,500 100,012 54,471 129,672 89,205 80,479 66,155 73,601 kBTUs/SF 62.54 59.72 99.43 58.26 51.58 69.86 121.98 63.09 88.47 74.59 108.06 84.81

Lehman 39 Appendix C: Heating Density (BTU/SF/HDD) Calculations Heating density, in BTUs per square foot per heating degree day, is calculated by isolating gas used for space heating purposes from total gas use. This is accomplished by subtracting a baseload gas use (see Appendix A) from the total gas bill. The remaining usage is the amount of fuel used for space heating. This number of therms is converted to BTUs, and divided by building square footage and climate heating degree days to derive heating density in terms of BTU/SF/HDD. Note that HDD numbers fluctuate slightly depending on the start and stop date of the bills. Table 5: Heating Density Calculations
Total gas use Baseload (therms) (therms) 28,097 11,873 21,594 11,287 69,717 28,806 51,157 27,733 82,015 32,806 63,900 24,189 60,529 27,937 117,998 47,195 69,000 26,188 49,915 34,641 64,881 28,327 50,936 15,840 Heating gas Heating gas (therms) (BTUs) 16,224 1622366281 10,307 1030707301 40,911 4091075361 23,424 2342449864 49,209 4920900000 39,711 3971087334 32,592 3259204222 70,803 7080300000 42,812 4281203008 15,274 1527358878 36,554 3655364315 35,096 3509620821 Square footage 52,000 43,000 77,768 98,519 115,500 100,012 54,471 129,672 89,205 80,479 66,155 73,601 Heating Degree Days 4869.5 4602.5 4721 4879.5 4812 4832 4680 4812 4879.5 4879.5 4879.5 4812 BTU/SF /HDD 6.41 5.21 11.14 4.87 8.85 8.22 12.78 11.35 9.84 3.89 11.32 9.91

Property Building E1 Building E2 Building S3 Building S4 Building S5 Building S6 Building S7 Building S8 Building S9 Building S10 Building S11 Building S12

Lehman 40 Appendix D: Electric Use Calculations Electric use was calculated by summing all electric bills from January 2008 to January 2009. The raw number in kilowatt-hours was converted to kBTUs (the conversion factor of 3,412 BTUs per kWh can be found on the Glossary of Acronyms and Conversion Factors) and divided by each buildings total square footage. Table 6: Electric kBTU/SF Calculations
Property Building E1 Building E2 Building S3 Building S4 Building S5 Building S6 Building S7 Building S8 Building S9 Building S10 Building S11 Building S12 Total electric use (kWh) 129,680 119,760 222,960 182,800 303,840 174,800 173,360 322,560 290,800 296,320 193,680 336,640 Total electric use (kBTUs) 442,468 408,621 760,740 623,714 1,036,702 596,418 591,504 1,100,575 992,210 1,011,044 660,836 1,148,616 Square footage 52,000 43,000 77,768 98,519 115,500 100,012 54,471 129,672 89,205 80,479 66,155 73,601 Electric kBTU/SF 8.51 9.50 9.78 6.33 8.98 5.96 10.86 8.49 11.12 12.56 9.99 15.61

Lehman 41 Appendix E: Utility Costs Comparison Table 7 shows the utility cost breakdown for each building by electricity and gas costs. Dollar amounts are taken directly from utility bills and added up over the course of January 2008 to January 2009. Bill amounts are divided by building square footage to determine costs per square foot.

Table 7: Utility Cost Calculations

Property Building E1 Building E2 Building S3 Building S4 Building S5 Building S6 Building S7 Building S8 Building S9 Building S10 Building S11 Building S12 Square footage 52,000 43,000 77,768 98,519 115,500 100,012 54,471 129,672 89,205 80,479 66,155 73,601 Electric costs $ 25,222.44 $ 33,333.36 $ 43,402.90 $ 35,240.67 $ 58,556.36 $ 38,998.01 $ 33,063.85 $ 62,528.22 $ 53,601.84 $ 59,892.09 $ 36,148.71 $ 17,422.42 Electric costs/SF $ 0.49 $ 0.78 $ 0.56 $ 0.36 $ 0.51 $ 0.39 $ 0.61 $ 0.48 $ 0.60 $ 0.74 $ 0.55 $ 0.24 Gas costs $ 13,025.84 $ 23,610.39 $ 51,412.81 $ 59,723.89 $ 94,422.70 $ 75,502.86 $ 75,839.55 $ 137,290.57 $ 114,720.29 $ 88,351.33 $ 91,611.10 $ 46,731.50 Gas costs/SF $ 0.25 $ 0.55 $ 0.66 $ 0.61 $ 0.82 $ 0.75 $ 1.39 $ 1.06 $ 1.29 $ 1.10 $ 1.38 $ 0.63 Total Costs $ 38,248.28 $ 56,943.75 $ 94,815.71 $ 94,964.56 $ 152,979.06 $ 114,500.87 $ 108,903.40 $ 199,818.79 $ 168,322.13 $ 148,243.42 $ 127,759.81 $ 64,153.92 Total costs/SF $ 0.74 $ 1.32 $ 1.22 $ 0.96 $ 1.32 $ 1.14 $ 2.00 $ 1.54 $ 1.89 $ 1.84 $ 1.93 $ 0.87

