Building Better

How High-Efficiency Buildings Will

Save Money and Reduce Global Warming
 Building Better
How High-Efficiency Buildings Will
Save Money and Reduce Global Warming

Environment America
Research & Policy Center

Julian Prokopetz and Rob Sargent,

Environment America
Research & Policy Center

Rob Kerth,
Frontier Group

March 2010
Acknowledgments

Environment America Research & Policy Center wishes to thank Jim Edelson, Senior
Consultant for the New Buildings Institute; Jennifer Amann, Director of the Buildings
Program for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; Aleisha Kahn,
Executive Director of the Building Codes Assistance Project; Andrew Goldberg, Senior
Director of Federal Relations for the American Institute of Architects; and Nathan Will-
cox, Energy and Clean Air Advocate for PennEnvironment for their review and insightful
comments. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik of Frontier Group for his technical and editorial
assistance.

Environment America Research & Policy Center would like to thank the Energy Founda-
tion, the John Merck Fund, the Meadows Foundation, the Trull Foundation, and the
RE-AMP Global Warming Strategic Action Fund for making this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of
Environment America Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who
provided review.

© Copyright 2010 Environment America Research & Policy Center

Environment America Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedi-
cated to protecting America’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft
solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Americans make their voices
heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives.
For more information about Environment America Research & Policy Center, or for ad-
ditional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentamerica.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner,
healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and
compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more
information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Cover photos: (Inset, top to bottom) Home solar panels, VELUX/ESTIF; window installation, istockphoto.
com/Chris Price; compact flourescent bulb, Eric Delmar; smart development, Sacramento Municipal Utility
District; (large photo) Aldo Leopold Center under construction, Aldo Leopold Center.
Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
What We Can Achieve 6
Building Codes: Locking in Savings for New Buildings 7
Retrofits and Weatherization: Maximizing the Efficiency of Existing Buildings 8
Making it Happen 9

Avoiding Pollution and Saving Money 10

Additional Savings 12

Policy Recommendations 16
Building Codes: Locking in Savings for New Buildings 16
Retrofits and Weatherization: Maximizing the Efficiency of Existing Buildings 18

Appendices 21
Appendix A. Total Building Energy Consumption (Quads), State and National 22
Appendix B. Per Worker Commercial Energy Spending (2007 $), State and National 24
Appendix C. Per Capita Residential Energy Spending (2007 $), State and National 26
Appendix D. Global Warming Emissions from Buildings (MMT C02E),
State and National 28
Appendix E. Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings (Billion CF), State and National 30
Appendix F. Fuel Oil Consumption in Buildings (Million Gal), State and National 32
Appendix G. Decade-by-Decade National Data 34

Methodology 36
Notes 42
 Executive Summary

A
merica is the largest consumer of them by implementing an aggressive two-
energy in the world, and the major- part strategy that sets bold efficiency stan-
ity of this energy comes from dirty dards for new buildings and encourages
and dangerous sources like coal, oil, natu- retrofits to improve the efficiency of the
ral gas, and nuclear power. Our continued buildings we already have.
reliance on these fuels contributes to global Because building operations are re-
warming, undermines our energy indepen- sponsible for such a huge proportion of
dence, and costs American families and busi- our energy use, making buildings more
nesses more and more money every year. efficient is a great way to work on a num-
We can save money and help solve ber of energy-related problems at once.
global warming by reducing the amount of This report analyzes the effects of meet-
energy we use, and the best place to start is ing those efficiency goals and provides
in the buildings we live and work in every state-by-state data on the economic and
day. Over 40 percent of our energy—and environmental benefits as compared to a
10 percent of all the energy used in the business as usual scenario.
world – goes toward powering America’s Investing in building efficiency would
buildings1, but it doesn’t have to be this go a long way toward reducing our energy
way. Today’s high-efficiency homes and use, yielding the following benefits:
buildings prove that we have the technol-
ogy and skills to drastically improve the • A 15 to 20 percent reduction in fossil
efficiency of our buildings while simulta- fuel use in our buildings by 2020,
neously improving their comfort and af- with that reduction increasing to 40
fordability. If we apply those lessons to all to 60 percent by 2050. We can also
buildings, we can reduce overall building cut our overall natural gas consump-
energy consumption 35 percent by 2030 tion from all sectors by almost 10
and 50 percent by 2050. percent.
A recent study by the National Acade-
my of Sciences confirmed that these goals • Reducing building energy use over
are well within our reach.2 We can achieve 20 percent by 2020, saving enough

Executive Summary 
 energy every year to provide power Thanks to this reduction in energy use,
to almost 100 million homes.3 Americans will reap great financial ben-
efits as a result of lowered energy expen-
• By 2050, saving almost 5 quadrillion ditures:
BTUs of energy every year, which is
enough power to meet the total resi- • Reducing energy bills by over 20
dential and commercial energy needs percent by 2020, saving $150 to $200
of 12 U.S. states. per person every year.

• By 2050, saving American families

over $80 billion a year in residential
Table 1. Top Ten States for Residential
energy spending alone, which means
Energy Bill Savings in 2050
average annual savings of over $800
per family compared to what they
Top ten average savings on energy pay today.
expenditures for a family of four

1. Maine $3,207.16 Minimizing building energy consump-

2. Vermont $3,066.97
tion will also reduce our global warming
emissions. For example:
3. New Hampshire $2,862.22
4. Pennsylvania $2,675.03 • Cutting our projected global warm-
5. Massachusetts $2,603.59 ing pollution from buildings almost
6. Rhode Island $2,545.26 20 percent by 2020.
7. Arkansas $2,533.93
8. Connecticut $2,523.78 • By 2050, preventing the emission of
1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide ev-
9. Oklahoma $2,521.12
ery year, more than Germany’s total
10. New York $2,498.68
annual emissions.

Table 2. Top Ten State Annual Emissions Reductions in 2050

Top ten absolute reductions in annual Top ten percentage emissions

global warming pollution (MMT CO2E) reductions compared to 2010

1. Texas 173.1 1. Wyoming (tied) 37%

2. Florida 154.7 1. North Dakota (tied) 37%
3. Ohio 97.3 3. Iowa 36%
4. New York 87.1 4. Nebraska 34%
5. California 84.4 5. Montana 34%
6. Michigan 83.2 6. Connecticut 34%
7. Illinois 80.3 7. Rhode Island 34%
8. North Carolina 69.3 8. Maine 33%
9. Georgia 66.5 9. Massachusetts 33%
10. Pennsylvania 60.3 10. South Dakota 33%

  Building Better
• Bringing America’s total building-re- goal of a zero net energy standard
lated emissions 25 percent below our by 2030. The federal government
current levels by 2050. should provide states with resources
to implement and enforce codes.
Achieving these benefits will require
strong policies that promote energy effi- • Governments at all levels should
ciency in buildings: expand programs that invest in
energy retrofits and weatherization
• Building codes should be steadily with the aim of reaching a 30 percent
strengthened so they are 30 percent improvement in the efficiency of
more efficient in 2012 and 50 per- existing buildings by 2030.
cent more efficient in 2018, with the

Executive Summary 
 Introduction

A
s America enters a new decade, we the U.S. approximately $400 billion every
are facing a number of serious chal- year.6
lenges. 85 percent of our energy This high rate of energy consump-
comes from dirty fossil fuels like coal and tion also results in the release of millions
oil, and we’re projected to spend another of tons of global warming pollution into
$23 trillion dollars on these polluting en- the atmosphere, deepens our dependence
ergy sources over the next twenty years.4 on fossil fuels, and puts a huge financial
Not only does this increase our reliance on burden on Americans at a time of severe
imported fuels, but rising energy costs are economic distress. Worst of all, much of
burdening families at a time of widespread the energy used in our buildings is sim-
economic hardship. In fact, almost 20 mil- ply wasted due to insufficient insulation,
lion American households struggle to pay inefficient heating and cooling systems, or
their energy bills, and some of them spend poor design.
months without heat every year.5 Mean- The good news is that it doesn’t have to
while, legislators at all levels of govern- be this way. We have the ability to drasti-
ment are looking for ways to take action cally reduce our buildings’ energy use, and
on the growing threat of global warming there are already tens of thousands of such
to help meet President Obama’s goal of high-efficiency buildings all around the
reducing emissions 17 percent by 2020. country.
These challenges may seem unrelated, Unlike many public policy challenges,
but there’s an underlying problem that energy efficiency investments generate a
contributes to all three of them: right now, positive cash flow that more than covers
America’s buildings consume far too much their cost. What’s more, the benefits for
energy, most of which comes from finite owners and occupants don’t stop at re-
and polluting fossil fuels. The buildings duced energy bills: it’s well-documented
we live and work in account for about 40 that high-efficiency buildings stay occu-
percent of our total energy consumption pied for longer, sell for a greater value,
and more than 70 percent of our electric- increase productivity, and improve the
ity use, and this level of energy use costs health of those who live, work, and study

  Building Better
Building operations are responsible for almost half of total U.S. energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions.

in them.7 As more and more buildings has come to take bold action. This report
benefit from energy efficiency, the com- highlights those benefits, showing that
bined benefits create a ripple effect, with every single state in the country has the
the result that implementing large-scale chance to capitalize on building upgrades
energy efficiency improvements would to take advantage of all the benefits energy
yield tremendous benefits for the nation efficiency has to offer. The final section
as a whole. presents a number of policy recommenda-
With benefits at stake like lower energy tions, outlining the steps we can take to
bills, less need for imported fuels, or re- improve our buildings, protect our envi-
duced global warming emissions, the time ronment, and revitalize our economy.

Introduction  
 What We Can Achieve

I
n 2007, the town of Greensburg, Kan-
sas was completely destroyed by a tor-
nado. The town residents decided to
use the disaster as an opportunity to re-
build their community better than ever,
and made significant investments in re-
newable energy and highly efficient build-
ings. Today, a 12.5-megawatt wind farm
supplies enough electricity to power 4,000
homes, and the buildings there consume
on average 40 percent less energy than the
buildings they replaced.8 The residents of
Greensburg made the most of a chance to
maximize the efficiency of every building
in their town. It’s time we did the same for
the hundreds of thousands of new build-
ings that go up every year in the United
States.
Improving the efficiency of America’s
buildings offers us a great opportunity
to reduce our energy use, including our
reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil
fuels. The National Academy of Sciences
estimates that widespread implementation
of today’s technology would yield an
efficiency increase of 25 to 30 percent A small wind turbine provides a source of clean,
by 2030, and with the rapid march of renewable energy for this building’s operations.
technological innovation and increased Credit: renaissanceronin.wordpress.com
investment in efficiency from governments

  Building Better
and consumers, much bigger gains are built to meet the standard Florida building
certainly possible.9 If we take strong action code, while the other was designed to max-
now, we can reduce our overall energy use imize energy efficiency with features like
in buildings 35 percent by 2030 and 50 better wall insulation and high-efficiency
percent by 2050. lighting and appliances. Over the course
To get there, we must commit our- of the next year, the energy-efficient home
selves to an aggressive plan to dramati- consumed 70 percent less energy than its
cally improve the energy performance of built-to-code counterpart. When a solar
our nation’s buildings, a two-part strategy panel was installed on the roof, its ener-
that will strengthen the energy efficiency gy use dropped to less than 10 percent of
requirements for new buildings being what the other house consumed.10
built, while at the same time improving That was 1998. As energy efficiency
the efficiency of the buildings we already and renewable energy technology has im-
have. Setting a 2030 target for making all proved, so has our ability to drastically
new buildings zero net energy and mak- reduce the energy needs of our buildings.
ing all existing buildings 30 percent more In 2006, Habitat for Humanity set out to
efficient would put us on track to meet build a high-efficiency home in Wheat
our building energy reduction goals and Ridge, Colorado. It wasn’t a mansion
to take advantage of all the economic and commissioned by a wealthy family, but a
environmental benefits energy efficiency moderately sized home built for a single
has to offer. mother and her two sons. In the end, the
house was so efficient that the solar panel
on its roof produced more energy than the
house consumed. Projects like these dem-
onstrate that zero net energy buildings are
Building Codes: Locking in not a dream waiting to be realized; there
are already tens of thousands of them all
Savings for New Buildings
 around the country.11 If Habitat for Hu-
The best time to invest in a building’s manity can find a way to build them, then
energy efficiency performance is when surely they’re within the reach of large
it’s first being built. Some major oppor- homebuilders and developers.
tunities for energy savings can only be
realized if they’re designed into the shape
and features of the building. Others, like
efficient water heaters, insulation, and
energy-saving lighting systems, are much
easier and much cheaper to install when
a building is constructed than to make
those same modifications in a building
that’s already fully built.
For a long time, forward-thinking
homebuilders all around the country have
been designing and constructing buildings
that use far less energy than typical build- Logan Wiggins House 3, pictured here, is a
ings of similar size. In 1998, for example, zero net energy home in in Boulder, Colorado.
two homes with the same floor plan were It was designed by Jim Logan Architects to be
built in Lakeland, Florida. The only differ- carbon-neutral and to produce more energy
ence between them was that one home was than it consumes. Credit: jlogan.com

Whate We Can Achieve 

 Setting a strong standard for new build- seal leaks in attics and windows typically
ings is critical because over 40 percent reduce household energy use by 20 to 30
of the homes America will need in 2050 percent. A more intensive, whole-building
haven’t been built yet.12 Committing to a approach known as a deep energy retro-
zero net energy standard by 2030 means fit can achieve energy savings of well over
that within 20 years, every new home and 50 percent,15 which shows just how much
office building will be so efficient that it energy we waste in our buildings today.16
can produce as much energy as it consumes We can achieve a 30 percent reduction in
by tapping into clean, renewable sources the energy use of our existing buildings
right on-site. Rather than paying high en- by 2030 by employing these techniques,
ergy bills, the owners of these buildings and best of all, these improvements pay
can actually make money by selling their for themselves over time through reduced
excess power back to the utility companies. energy bills.
Rather than having to build new power The city of Portland, Oregon created
plants to provide electricity to thousands the Block-By-Block Weatherization Pro-
of new homes, we can allow zero net ener- gram to provide free weatherization to
gy buildings to feed their extra power back approximately 120 low-income homes ev-
into the grid to help charge plug-in cars ery year. Simple things like weatherstrip-
or power streetlights. The imperative for ping windows and doors reduced families’
swift action on building codes is clear: the energy consumption by an average of 15
average building lasts for over 40 years, so percent and saved them $100 a year on
enacting strong codes today lets us lock in their energy bills. By 2030, the Weather-
energy savings for decades to come.13 ization Program will have saved Portland
residents an estimated $2.5 million.17 We

Retrofits and Weatherization:

Maximizing the Efficiency of
Existing Buildings
New buildings can be designed to mini-
mize their energy use from the beginning,
but there are substantial gains to be made
in the millions of buildings we already
have. Many of our existing buildings are
poorly insulated or rely on outdated tech-
nologies for lighting, heating, and cooling,
so energy retrofits to improve the efficien-
cy of older or poorly designed buildings
can reap significant energy savings.
For example, almost a fifth of Ameri-
can homes are heated by furnaces that are Simple retrofits that implement energy-saving
more than 20 years old, and these furnaces solutions like sealing windows and doors can
require almost twice as much energy as reduce a home’s energy use by 30 percent and
newer models.14 This explains why basic save the occupants hundreds of dollars on en-
retrofits that replace old technology and ergy bills. Credit: www.icra.org

  Building Better
need to create and expand programs like
this one so Americans everywhere can
reap the benefits of energy efficiency.
Families and businesses can get an en-
ergy audit and schedule their own retrofits
at any time, but energy efficiency improve-
ments are especially easy to include as part
of regular renovations, which typically in-
volve work on walls, floors, and electrical
and heating systems anyway. By increasing
awareness and funding for retrofits, we
can take advantage of the huge potential
for hidden energy savings in buildings all
over the country.

Protestors demand increased funding for green jobs like the ones pro-
Making it Happen posed in Vice President Biden’s “Recovery Through Retrofit” report.
Public officials at all levels of government Credit: www.atlantaprogressivenews.com
are starting to recognize the importance
of investing in energy efficiency, and early
examples of successful policies encourage 2030.21 The city of Austin, Texas recently
legislators in other states to follow suit. passed an ordinance requiring time-of-
In 2006, the U.S. Conference of Mayors sale energy audits for all buildings and
adopted a resolution endorsing an aggres- mandating energy retrofits for the build-
sive schedule of improved building codes ings that fail to meet minimum efficiency
to achieve a zero net energy standard by standards.22 In Massachusetts, Governor
2030, as well as encouraging the inclusion Deval Patrick established the Zero Net
of energy retrofits in all regular building Energy Buildings Task Force, which pro-
renovations.18 In October of 2009, Presi- duced a report in early 2009 recommend-
dent Obama signed an Executive Order ing that Massachusetts set a goal for zero
calling for all new federal buildings to be net energy construction techniques within
zero net energy by 2030,19 and a few weeks the next two decades.23
later, Vice President Joe Biden partnered Legislators everywhere are taking ad-
with the Council on Environmental Qual- vantage of the enormous potential to save
ity to release a report outlining the ben- money and cut pollution by investing in
efits of investing in large-scale retrofits for the efficiency of our buildings, both by
America’s buildings.20 designing highly efficient new buildings
Initiatives that echo these goals are be- and improving the efficiency of the ones
ing put in place in states all around the we already have. What we need now is a
country. In 2008, Maine Governor John coordinated strategy that combines fed-
Baldacci passed a comprehensive energy eral, state, and local policies to secure the
package that aims to weatherize all homes maximum possible energy savings for the
and 50 percent of commercial buildings by country as a whole.

Whate We Can Achieve 

 Avoiding Pollution and Saving Money
See Appendices for full state-by-state and national data.

I
mproving the energy efficiency of our sources of energy like wind farms and so-
buildings is a great way to work on a lar power, we can finally cure our long-
number of problems at once. Reducing standing addiction to fossil fuels.
our energy demand allows us to lessen our For example, about a third of America’s
dependence on imported oil, as well as our natural gas consumption is used in our
need for dirty sources of power like coal- buildings for space heating and hot water,
fired power plants. As we decrease overall but energy efficiency improvements can
demand by investing in energy efficiency significantly reduce our need for this pol-
and increase our reliance on renewable luting source of fuel.24 As Figure 1 shows,

Figure 1. Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings

12000.00
Natural Gas Consumption

10000.00

8000.00 Base Case

(Billion cf)

Policy Case
6000.00

4000.00

2000.00
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Note: In the figures in this section, the “Base Case” refers to a business as usual scenario in which build-
ings continue to be constructed as they were in the 2000s. The “Policy Case” line shows the projected
impact of meeting the energy reduction targets laid out in the previous section.

10  Building Better

 Reducing New England’s Dependence on Oil

O ver 8 million households in America rely on oil to heat their homes, and almost
80 percent of those homes are in the northeast region of the country.25 Mak-
ing our buildings more efficient would cut almost half our building-related fuel oil
use, which represents major savings for states that rely heavily on oil for heating.
In New England, for example, investing in efficiency could reduce total oil usage
for all sectors (including transportation) by almost 15 percent.26

we can reduce projected natural gas use in energy use of our buildings is a critical
buildings almost 20 percent over the next part of our efforts to stop global warm-
10 years. By 2050, we’ll cut our usage in ing.28 Figure 2 shows us that efficiency im-
half, which amounts to a reduction of al- provements could make a big difference
most 10 percent of our total natural gas right away, cutting projected annual global
consumption from all sectors today. The warming pollution from buildings almost
saved natural gas would be enough to pro- 20 percent by 2020. Projected reductions
vide heat to over 75,000 homes, showing increase to 55 percent over the next 40
that building efficiency can put a serious years, bringing emissions down more than
dent in our use of this dirty power source.27 25 percent below our current levels. By
Shifting away from fossil fuels will 2050, these investments would prevent the
cause a dramatic reduction in our emis- emission of more than 1.8 billion tons of
sion of dangerous global warming pollu- carbon dioxide every year, which is more
tion. Right now, building operations are than the total annual emissions from all
responsible for nearly 40 percent of U.S. sectors in countries like India, Japan, and
carbon dioxide emissions, so reducing the Germany.29

Figure 2. Global Warming Pollution from Buildings

3500
Emissions (MMT C02E)

3000

2500 Base Case

Policy Case
2000

1500

1000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Avoiding Pollution and Saving Money  11