Lehman 42 Appendix F: Unit Electricity Use Assumption Since apartments utility bills were inaccessible for this study, an assumption was made as to the average electricity load attributable to each unit per year. The U.S. Department of Energys 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey publishes data of energy usage by households throughout the United States. Of the data available, 103 households were selected because they were located in New York State, were a part of multifamily buildings, and reported their electric usage to the survey. The average annual electricity use of these units was 4,018 kWh. Some electric bills of building superintendents were available from the buildings in this study. Between these six units, the average usage per apartment was 5,075 kWh per year. The RECs survey number is applicable because of the larger sample size, but could be confounded by apartments that are not affordable housing, or that use electricity for heating purposes. The superintendents bills are applicable because their apartments are very similar to the other units, but the sample size is smaller and people who do not pay their own utility bills tend to use more electricity. Therefore, an estimate roughly halfway between these numbers, at 4,500 kWh per year, was verified by industry professionals and then used in this study.

Lehman 43

Ileri, A. Moshiri, S. Effects of Common Fuel and Heating System Options on the Energy Useage, Pollutant Emissions and Economy Energy and Buildings 24. 1996. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2007. Office of Atmospheric Programs. September 2008. 3 United States Department of Energy. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States. Energy Information Administration. July 2000. 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database for 2007. Office of Atmospheric Programs. September 2008. 5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. November 2007. 6 United States Department of Energy. Electric Power Annnual Energy Information Administration. 2006. 7 United States Department of Energy. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2007 Flash Estimate Energy Information Administration. May 2008. 8 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Top 20 Emitting Countries by Total Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions for 2005 [Online: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.html] Accessed December 17, 2008. 9 United States Department of Energy. Electric Power Annnual Energy Information Administration. 2006. 10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. November 2007. 11 Ibid 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. July 1998. 13 Ibid 14 United States Department of Energy. Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. 2009. 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Impacts of NOx May 2008. [online: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html] 16 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Carbon Monoxide January 2009. [online: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html] 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I July 1998. 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 United States Department of Energy. Electric Power Annnual Energy Information Administration. 2006. 21 Ibid 22 United States Department of Energy. Natural Gas Prices Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm] 23 United States Department of Energy. Energy Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_rescom_dcu_SNY_a.htm] 24 United States Department of Energy. Residential Natural Gas Prices Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/rngp/index.html] 25 United States Department of Energy. United States Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Import Volume (Dollars per Barrel) Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotusaw.htm] 26 United States Department of Energy. Residential Natural Gas Prices Energy Information Administration. 2009. [online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/rngp/index.html] 27 United States Department of Energy. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Consumption and Expenditures. Energy Information Administration. 2006. 28 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Monthly Cooling and Heating Degree Day Data New York State and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. 29 Padian, F. L. A. Fuel Use in Multifamily Buildings Home Energy Magazine. November/December 1999.