 Table 1. Top Ten State Annual Emissions Reductions in 2050

Top ten absolute reductions in annual Top ten percentage emissions

global warming pollution (MMT CO2E) reductions compared to 2010

1. Texas 173.1 1. Wyoming (tied) 37%

2. Florida 154.7 1. North Dakota (tied) 37%
3. Ohio 97.3 3. Iowa 36%
4. New York 87.1 4. Nebraska 34%
5. California 84.4 5. Montana 34%
6. Michigan 83.2 6. Connecticut 34%
7. Illinois 80.3 7. Rhode Island 34%
8. North Carolina 69.3 8. Maine 33%
9. Georgia 66.5 9. Massachusetts 33%
10. Pennsylvania 60.3 10. South Dakota 33%

For consumers, reduced energy use $200 on energy per worker every year by
means money saved in the form of lower 2020. By 2050, the savings increase to
energy bills. That’s the best part about $850 per worker, which represents a 60
making energy efficiency improvements: percent reduction in projected energy ex-
they pay for themselves many times over penditures. What’s more, it means saving
as consumers reap the financial benefits $300 per worker compared to what they
of decreased energy use year after year. pay today, which benefits companies of all
Investing in energy efficiency would cut sizes. From small businesses with five em-
Americans’ energy bills by 20 percent over ployees up to large firms with 500, those
the next 10 years, with savings increasing numbers really add up. Both for families
to over 50 percent by 2050. This would and for businesses, choosing energy effi-
save the average family of four more than ciency just makes economic sense.
$800 a year on energy costs compared
to what they pay today. The savings are
even higher when compared to a busi-
ness as usual scenario in 2050, and Figure
3 shows how those savings vary by state.
Even states like California, which have al- Additional Savings
ready invested heavily in energy efficiency In addition to cutting energy use in build-
and enjoy moderate climates, can expect ings, efficiency improvements also reduce
savings of over $1,000 per household. For the amount of electricity lost in transmis-
families in states with older buildings that sion. As electricity travels along power
rely on outdated oil heating like those in lines, almost 10 percent of it is lost in tran-
the Northeast, the savings are as high as sit and gets used up along the way.30 The
$3,000 a year. less energy we use in our homes and of-
There are also huge efficiency-related fice buildings, the less electricity we need
savings on the commercial side. As Figure to send along the power lines, and the
4 indicates, businesses stand to save almost less energy will simply disappear through

12  Building Better

Figure 3. Prospective Annual Residential Savings For a Family of Four in 2050

White Savings of $1,000-1,400

Light gray Savings of $1,400-1,800
Dark gray Savings of 1,800-2,200
Black Savings of $2,200+
See Table 2 for state numbers

Table 2. Average State-by-State Savings on Energy Costs for a Family of Four in 2050

WHITE LIGHT GRAY (cont.) DARK GRAY (cont.)

California $1,241.67 Montana $1,689.99 Alabama $1,940.92
Hawaii $1,259.07 Colorado $1,713.68 North Carolina $1,988.74
Mississippi $1,387.96 Maryland $1,722.59 Florida $2,154.85
Illinois $1,731.91
LIGHT GRAY Nevada $1,764.11 BLACK
Arizona $1,769.21
Iowa $1,402.51 Louisiana $2,323.76
Kansas $1,425.38 Texas $2,408.55
Utah $1,436.32 DARK GRAY New Jersey $2,479.60
Nebraska $1,438.67 Virginia $1,807.22 New York $2,498.68
Minnesota $1,459.16 Georgia $1,814.07 Oklahoma $2,521.12
South Dakota $1,461.43 Ohio $1,837.13 Connecticut $2,523.78
Alaska $1,464.66 Michigan $1,850.22 Arkansas $2,533.93
Missouri $1,488.44 West Virginia $1,872.46 Rhode Island $2,545.26
Oregon $1,528.29 Indiana $1,878.92 Massachusetts $2,603.59
North Dakota $1,530.20 Dist. of Columbia $1,912.93 Pennsylvania $2,675.03
Washington $1,534.69 South Carolina $1,916.55 New Hampshire $2,862.22
New Mexico $1,602.11 Wisconsin $1,930.20 Vermont $3,066.97
Idaho $1,650.09 Tennessee $1,935.98 Maine $3,207.16
Wyoming $1,671.78

Colors correspond to Figure 3, above.

Avoiding Pollution and Saving Money  13

 Figure 4. Per Worker Commercial Energy Spending

$1,600.00

$1,400.00

Per Worker Spending $1,200.00

(2007 $)
$1,000.00 Base Case
Policy Case
$800.00

$600.00

$400.00

$200.00
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Figure 5. National Building Energy Savings in 2050

6000

5000
Energy (Quads)

4000

3000

2000

1000

2050 Building Energy Savings Combined Total Energy Use of 12

States

Note: The 12 states, in ascending order of energy use, are Vermont, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Delaware, New Hampshire, Hawaii, North Dakota, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and
Nebraska.

14  Building Better

transmission losses. This only increases slows and begins to turn around, long-
the amount of money we save and the planned energy development projects to
amount of pollution we prevent by mak- meet anticipated increases in demand may
ing our buildings more efficient. no longer be needed.
All told, making America’s buildings In January, for example, a proposal for
more efficient would reduce America’s a 276-mile mid-Atlantic power line was
energy consumption from buildings by put on hold due to a reduced forecast for
over 20 percent in the next 10 years. By energy demand. The scaled-down energy
2050, we can cut our building energy use projections are due in part to develop-
by more than half, which brings us more ments like a $15 million rebate program
than 25 percent below our current level of for energy retrofits in Virginia and Mary-
consumption. As Figure 5 indicates, this land’s new Greenhouse Gas Reduction
would save 4.84 quadrillion BTUs of en- Act, which increases investment in energy
ergy every year in 2050, which is enough efficiency and renewable energy to reduce
to meet the total energy needs of 12 U.S. the state’s greenhouse gas emissions 25
states.31 percent by 2020. The estimated cost for
These huge reductions in energy use the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission
translate into significant changes in our Highline (PATH) project is $1.8 billion
energy infrastructure over time as we dollars, a price tag that the energy compa-
eliminate the need to build new power nies would end up passing on to consumers
plants and expand the electricity transmis- in the form of higher energy prices, so this
sion network. Throughout our history, in- represents another source of future sav-
creases in population and economic pros- ings over time.32 Halting the construction
perity have invariably resulted in a rising of the transmission line will also prevent
demand for energy, but now we’re seeing immense amounts of pollution by elimi-
a change: as the growth in our energy use nating markets for dirty coal plants.

Avoiding Pollution and Saving Money  15

 Policy Recommendations

W Building Codes: Locking in

ith benefits like these at stake, it’s
clear that we should do every-
thing we can to improve the ef- Savings for New Buildings
ficiency our buildings as soon as possible.
We know how to make super efficient new At the national level:
buildings, and there are already companies
out there doing deep energy retrofits and • The IECC and ASHRAE model
saving consumers hundreds of dollars a building codes should continue im-
year on their bills. We have the technol- proving so their efficiency measures
ogy and skills to make this happen; what are 30 percent more efficient in 2012
we need now are policies that will help pay and 50 percent more efficient by
for the upfront costs of energy efficiency 2018, with steady ramp-ups thereaf-
investments and ensure that buildings ter.
and developers are taking advantage of all
available efficiency improvements. • The federal government should enact
Here is a list of policies that will help us legislation to require all states to
achieve our goals to guarantee a high level adopt these improved model codes or
of energy efficiency in new buildings and codes with at least an equivalent level
maximize the efficiency of existing ones: of efficiency.

• The federal government should es-

tablish a nationwide goal for all new
commercial and residential buildings
to be zero net energy by 2030.

• Federal policies should provide

funding for state-level programs that
train code officials to administer and
enforce the new standards.

16  Building Better

 Model Building Codes

C urrently, building code adoption is a very decentralized process with states

(and sometimes counties or cities) free to adopt their own regulations. These
state and local codes are typically based on the national model building codes:
the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the American Society
of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Stan-
dard 90.1. The IECC, which is updated every three years and has standards for
commercial and residential construction, was last published in January, 2009.
ASHRAE 90.1 is an alternative standard for commercial construction only, and
the next update in its three-year cycle will be published later this year.
States are required under federal legislation (EPAct 1992) to adopt an energy
code at least as stringent as the most recent national model codes, but they are
permitted to opt out of this requirement, and most states have not kept up to
date. Some automatically review and adopt the latest model codes each time they
are published, others occasionally update their outdated codes on a more irregu-
lar schedule, and still others have no statewide code at all.
Regular adoption of the latest codes is a proven way to reduce energy use
and save money. California has been at the forefront of code adoption since it
instituted its first code in 1975, and the state recently enacted a statewide green
building code that surpasses even the most recent IECC. By 2011, the California
Energy Commission estimates that their building codes will have saved consum-
ers $59 billion in electricity and natural gas costs.33
The 2009 IECC is more than 15 percent more efficient than the 2006 version,
which is the largest efficiency increase in the code’s history. For us to achieve our
zero net energy goal by 2030, we need the model codes to continue improving
their efficiency provisions, and we need the federal government to enforce poli-
cies requiring states to improve outdated building codes so we can take advantage
of all that energy efficiency has to offer.

At the state and local level: with efficiency standards above the
required statewide minimum.
• States should enact legislation
requiring review and adoption of the • Code enforcement authorities
most recent model building codes should incentivize buildings that
when they are published and significantly exceed the minimum
should set high goals for standards by offering expedited
enforcement. permitting or tax rebates. Expedited
permitting could also be offered
• Local jurisdictions should be to builders who consistently
allowed to adopt “stretch codes” demonstrate code compliance.

Policy Recommendations  17
 Success Story: Federal Standards Work

B uilding codes are set at the state level, but the American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act passed by Congress in February 2009 required states to pledge
adoption of the latest model building codes to be eligible for stimulus funding.
As a result, 2009 saw the largest wave of adoptions in code history, with 13 states
adopting new codes by the end of the year and almost 20 more currently in the
process of doing so. These states accounted for 60% of all new U.S. housing in
2008, and while some states already had codes that met or exceeded the new fed-
eral requirements, many had policies that hadn’t been updated in over a decade,
and some had no statewide code at all.34 Clearly, a federal mandate is the most
effective way to guarantee minimum standards across the board.

Retrofits and Weatherization: • The federal government should

promote energy efficient mortgages
Maximizing the Efficiency of that allow borrowers to finance cost-
Existing Buildings effective energy-saving measures as
part of a single mortgage.
At the federal level:
At the state and local level:
• Utilities should be required to invest
in energy efficiency upgrades when- • States should require energy effi-
ever doing so would cost less than ciency audits at the time a building
adding extra generating capacity. is sold, and the results should be dis-
closed to prospective buyers so they
• The Home Star and Building Star are aware of the building’s energy
programs should be established and performance.
funded to help consumers and busi-
ness owners pay for energy efficiency • Programs should be established to
improvements in their homes. These help fund energy audits, weatheriza-
proposed programs would grant tion, retrofits, and on-site renewable
thousands of dollars in rebates to energy generation. Possible funding
consumers and businesses that pur- mechanisms include:
chase efficiency upgrades.
o Direct subsidies to help lower
• Federal funding should also be avail- costs
able for state and local programs that
perform retrofits and weatherization. o Tax rebates to consumers

18  Building Better

 Success Story:
The Massachusetts Green Communities Act (2008)

I n addition to updating the state building code, the Green Communities Act
established the Green Communities Program, which awards millions of dollars
in grant funding to individual communities that meet a number of environmen-
tal criteria, most notably the enactment of a set of stretch building codes that
are 15 percent more efficient than the state’s already high minimum codes. The
Act also requires utilities to offer rebates for customer efficiency upgrades when
doing so would cost less than generating the extra electricity. These measures
are expected to reduce fossil fuel use in Massachusetts’ buildings by at least 10
percent over the next 10 years.

o Low-interest loans that consum- • States should establish energy per-

ers can pay back as they begin to formance benchmarking systems to
reap the benefits of lower energy educate consumers about building
bills energy use. The information about
energy performance should be made
o Property assessed clean energy available to a building’s occupants
(PACE) bonds, in which the and to potential buyers at time of
costs of renewable energy and sale.
energy efficiency improvements
are repaid over several years • States should expand programs that
via an annual assessment on offer free or heavily discounted
the property taxes, significantly weatherization and retrofits to low-
lowering the price of the initial income families.
investment.

Success Story: The Weatherization Assistance Program

T he Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was

created in 1976 to assist low-income families who lacked the resources to invest
in energy efficiency. Since then, it has funded the weatherization of over 6 million
homes, with an average energy use reduction of 23 percent. Low-income families
saved an average of $350 a year on energy costs, and all told, every dollar invested
in WAP returned $2.73 in energy savings and new jobs.

Policy Recommendations  19
 Success Story:
Oregon’s 2009 Building Efficiency Package

I n 2009, Oregon passed two bills that together provide free energy audits to ho-
meowners, fund low-interest PACE loans for energy retrofits, require signifi-
cant improvements in energy codes, and establish an energy performance rating
system for all buildings so owners and potential buyers can monitor a building’s
energy use and compare it to other buildings of similar size. These measures
support Oregon’s 2012 goal of increasing efficiency by 15 percent in commercial
buildings and 25 percent in residential buildings.

Forward-thinking policies like those the amount of money we spend, and the
outlined above have shown us how much amount of global warming pollution we
we can achieve. It’s time to put those les- emit into the atmosphere. We already
sons to work in cities and states around know how to achieve vast gains in effi-
the country. By enacting strong policies at ciency, and strong policies can put these
every level of government, setting a high building methods and technologies into
minimum standard and exceeding it wher- widespread use so that inefficient, waste-
ever possible, we can secure the greatest ful buildings become a thing of the past.
possible overall energy savings. All we need is the commitment from our
Making our buildings more efficient leaders to make this vision a reality.
reduces the amount of energy we use,

20  Building Better

Appendices

Appendices  21
 Appendix A.
Total Building Energy Consumption (Quads), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama 0.25946 0.20730 0.32395 0.18148 0.39631 20% 36% 30% 54%
Alaska 0.02991 0.02549 0.04060 0.02239 0.04872 15% 37% 25% 54%
Arizona 0.36541 0.36527 0.60432 0.32066 0.70787 0% 40% 12% 55%
Arkansas 0.14484 0.12481 0.19725 0.11070 0.24784 14% 37% 24% 55%
California 1.45888 1.23766 1.95296 1.08351 2.34347 15% 37% 26% 54%
Colorado 0.30459 0.25282 0.40070 0.21899 0.47199 17% 37% 28% 54%
Connecticut 0.27268 0.21200 0.32337 0.18477 0.39434 22% 34% 32% 53%
Delaware 0.04863 0.04137 0.06421 0.03575 0.07765 15% 36% 26% 54%
Dist. of Columbia 0.05090 0.03545 0.05318 0.03001 0.06719 30% 33% 41% 55%
Florida 1.02460 0.99942 1.65133 0.87243 1.97213 2% 39% 15% 56%
Georgia 0.48366 0.43148 0.68418 0.37406 0.82350 11% 37% 23% 55%
Hawaii 0.05631 0.04353 0.06609 0.03800 0.07975 23% 34% 33% 52%
Idaho 0.08402 0.07338 0.11642 0.06403 0.13685 13% 37% 24% 53%
Illinois 0.96686 0.75971 1.17408 0.65957 1.43255 21% 35% 32% 54%
Indiana 0.48585 0.38920 0.60445 0.33925 0.73516 20% 36% 30% 54%
Iowa 0.19955 0.15020 0.22719 0.12972 0.26699 25% 34% 35% 51%
Kansas 0.18411 0.14289 0.21980 0.12358 0.25808 22% 35% 33% 52%
Kentucky 0.23966 0.19396 0.30187 0.16953 0.36902 19% 36% 29% 54%
Louisiana 0.22975 0.18417 0.28603 0.16257 0.36252 20% 36% 29% 55%
Maine 0.11904 0.09244 0.13968 0.08117 0.16924 22% 34% 32% 52%
Maryland 0.30122 0.25859 0.40728 0.22352 0.49308 14% 37% 26% 55%
Massachusetts 0.52290 0.41122 0.63536 0.35829 0.77460 21% 35% 31% 54%
Michigan 0.78878 0.61673 0.94117 0.53755 1.14679 22% 34% 32% 53%
Minnesota 0.35834 0.29390 0.45817 0.25448 0.53770 18% 36% 29% 53%
Mississippi 0.16791 0.12805 0.19594 0.11165 0.22766 24% 35% 34% 51%
Missouri 0.39039 0.30558 0.47195 0.26503 0.55292 22% 35% 32% 52%
Montana 0.06029 0.04734 0.07226 0.04103 0.08524 21% 34% 32% 52%
Nebraska 0.12058 0.09303 0.14314 0.08031 0.16842 23% 35% 33% 52%
Nevada 0.15998 0.15965 0.26054 0.13938 0.30534 0% 39% 13% 54%
New Hampshire 0.10969 0.09356 0.14669 0.08200 0.17712 15% 36% 25% 54%
New Jersey 0.63910 0.53898 0.84244 0.47099 1.06023 16% 36% 26% 56%
New Mexico 0.11620 0.09156 0.13880 0.07936 0.16369 21% 34% 32% 52%
New York 1.40393 1.09949 1.68788 0.96202 2.14397 22% 35% 31% 55%
North Carolina 0.48193 0.43971 0.70889 0.38261 0.84972 9% 38% 21% 55%

22  Building Better

Appendix A. (cont’d.)


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota 0.04666 0.03504 0.05296 0.03021 0.06224 25% 34% 35% 51%
Ohio 0.90255 0.69302 1.06157 0.60221 1.29657 23% 35% 33% 54%
Oklahoma 0.18637 0.15417 0.24382 0.13641 0.30774 17% 37% 27% 56%
Oregon 0.16653 0.14667 0.23643 0.12889 0.28310 12% 38% 23% 54%
Pennsylvania 0.94126 0.76009 1.17295 0.66504 1.47793 19% 35% 29% 55%
Rhode Island 0.08175 0.06326 0.09559 0.05535 0.11623 23% 34% 32% 52%
South Carolina 0.23274 0.20209 0.31927 0.17515 0.38377 13% 37% 25% 54%
South Dakota 0.05438 0.04260 0.06533 0.03674 0.07672 22% 35% 32% 52%
Tennessee 0.35900 0.31337 0.50047 0.27373 0.60844 13% 37% 24% 55%
Texas 1.18960 1.17614 1.92830 1.04197 2.38041 1% 39% 12% 56%
Utah 0.13960 0.12683 0.20694 0.10965 0.24318 9% 39% 21% 55%
Vermont 0.05571 0.04502 0.06927 0.03944 0.08387 19% 35% 29% 53%
Virginia 0.41471 0.36454 0.57995 0.31549 0.69991 12% 37% 24% 55%
Washington 0.28202 0.25235 0.41154 0.22211 0.49234 11% 39% 21% 55%
West Virginia 0.09794 0.07482 0.11285 0.06476 0.13645 24% 34% 34% 53%
Wisconsin 0.45339 0.36619 0.56481 0.31905 0.68679 19% 35% 30% 54%
Wyoming 0.03313 0.02493 0.03748 0.02155 0.04428 25% 33% 35% 51%
US Total 18.26729 15.38111 24.20168 13.42815 29.42760 16% 36% 26% 54%