Lehman 44

30

Padian, F. L. A. Energy Usage: How Efficient are Your Buildings? (or the 7 to 1 solution) Energy Efficiency. September 2006. Pgs. 13-32. 31 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. A Green Home Begins with ENERGY STAR Blue ENERGY STAR. 2008. 32 Ibid 33 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes National Builder Option Package ENERGY STAR. 2008. 34 RESNET National Standard for Home Energy Audits Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). 2009. 35 Ibid 36 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes National Performance Path Requirements ENERGY STAR 2008. 37 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Research Strategic Plan 2005-2010: Navigation for a Sustainable Future 2005. 38 Ibid 39 United States Green Building Council. A National Green Building Research Agenda USGBC Research Committee. February 2008. 40 Ibid 41 Zuluaga, M. Multifamily Benchmark: A fuel study provides benchmarking information for multifamily buildings Home Energy. March/April 2003. Pgs. 31-34. 42 Padian, F. L. A. Fuel Use in Multifamily Buildings Home Energy Magazine. November/December 1999. 43 Turner, C. Frankel, M. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings New Buildings Institute. March 2008. 44 Gifford, Henry. A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings [onlne: www.henrygifford.com. Accessed: October 2008] 2008. 45 Ibid 46 Sjgren, J. U. Andersson, S. Olofsson, T. An approach to evaluate the energy performance of buildings based on incomplete monthly data Energy and Buildings, Vol. 39. Pgs. 945-953. 2007. 47 Torcellini, P.A. Hayter, S.J. Judkoff, R. Low-energy building design The process and a case study ASHRAE Transactions: Technical and symposium papers presented at the 1999 annual meeting in Seattle, Washington of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Volume 105, Part 2. Pgs. 802-810. 1999. 48 Smith, M. W. Torcellini, P. A. Hayter, S. J. Judkoff, R. Thermal Performance Analysis of a High-Mass Residential Building National Renewable Energy Laboratory. United States Department of Energy. January 2001. 49 Thormark, C. A low energy building in a life cycle its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential Building and Environment, Vol. 37. Pgs. 429-435. 2002. 50 Goldner, F. S. Try These On for Sitze: New Guidelines for Multifamily Water Heating. Home Energy Mazagine Online. July/August 1996. 51 Papakostas, K.T. Papageorgiou, N.E. Sotiropoulos. Residential Hot Water Use Patterns in Greece Solar Energy, Vol. 54, No. 6, Pgs. 369-374, 1995. 52 United States Department of Energy. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Consumption and Expenditures. Energy Information Administration. 2006. 53 The Carbon Trust. Micro-CHP Accelerator Interim Report United Kingdom. November 26, 2007. 54 Brennan, T. Air Barrier M&V A to Z: Measurement and Verification from Design Through Construction. Building Energy 09. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association. March 2009. 55 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes National Builder Option Package ENERGY STAR. 2008. 56 Brennan, T. Air Barrier M&V A to Z: Measurement and Verification from Design Through Construction. Building Energy 09. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association. March 2009. 57 Lawton, M. Roppel, P. Fookes, D. Teasdale St Hillaire, A. Schoonhoven, D. Real R-Value of Exterior Insulated Wall Assemblies Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2007. 58 Cui, Y. Q. Wang Z. J. Zhang S M. Study on Heat Transfer of Light Steel-Framed Composite Walls in Cold Areas Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. Vol. 14. January 2007. Pgs. 63-66.

Lehman 45

59

Lawton, M. Roppel, P. Fookes, D. Teasdale St Hillaire, A. Schoonhoven, D. Real R-Value of Exterior Insulated Wall Assemblies Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2007. 60 Gifford, H. Does Installing A Recirculation Pump Cause The Tankless Heater To Stay On, Eliminating Savings? GreenHomeGuide, U.S. Green Building Council. January 2007. [online: http://nyc.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/knowhow/entry/1117/] 61 Goldner, F. S. Money Down the Drain: Controlling Hot Water Recirculation Costs Home Energy Online. November/December 1999. 62 Gifford, H. Does Installing A Recirculation Pump Cause The Tankless Heater To Stay On, Eliminating Savings? GreenHomeGuide, U.S. Green Building Council. January 2007. [online: http://nyc.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/knowhow/entry/1117/] 63 Fitzgerald J. Multifamily Ventilation: A Big Waste And An Easy Save! Northeast Sustainable Energy Association. March 2007. 64 United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Energy. Make Laundry Simple. Save Money, Time and Your Clothes with ENERGY STAR Qualified Washers. ENERGY STAR. 2007. 65 Nicol, J. F. Characteristic Occupant Behaviour in Buildings: Towards a Scholastic Model of Occupant Use of Windows, Lights, Blinds, Heaters, and Fans. Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes University. Oxford, England. 2001. 66 Ouyang, J. Hoako, K. Energy-Saving Potential by Improving Occupants Behavior in Urban Residential Sector in Hangzhou City, China. Energy and Buildings. February 2009. 67 Brown, M. A. Energy-Efficient Buildings: Does the Marketplace Work? Oak Ridge National Laboatory. United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. January 1997.