Appendices  23
 Appendix B.
Per Worker Commercial Energy Spending (2007 $), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama $769.99 $667.19 $1,097.33 $473.40 $1,201.22 13% 39% 39% 61%
Alaska $710.51 $496.11 $805.93 $348.63 $840.15 30% 38% 51% 59%
Arizona $743.27 $615.25 $1,041.12 $433.54 $1,085.70 17% 41% 42% 60%
Arkansas $671.11 $657.56 $1,079.21 $464.37 $1,152.18 2% 39% 31% 60%
California $712.91 $500.11 $808.11 $351.25 $841.58 30% 38% 51% 58%
Colorado $736.19 $618.70 $1,019.89 $435.81 $1,071.75 16% 39% 41% 59%
Connecticut $1,054.20 $1,073.57 $1,712.66 $762.61 $1,909.95 -2% 37% 28% 60%
Delaware $910.46 $856.65 $1,385.72 $608.42 $1,535.24 6% 38% 33% 60%
District of Columbia $873.71 $812.72 $1,248.06 $579.55 $1,444.77 7% 35% 34% 60%
Florida $912.83 $839.12 $1,439.08 $596.90 $1,570.31 8% 42% 35% 62%
Georgia $912.99 $851.83 $1,407.12 $605.25 $1,549.30 7% 39% 34% 61%
Hawaii $711.33 $512.07 $794.19 $359.12 $832.43 28% 36% 50% 57%
Idaho $739.56 $623.19 $1,025.88 $438.76 $1,075.69 16% 39% 41% 59%
Illinois $873.83 $852.41 $1,381.09 $605.68 $1,532.77 2% 38% 31% 60%
Indiana $878.80 $856.19 $1,399.93 $608.16 $1,545.15 3% 39% 31% 61%
Iowa $674.49 $588.06 $937.08 $416.79 $1,032.63 13% 37% 38% 60%
Kansas $673.43 $582.34 $945.65 $413.03 $1,038.26 14% 38% 39% 60%
Kentucky $773.47 $672.36 $1,100.45 $476.80 $1,203.27 13% 39% 38% 60%
Louisiana $668.06 $659.23 $1,063.79 $465.47 $1,142.04 1% 38% 30% 59%
Maine $1,061.23 $1,084.89 $1,724.22 $770.05 $1,917.54 -2% 37% 27% 60%
Maryland $902.56 $843.06 $1,380.39 $599.49 $1,531.73 7% 39% 34% 61%
Massachusetts $1,051.21 $1,063.74 $1,718.49 $756.15 $1,913.78 -1% 38% 28% 60%
Michigan $879.96 $864.16 $1,388.77 $613.40 $1,537.82 2% 38% 30% 60%
Minnesota $675.91 $583.14 $956.90 $413.56 $1,045.66 14% 39% 39% 60%
Mississippi $594.67 $513.52 $838.73 $364.10 $917.09 14% 39% 39% 60%
Missouri $672.70 $580.10 $946.57 $411.56 $1,038.87 14% 39% 39% 60%
Montana $737.75 $634.95 $1,012.19 $446.50 $1,066.69 14% 37% 39% 58%
Nebraska $672.78 $581.44 $943.42 $412.44 $1,036.80 14% 38% 39% 60%
Nevada $745.84 $624.50 $1,041.17 $439.63 $1,085.74 16% 40% 41% 60%
New Hampshire $1,065.48 $1,076.68 $1,765.16 $764.65 $1,944.45 -1% 39% 28% 61%
New Jersey $1,011.78 $1,223.32 $2,003.15 $877.82 $2,331.77 -21% 39% 13% 62%
New Mexico $740.93 $639.95 $1,017.41 $449.78 $1,070.12 14% 37% 39% 58%
New York $994.26 $1,196.79 $1,925.39 $860.39 $2,280.67 -20% 38% 13% 62%
North Carolina $912.43 $844.21 $1,423.38 $600.25 $1,559.99 7% 41% 34% 62%

24  Building Better

Appendix B. (cont’d)

% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota $676.28 $590.98 $942.26 $418.71 $1,036.03 13% 37% 38% 60%
Ohio $876.07 $857.34 $1,381.88 $608.92 $1,533.29 2% 38% 30% 60%
Oklahoma $666.77 $652.49 $1,067.73 $461.04 $1,144.63 2% 39% 31% 60%
Oregon $713.70 $491.86 $815.04 $345.84 $846.13 31% 40% 52% 59%
Pennsylvania $1,012.40 $1,228.11 $1,998.04 $880.97 $2,328.41 -21% 39% 13% 62%
Rhode Island $1,057.32 $1,081.09 $1,710.98 $767.55 $1,908.84 -2% 37% 27% 60%
South Carolina $917.05 $854.37 $1,420.95 $606.92 $1,558.39 7% 40% 34% 61%
South Dakota $680.28 $590.64 $957.57 $418.49 $1,046.10 13% 38% 38% 60%
Tennessee $775.28 $668.34 $1,117.21 $474.16 $1,214.29 14% 40% 39% 61%
Texas $672.58 $652.59 $1,089.37 $461.10 $1,158.85 3% 40% 31% 60%
Utah $741.35 $612.00 $1,038.14 $431.41 $1,083.75 17% 41% 42% 60%
Vermont $1,062.77 $1,080.37 $1,746.67 $767.08 $1,932.30 -2% 38% 28% 60%
Virginia $906.92 $843.66 $1,398.58 $599.89 $1,543.69 7% 40% 34% 61%
Washington $712.59 $487.97 $815.17 $343.28 $846.22 32% 40% 52% 59%
West Virginia $912.56 $863.69 $1,374.31 $613.05 $1,527.74 5% 37% 33% 60%
Wisconsin $880.57 $862.45 $1,397.81 $612.28 $1,543.76 2% 38% 30% 60%
Wyoming $737.07 $639.76 $1,005.42 $449.65 $1,062.24 13% 36% 39% 58%
US Total $830.05 $780.47 $1,279.14 $554.36 $1,410.23 6% 39% 33% 61%

Appendices  25
 Appendix C.
Per Capita Residential Energy Spending (2007 $), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama $733.62 $609.17 $922.45 $484.54 $969.77 17% 34% 34% 50%
Alaska $543.67 $421.51 $667.47 $335.92 $702.08 22% 37% 38% 52%
Arizona $609.51 $511.83 $840.38 $405.89 $848.20 16% 39% 33% 52%
Arkansas $740.04 $712.52 $1,101.53 $570.62 $1,204.11 4% 35% 23% 53%
California $468.74 $366.49 $572.03 $291.94 $602.36 22% 36% 38% 52%
Colorado $627.30 $553.87 $855.16 $438.53 $866.95 12% 35% 30% 49%
Connecticut $923.87 $904.52 $1,333.00 $714.54 $1,345.48 2% 32% 23% 47%
Delaware $710.77 $618.20 $928.92 $490.00 $955.48 13% 33% 31% 49%
District of Columbia $798.49 $702.73 $990.04 $556.95 $1,035.19 12% 29% 30% 46%
Florida $753.51 $618.66 $1,009.38 $491.33 $1,030.04 18% 39% 35% 52%
Georgia $671.28 $573.22 $885.65 $454.62 $908.14 15% 35% 32% 50%
Hawaii $499.06 $395.66 $593.49 $315.02 $629.79 21% 33% 37% 50%
Idaho $598.90 $526.30 $819.19 $416.73 $829.25 12% 36% 30% 50%
Illinois $647.63 $576.41 $860.18 $457.16 $890.13 11% 33% 29% 49%
Indiana $697.64 $619.42 $929.74 $491.30 $961.03 11% 33% 30% 49%
Iowa $656.06 $536.41 $779.97 $422.51 $773.14 18% 31% 36% 45%
Kansas $653.33 $522.49 $774.51 $411.83 $768.18 20% 33% 37% 46%
Kentucky $716.88 $598.98 $902.36 $476.26 $947.76 16% 34% 34% 50%
Louisiana $698.35 $665.15 $1,006.57 $533.18 $1,114.12 5% 34% 24% 52%
Maine $1,180.38 $1,160.20 $1,702.48 $916.37 $1,718.16 2% 32% 22% 47%
Maryland $643.67 $551.87 $845.09 $437.67 $868.31 14% 35% 32% 50%
Massachusetts $940.27 $910.50 $1,357.99 $719.54 $1,370.43 3% 33% 23% 47%
Michigan $701.45 $630.47 $929.66 $499.83 $962.39 10% 32% 29% 48%
Minnesota $657.30 $513.14 $775.13 $404.76 $769.55 22% 34% 38% 47%
Mississippi $636.59 $509.61 $754.87 $401.67 $748.66 20% 32% 37% 46%
Missouri $676.62 $535.67 $800.74 $422.35 $794.46 21% 33% 38% 47%
Montana $647.29 $591.83 $876.88 $468.01 $890.51 9% 33% 28% 47%
Nebraska $660.57 $529.94 $783.89 $417.67 $777.33 20% 32% 37% 46%
Nevada $616.44 $524.79 $849.05 $415.94 $856.97 15% 38% 33% 51%
New Hampshire $1,012.71 $961.75 $1,464.54 $760.44 $1,476.00 5% 34% 25% 48%
New Jersey $792.39 $780.76 $1,178.68 $621.07 $1,240.97 1% 34% 22% 50%
New Mexico $620.94 $572.90 $840.16 $452.89 $853.42 8% 32% 27% 47%
New York $816.92 $805.48 $1,193.90 $640.89 $1,265.56 1% 33% 22% 49%
North Carolina $721.08 $606.93 $955.66 $481.62 $978.81 16% 36% 33% 51%

26  Building Better

Appendix C. (cont’d)

% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota $719.39 $592.44 $856.90 $466.54 $849.09 18% 31% 35% 45%
Ohio $696.57 $623.16 $919.55 $494.17 $953.45 11% 32% 29% 48%
Oklahoma $737.43 $700.86 $1,084.00 $561.83 $1,192.11 5% 35% 24% 53%
Oregon $563.06 $435.14 $693.93 $346.80 $728.88 23% 37% 38% 52%
Pennsylvania $873.02 $862.58 $1,279.69 $686.24 $1,355.00 1% 33% 21% 49%
Rhode Island $937.89 $922.73 $1,352.54 $728.79 $1,365.10 2% 32% 22% 47%
South Carolina $721.21 $620.30 $944.15 $491.90 $971.04 14% 34% 32% 49%
South Dakota $677.34 $547.91 $803.83 $431.71 $797.07 19% 32% 36% 46%
Tennessee $710.75 $588.04 $912.05 $467.65 $951.65 17% 36% 34% 51%
Texas $664.92 $645.67 $1,046.53 $516.39 $1,118.52 3% 38% 22% 54%
Utah $511.20 $441.52 $700.57 $349.83 $708.91 14% 37% 32% 51%
Vermont $1,109.34 $1,075.01 $1,602.25 $849.48 $1,616.22 3% 33% 23% 47%
Virginia $667.98 $568.85 $879.84 $451.24 $903.04 15% 35% 32% 50%
Washington $556.27 $426.52 $690.34 $340.05 $723.72 23% 38% 39% 53%
West Virginia $754.20 $667.28 $960.48 $528.73 $996.85 12% 31% 30% 47%
Wisconsin $721.00 $644.44 $961.76 $510.99 $993.54 11% 33% 29% 49%
Wyoming $654.10 $606.17 $882.11 $479.15 $897.09 7% 31% 27% 47%
US Total $685.12 $599.92 $923.36 $476.63 $959.07 12% 35% 30% 50%

Appendices  27
 Appendix D.
Global Warming Emissions from Buildings (MMT C02E), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama 14.9156 13.5670 22.0300 11.3673 27.7766 9% 38% 24% 59%

Alaska 2.1003 1.7834 2.8673 1.4986 3.4308 15% 38% 29% 56%
Arizona 48.4197 49.9925 83.3065 43.7088 98.8541 -3% 40% 10% 56%
Arkansas 21.0598 17.6166 27.7120 15.4593 33.7666 16% 36% 27% 54%
California 98.4269 82.7894 130.6734 72.4054 156.7816 16% 37% 26% 54%
Colorado 40.6154 35.0924 56.1854 30.2993 67.4341 14% 38% 25% 55%
Connecticut 19.3315 14.6101 22.2606 12.7465 27.0373 24% 34% 34% 53%
Delaware 5.9871 4.9662 7.7338 4.3225 9.5398 17% 36% 28% 55%
District of Columbia 6.2073 4.0514 6.0618 3.4540 7.8822 35% 33% 44% 56%
Florida 144.4227 136.3003 226.8072 120.0563 274.7682 6% 40% 17% 56%
Georgia 66.0496 60.8855 97.2201 53.0026 119.4623 8% 37% 20% 56%
Hawaii 7.8799 6.1623 9.3934 5.3421 11.4351 22% 34% 32% 53%
Idaho 6.7302 5.7001 9.0735 4.9843 10.7616 15% 37% 26% 54%
Illinois 96.3720 75.3428 117.3570 65.3671 145.6355 22% 36% 32% 55%
Indiana 61.0093 50.8496 79.8919 44.1238 99.1026 17% 36% 28% 55%
Iowa 24.6208 18.2169 27.7413 15.8691 34.4089 26% 34% 36% 54%
Kansas 26.3204 21.8629 34.1360 19.0067 42.4874 17% 36% 28% 55%
Kentucky 39.5348 32.5802 50.9719 28.5446 63.2200 18% 36% 28% 55%
Louisiana 33.0559 26.0613 40.3726 22.7689 49.5297 21% 35% 31% 54%
Maine 8.4410 6.3926 9.6488 5.6170 11.6321 24% 34% 33% 52%
Maryland 33.3458 27.9289 44.1799 24.3182 54.4858 16% 37% 27% 55%
Massachusetts 37.0663 28.3207 43.7024 24.7010 53.0788 24% 35% 33% 53%
Michigan 97.7361 79.2467 122.2566 68.7771 151.9418 19% 35% 30% 55%
Minnesota 47.8112 39.2063 61.8780 34.2880 76.0885 18% 37% 28% 55%
Mississippi 17.4226 13.8955 21.5113 12.1837 26.2724 20% 35% 30% 54%
Missouri 46.8167 38.2191 59.8163 33.3657 73.7326 18% 36% 29% 55%
Montana 4.8341 3.6644 5.6086 3.1833 6.6901 24% 35% 34% 52%
Nebraska 15.7422 11.8837 18.4683 10.3557 22.8952 25% 36% 34% 55%
Nevada 13.6199 13.3058 21.8015 11.6268 25.7714 2% 39% 15% 55%
New Hampshire 7.7720 6.4439 10.0878 5.6516 12.1346 17% 36% 27% 53%
New Jersey 55.9057 46.3193 72.7342 40.4648 92.6207 17% 36% 28% 56%
New Mexico 15.9805 13.1198 20.0723 11.3292 24.1286 18% 35% 29% 53%
New York 100.6368 79.3010 122.1205 69.4108 156.5369 21% 35% 31% 56%
North Carolina 65.8013 62.2107 101.1178 54.3569 123.6399 5% 38% 17% 56%

28  Building Better

Appendix D. (cont’d)

% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota 6.1787 4.4982 6.8397 3.9138 8.5118 27% 34% 37% 54%
Ohio 113.6692 91.0413 141.1116 78.7946 176.1441 20% 35% 31% 55%
Oklahoma 34.7118 28.1214 44.2238 24.5700 53.8377 19% 36% 29% 54%
Oregon 13.6242 11.4137 18.4130 10.0381 22.0924 16% 38% 26% 55%
Pennsylvania 70.1222 55.5241 85.8856 48.6333 108.9650 21% 35% 31% 55%
Rhode Island 5.7954 4.3674 6.5927 3.8248 7.9798 25% 34% 34% 52%
South Carolina 31.7183 28.3717 45.1263 24.6866 55.4493 11% 37% 22% 55%
South Dakota 6.7352 5.1615 7.9765 4.4914 9.8428 23% 35% 33% 54%
Tennessee 45.1966 40.3156 64.7355 35.2904 79.7133 11% 38% 22% 56%
Texas 169.0020 158.6111 258.0473 139.0811 312.2183 6% 39% 18% 55%
Utah 11.2476 9.8576 16.1557 8.5410 19.1671 12% 39% 24% 55%
Vermont 3.9492 3.1063 4.7737 2.7235 5.7547 21% 35% 31% 53%
Virginia 46.1296 41.7294 66.8339 36.2747 82.2820 10% 38% 21% 56%
Washington 23.0583 19.6426 32.0603 17.3025 38.4311 15% 39% 25% 55%
West Virginia 18.9514 14.7049 22.2713 12.7755 27.7621 22% 34% 33% 54%
Wisconsin 46.4932 37.1818 57.7727 32.3568 71.2955 20% 36% 30% 55%
Wyoming 2.6566 1.9260 2.9033 1.6696 3.4718 28% 34% 37% 52%
US Total 1981.2309 1683.4641 2668.5232 1468.9243 3277.8826 15% 37% 26% 55%

Appendices  29
 Appendix E.
Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings (Billion CF), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama 73.0688 56.7154 88.0688 49.3992 105.2199 22% 36% 32% 53%
Alaska 12.6977 10.1550 15.8640 9.0103 18.2593 20% 36% 29% 51%
Arizona 161.4871 157.9348 259.8313 139.5164 301.1286 2% 39% 14% 54%
Arkansas 43.7447 37.9698 59.9681 34.1360 76.8708 13% 37% 22% 56%
California 610.7734 485.7467 752.0035 429.8408 865.7473 20% 35% 30% 50%
Colorado 133.2583 106.4259 166.9201 92.6803 193.2549 20% 36% 30% 52%
Connecticut 82.7312 64.3067 97.7628 57.0448 122.9417 22% 34% 31% 54%
Delaware 10.8059 8.7808 13.4879 7.6228 15.8690 19% 35% 29% 52%
District of Columbia 10.7727 7.2369 10.8183 6.1427 13.1805 33% 33% 43% 53%
Florida 229.9623 213.1787 347.8238 186.8519 406.3869 7% 39% 19% 54%
Georgia 107.7521 91.6500 143.6800 79.8039 168.6128 15% 36% 26% 53%
Hawaii 23.3627 17.2015 25.7558 15.1821 29.6495 26% 33% 35% 49%
Idaho 37.0452 31.4022 49.4146 27.5616 57.3054 15% 36% 26% 52%
Illinois 494.8446 370.8874 565.6102 324.1523 667.4605 25% 34% 34% 51%
Indiana 251.6854 191.8865 293.9047 168.3316 346.0460 24% 35% 33% 51%
Iowa 91.1457 62.1242 91.8850 53.3995 95.7377 32% 32% 41% 44%
Kansas 83.9826 58.1821 86.9268 50.0484 90.8292 31% 33% 40% 45%
Kentucky 67.4760 52.9970 81.9948 46.0885 97.9201 21% 35% 32% 53%
Louisiana 68.5330 54.6933 84.7255 48.9621 109.8384 20% 35% 29% 55%
Maine 37.0335 29.0111 43.7073 25.9218 54.9160 22% 34% 30% 53%
Maryland 66.7414 54.7627 85.2922 47.5411 100.4966 18% 36% 29% 53%
Massachusetts 158.1657 124.6095 192.2510 110.5062 241.2704 21% 35% 30% 54%
Michigan 409.6021 305.4710 460.4384 267.9606 542.3460 25% 34% 35% 51%
Minnesota 161.5811 115.4576 174.0818 99.3464 182.9757 29% 34% 39% 46%
Mississippi 78.5337 53.7740 79.9449 46.6008 82.4267 32% 33% 41% 43%
Missouri 178.6922 124.2081 185.9345 107.0719 193.9784 30% 33% 40% 45%
Montana 26.4702 20.0120 30.2467 17.4352 35.0792 24% 34% 34% 50%
Nebraska 54.8377 37.8933 56.6350 32.5437 59.2808 31% 33% 41% 45%
Nevada 70.1293 68.1881 110.6008 59.9241 128.0141 3% 38% 15% 53%
New Hampshire 33.9497 29.7761 46.7818 26.5601 57.9858 12% 36% 22% 54%
New Jersey 277.1175 236.2615 369.3871 207.8475 467.8399 15% 36% 25% 56%
New Mexico 51.0423 38.6459 57.9868 33.6827 67.2961 24% 33% 34% 50%
New York 609.5504 481.9059 739.8433 424.6817 946.1913 21% 35% 30% 55%
North Carolina 108.2341 93.9539 149.5734 82.1002 174.9762 13% 37% 24% 53%

30  Building Better

Appendix E. (cont’d)

% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota 21.3485 14.5519 21.5166 12.4974 22.4162 32% 32% 41% 44%
Ohio 465.6115 341.0166 515.5694 298.3096 608.2293 27% 34% 36% 51%
Oklahoma 55.7771 46.2377 73.0972 41.4805 94.2094 17% 37% 26% 56%
Oregon 71.0077 58.1411 91.6652 51.6056 105.4980 18% 37% 27% 51%
Pennsylvania 411.4764 334.7455 516.4055 294.8107 654.1040 19% 35% 28% 55%
Rhode Island 25.1417 19.5610 29.4569 17.4193 37.0439 22% 34% 31% 53%
South Carolina 52.2692 43.1463 67.3071 37.5651 78.8071 17% 36% 28% 52%
South Dakota 24.6756 17.2302 25.7184 14.7956 26.9216 30% 33% 40% 45%
Tennessee 101.0790 85.1122 134.9552 73.9773 160.6660 16% 37% 27% 54%
Texas 357.6607 363.6029 597.8182 326.3124 746.6864 -2% 39% 9% 56%
Utah 60.6878 52.7894 85.1247 45.9141 98.4203 13% 38% 24% 53%
Vermont 17.2139 14.0937 21.6623 12.5670 27.0686 18% 35% 27% 54%
Virginia 92.1127 77.2239 121.4004 67.1261 142.7552 16% 36% 27% 53%
Washington 120.5846 100.2748 159.8245 89.1105 183.9522 17% 37% 26% 52%
West Virginia 22.1949 16.2324 24.2357 14.1138 28.3772 27% 33% 36% 50%
Wisconsin 234.1952 180.1067 274.2431 157.9372 322.9185 23% 34% 33% 51%
Wyoming 14.5243 10.5007 15.6337 9.1250 18.1323 28% 33% 37% 50%
US Total 7064.3715 5667.9726 8794.7851 4980.1664 10473.5377 20% 36% 30% 52%

Appendices  31
 Appendix F.
Fuel Oil Consumption in Buildings (Million Gal), State and National


% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

Alabama 2.4072 5.5857 10.2738 5.7718 22.1692 -132% 46% -140% 74%
Alaska 2.6026 1.5892 2.2819 1.3712 2.0063 39% 30% 47% 32%
Arizona 1.5369 4.4488 8.3429 3.7895 12.0122 -189% 47% -147% 68%
Arkansas 0.4458 0.3209 0.4991 0.2544 0.5276 28% 36% 43% 52%
California 123.7596 75.5734 108.5418 65.1171 95.4528 39% 30% 47% 32%
Colorado 1.2559 3.4688 6.4057 2.9921 9.8040 -176% 46% -138% 69%
Connecticut 644.6827 424.7753 621.3936 372.4115 647.6588 34% 32% 42% 42%
Delaware 6.9496 4.4522 6.4558 3.8772 6.1331 36% 31% 44% 37%
District of Columbia 6.1224 3.4383 5.1063 2.9118 4.6163 44% 33% 52% 37%
Florida 150.2590 102.9120 153.8622 90.2474 149.7490 32% 33% 40% 40%
Georgia 69.4648 45.4812 66.5572 39.6986 63.7527 35% 32% 43% 38%
Hawaii 4.7430 2.8824 4.1315 2.4804 3.6249 39% 30% 48% 32%
Idaho 0.3359 0.9118 1.6647 0.7821 2.5014 -171% 45% -133% 69%
Illinois 94.5053 62.4261 91.0834 55.8793 93.2058 34% 31% 41% 40%
Indiana 50.1626 33.4184 48.8881 29.9211 50.0603 33% 32% 40% 40%
Iowa 3.8147 9.2508 16.0067 8.0281 25.9975 -143% 42% -110% 69%
Kansas 3.4367 8.8475 15.7456 7.6708 25.0942 -157% 44% -123% 69%
Kentucky 2.6055 5.6412 9.9838 5.7411 20.7529 -117% 43% -120% 72%
Louisiana 0.7838 0.5462 0.8389 0.4324 0.8824 30% 35% 45% 51%
Maine 293.7283 195.9334 285.7323 172.8642 299.6877 33% 31% 41% 42%
Maryland 42.6778 27.4438 40.0055 23.8768 38.0250 36% 31% 44% 37%
Massachusetts 1230.5657 815.3737 1201.5536 714.5515 1253.0930 34% 32% 42% 43%
Michigan 82.3484 54.2424 78.7050 48.5455 80.3678 34% 31% 41% 40%
Minnesota 7.0351 18.6511 33.5287 16.1009 52.2001 -165% 44% -129% 69%
Mississippi 2.6440 6.7831 12.1082 5.8548 18.9072 -157% 44% -121% 69%
Missouri 6.8702 17.9332 32.1702 15.5561 51.1692 -161% 44% -126% 70%
Montana 0.2441 0.6128 1.0726 0.5283 1.6836 -151% 43% -116% 69%
Nebraska 2.3160 5.9345 10.5637 5.1513 16.9169 -156% 44% -122% 70%
Nevada 0.7892 2.1845 3.9949 1.8557 5.7511 -177% 45% -135% 68%
New Hampshire 261.7187 185.0277 276.4748 163.1685 291.9500 29% 33% 38% 44%
New Jersey 781.1915 516.3382 758.4916 449.5269 758.3427 34% 32% 42% 41%
New Mexico 0.4970 1.2250 2.1199 1.0506 3.2704 -146% 42% -111% 68%
New York 1761.2023 1133.7796 1652.3372 987.1213 1640.4017 36% 31% 44% 40%
North Carolina 71.3010 47.2187 69.5588 41.3241 66.9958 34% 32% 42% 38%

32  Building Better

Appendix F. (cont’d)

% red % red % red % red

2030 2030 2050 2050 2010 from base 2010 from base
State 2010 Policy Base Policy Base to 2030 in 2030 to 2050 in 2050

North Dakota 0.9253 2.2628 3.9059 1.9578 6.2709 -145% 42% -112% 69%
Ohio 91.6402 59.6015 86.5003 53.3254 88.1711 35% 31% 42% 40%
Oklahoma 0.6220 0.4365 0.6763 0.3457 0.7123 30% 35% 44% 51%
Oregon 14.5004 8.8818 12.7668 7.6705 11.2421 39% 30% 47% 32%
Pennsylvania 1192.1784 774.7915 1130.9819 675.5507 1123.8141 35% 31% 43% 40%
Rhode Island 197.4808 130.8776 190.7455 115.1234 199.4281 34% 31% 42% 42%
South Carolina 34.6287 22.2886 32.4481 19.4732 30.9642 36% 31% 44% 37%
South Dakota 1.1548 2.8988 5.1011 2.4953 7.9310 -151% 43% -116% 69%
Tennessee 5.0659 12.3685 22.4352 12.1314 38.8964 -144% 45% -139% 69%
Texas 4.0641 2.9890 4.7060 2.3716 4.9910 26% 36% 42% 52%
Utah 0.6958 2.0285 3.8367 1.7327 5.5679 -192% 47% -149% 69%
Vermont 134.9276 91.7735 135.2209 80.8733 142.0589 32% 32% 40% 43%
Virginia 59.1604 38.3689 56.1272 33.4317 53.5528 35% 32% 43% 38%
Washington 24.6679 15.1099 21.7249 13.0520 19.1310 39% 30% 47% 32%
West Virginia 15.2396 9.3910 13.4565 8.1969 12.6681 38% 30% 46% 35%
Wisconsin 46.1860 30.9728 45.2045 27.7335 46.3428 33% 31% 40% 40%
Wyoming 0.1341 0.3216 0.5516 0.2782 0.8869 -140% 42% -107% 69%
US Total 7538.2756 5030.0152 7402.8693 4402.1978 7607.3933 33% 32% 42% 42%

Appendices  33
 Appendix G. Decade-by-Decade National Data

Total Building Energy Consumption (Quads)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 18.26728842 18.26728839
2020 17.49689164 21.25441180
2030 15.38110630 24.20168359
2040 14.47469673 26.85684247
2050 13.42815213 29.42759969

Per Worker Commercial Energy Spending (2007 $)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 $830.05 $830.05
2020 $878.37 $1,083.00
2030 $780.47 $1,279.14
2040 $662.59 $1,352.51
2050 $554.36 $1,410.23

Per Capita Residential Energy Spending (2007 $)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 $685.12 $685.12
2020 $697.55 $841.42
2030 $599.92 $923.36
2040 $536.30 $942.83
2050 $476.63 $959.07

Global Warming Emissions from Buildings (MMT CO2E)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 1981.230889 1981.230885
2020 1,904.310000 2319.578919
2030 1683.464142 2668.52321
2040 1584.427232 2978.60950
2050 1468.924317 3277.8826190

Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings (Billion CF)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 7064.37 7064.37
2020 6570.32 7944.18
2030 5667.97 8794.79
2040 5347.10 9646.06
2050 4980.17 10473.54

34  Building Better

Appendix G. (cont’d)

Fuel Oil Consumption in Buildings (Million Gal)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 7538.275584 7538.275575
2020 6298.2314 7484.969247
2030 5030.015187 7402.869306
2040 4718.849173 7499.298823
2050 4402.19777 7607.393309

Electricity Consumption in Buildings (Billion KWh)

Policy Case Base Case
2010 2532.53 2532.53
2020 2527.60 3088.09
2030 2277.99 3643.33
2040 2139.10 4094.72
2050 1976.59 4529.09

Appendices  35
 Methodology

Building Energy Use tion engaged in commercial work between

2000 and 2030, and held that percentage
Analysis constant after 2030 to obtain estimates for
2040 and 2050. For any state in a given
Population and Building Demand year, our estimate of commercial square
All assumptions regarding demand for footage required is equal to (YEAR popu-
building space were based on a combina- lation * YEAR workers/resident * STATE
tion of US census data on population and square feet/resident). The workers/resi-
existing ratios of building requirements to dent figure for each state in the years in
population. Demand for housing units was between 2000 and 2030 is equal to ((2030
obtained by holding the ratio of housing workers / resident – 2000 workers/resi-
units from the 2005 census estimates con- dent) / 30 * (YEAR-2000)).
stant over time, and multiplying it by pop- The census bureau estimates popula-
ulation estimates for other years. Thus, tion down to the state level for each year
for any state in a given year the estimated ending in 5 or 0, up to 2030. To obtain
number of housing units needed is (2005 estimates for years in between these years,
housing units / 2005 population * YEAR we assumed steady population growth dur-
population). ing the intervening periods. To carry state
Estimates for commercial space re- level population projections past 2030, we
quirements are more difficult to obtain. held the relationship between each indi-
The 2004 Brookings Institution Metro- vidual state’s growth rate and the national
politan Policy Program report “Toward a growth rate constant, and distributed the
New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Re- additional population projected by the
build America” contains privately generat- census bureau’s national level estimates
ed estimates of the number of commercial for 2040 and 2050 accordingly. No esti-
workers in 2000 and 2030, and of the space mates for intervening years were required
that they require. To extrapolate those fig- for this period. State population in 2040
ures for other years, we assumed a steady and 2050 is determined by the following
change in the percentage of the popula- equation: ((2030 state population / 2000 state

36  Building Better

population) / (2030 US population) / 2000 * (2000s buildings energy intensity / na-
US population)) * (YEAR US population / tional average energy intensity) * national
2000 US population) * 2000 state popula- average energy intensity
tion. Separate energy intensity numbers were
derived for each fuel.
Building Energy Intensity The RECS and CBECS data we used
The underlying data for all building en- had to be adjusted to match the housing
ergy intensity assumptions is drawn from units and commercial square feet data we
two Energy Information Administration were using in our census-based projections.
publications, the 2003 Commercial Build- The RECS provides its data by household,
ing Energy Consumption Survey and the rather than by existing housing unit; we
2005 Residential Energy Consumption multiplied all our energy intensity num-
Survey. bers by the ratio of housing units found by
We extracted two sets of data from the census to households counted in the
these reports. First, we used the reports’ RECS to establish the correct balance of
regional estimates of energy use, square population and energy consumption. The
feet of commercial building space, and CBECS, meanwhile, counts commercial
number of households to produce energy square feet nationwide, but arrived at an
intensity figures for both residential and appreciably different count than did the
commercial buildings in each census divi- private estimate used in the Brookings re-
sion. Next, we divided the overall energy port. Since only the latter dataset provided
intensity of each of those categories as a by a state by state level breakdown of com-
the energy intensity of average US build- mercial space, we adjusted the energy in-
ings. We performed the same calculation tensity figures obtained by the CBECS to
for buildings constructed in the 2000s. match an underlying building stock of the
We assumed that the improved efficiency size suggested by the Brookings report.
of buildings was approximately constant Neither of these adjustments affects our
across regions, and multiplied each region’s model’s output for overall or per capita
ratio by the ratio of 2000s buildings to all energy consumption.
buildings to obtain a ratio of the energy The components of the building stock
intensity of 2000s buildings in each region in our model were assigned energy inten-
to the energy intensity of average existing sities as follows:
US buildings, and multiplied this figure by
the average energy intensity of US build- • Buildings existing as of the 2003
ings to obtain an estimate of the energy CBECS and 2005 RECS were
intensity of buildings constructed in the treated as uniformly having the en-
2000s in each census division. We assumed ergy intensity of an average building
that energy intensity was constant across in their state from that survey.
census divisions to assign energy intensity
figures to each state. The energy intensity • Buildings constructed between those
for 2000s buildings in census division was years and 2010 were assumed to
determined as follows: have the same energy intensity as an
For any category, energy intensity = average existing building constructed
Btus consumed / square feet (commercial) after 2000.
or households (residential)
Census division 2000s buildings energy • In the base case scenario, buildings
intensity = (Census division energy inten- constructed after 2010 were also
sity / national average energy intensity) assumed to have the same energy

Methodologies  37
 intensity as average 2000s buildings In each case, then, the building stock
in their state. for a given year consists of:

• In the policy case, 90% of buildings • Policy Case:

constructed after 2010 were as-
sumed to comply with more stringent o Surviving pre-2003/2005 build-
building codes and use less energy ings. This number declines every
than 2000s buildings by the amount year as buildings are renovated
prescribed by the policy. The re- and demolished, reaching 0 in
maining, noncompliant buildings 2030.
were assumed to use as much energy
as 2000s buildings. o Buildings constructed 2003/5-
2010. These buildings are not
Building Stock Composition renovated, but do decline every
Following the 2004 Brookings Institution year due to demolition.
report cited above, we assumed an an-
nual rate of loss of 1.37% for commercial o Renovated buildings. These suf-
buildings, and .63% for residential build- fer demolition losses every year,
ings. The building stock in each year, then, but are replenished by a stock of
was composed of the existing building newly renovated buildings every
stock from the previous year, minus build- year until 2030.
ing space destroyed in that year, and plus
whatever new construction was required o Post-2010 new construction:
to make up the losses and expand the Each year, the number of build-
building stock to meet the current year’s ings required to make up the
needs. Under the policy case, a portion of difference between the number
the old building stock was renovated each of buildings remaining from the
year and transferred into the retrofitted previous year’s total and the total
building stock. number of buildings needed in
Loss rates were applied equally to all that year is added to the pool
buildings, irrespective of when they were as that year’s stock of newly
constructed. For instance, our model as- constructed buildings. Once
sumes that, each year, 1.37% of still-stand- constructed, those buildings are
ing commercial square footage from the demolished at the same rate as
1920s will be demolished, and 1.37% of other buildings.
the commercial square footage constructed
the previous year will also be demolished. • Base Case:
This assumption contributes to conserva-
tive estimates of the difference between o Surviving pre-2003/2005 build-
the policy and base case scenarios, since in ings. The number of these
actuality older buildings are more likely to declines every year due to demo-
be demolished than newer buildings. As a lition.
result, our model gives a conservative es-
timate of the percentage of the building o Post-2003/2005 construction.
stock in each year that will be composed Any buildings required in a given
of post-2010 construction—and therefore year above the amount in the
also of the effect of the building codes we surviving pre-2003/2005 stock
are examining. are post 2003 construction. Since

38  Building Better

 all post-2003 buildings have of electricity delivered by utilities in each
identical energy efficiency in this EMM region in a state would remain con-
scenario, any building in this pool stant through 2020.
that is demolished is replaced by Emissions factors for direct consump-
a building that is fundamentally tion of fossil fuels are drawn from EIA,
identical for our concerns. Documentation for Emissions of Green-
house Gases in the United States 2006,
Cost and Pollution
 October 2008.
Energy cost estimates come from the En-
ergy Information Administration’s Annual
Energy Outlook 2009, Updated Reference
Case, April 2009. All states within a census
division were assumed to have identical en- Building Codes Analysis
ergy costs. Energy costs in 2040 and 2050 To analyze the impact of state building
were assumed to be the same as in 2030. codes, we began by cataloguing existing
Since the annual energy outlook does not building codes, and changes scheduled to
provide a cost estimate for kerosene, the come into effect in coming years. We also
2005 RECS cost estimate for kerosene was followed the Energy Information Adminis-
used for all years. All fuel oil used in com- tration in assuming that, by 2018, all states
mercial buildings was assumed to be distil- will adopt the 2009 IECC code for residen-
late fuel oil. tial construction and the ASHRAE 90.1-
To generate state-specific emission fac- 2007 code for commercial construction.36
tors for electricity generation, we relied on For estimates of building construc-
AEO 2009 Updated for data on projected tion and demolition rates, we followed
electricity generation and power plant the methodology of the 2004 Brookings
emissions for each EIA electricity mar- Institution Metropolitan Policy Program
ket module (EMM) region. For states in report “Toward a New Metropolis: The
a single EMM region, the emission factor Opportunity to Rebuild America.” That
was calculated by dividing carbon dioxide report estimated need for residential and
emissions by total electricity generation in commercial space based on constant ra-
the region, with both data points coming tios of state residents to residential units
from AEO 2009 Updated. and commercial workers to square feet of
For states with utilities in more than commercial space. It also provided a fig-
one EMM region, we used a weighted av- ure for the annual rate of loss of existing
erage emission factor, with the emission residential and commercial space for each
factors from the various EMM regions in state.
the state weighted by the percentage of To estimate residential construction, we
electricity sales by utilities in each region. multiplied the figure for residential units/
Utilities were assigned to EMM regions state resident in 2000 by the US census
using EIA’s Form 861 database for 2005 department’s estimate of the state’s popu-
(the last year in which Form 861 used lation in 2020. We used the difference be-
the same regional definitions as used in tween that figure and the existing number
AEO 2009 Updated). The one exception of residences in 2000 as the basis for our
to this was Iowa, where the 2004 version annual growth figures, assuming linear
of Form 861 was used. Electricity sales by growth during those years. To this annual
utility were based on the 2007 edition of growth figure, we added the annual loss
the Form 861 database. For future year figure, multiplied by the existing number
projections, it was assumed that the share of residential units in 2000, to obtain an

Methodologies  39
 estimate of the number of residential units existing code and the ASHRAE 90.1 2007
constructed each year. This form of esti- code in each climate zone of each state.
mation is conservative as a result of sub- For each climate zone in each state, we
tracting loss rates from a constant, rather used the estimates of electricity usage and
than expanding, baseline, and as a result of natural gas usage under both standards to
using the Brookings report’s intentionally obtain an annual, per square foot reduc-
conservative numbers. tion number from the old standard to 90.1
To estimate commercial construction, 2007. We then combined the climate zone
we took the Brookings report’s figure for numbers into a weighted average for the
the size of the commercial workforce in state as a whole. We then credited each
each state in 2030, and assumed a con- state with the reduction that would result
stant rate of growth 2000-2030 to obtain from construction between the adoption of
estimates for annual growth and the size the 2007 standard and 2020. (We assumed
of the workforce in 2020. We multiplied that ASHRAE 90.1-2007 would be adopt-
this annual growth number by the ratio ed in 2018 in all states that had not made
of square footage of commercial space to specific plans to adopt it sooner.) For four
workers that the Brookings report pro- states (Washington, Oregon, California,
vides for each state to obtain an estimate and Florida), we were not able to obtain
for growth in commercial space each year. estimates, since they use building codes of
We then derived a number for square feet their own that differ significantly from the
lost each year, and total annual construc- codes the DOE modeled.
tion, in a manner directly analogous to
that used for residential construction. As Impact of Residential Codes
with our estimate of residential construc- The basis for our estimate of the impact
tion, this estimate is conservative in its es- of residential code changes is the data
timation of annual construction rates. compiled on the effect of the transition
We next broke down each state’s popu- from the 2006 IECC to the 2009 IECC
lation by DOE climate zone. To do this in each climate zone compiled by ICF In-
we combined a list of which counties fall ternational for the Energy Efficient Codes
into each climate zone with the US cen- Coalition.37 This source provided us with
sus’s estimates of 2008 population for each an estimate of electricity and natural gas
county. By this method, we were able to savings per residential unit in each climate
identify what percentage of each state’s zone. We took weighted averages of these
population falls into each climate zone numbers for each state to produce state-
that state contains. We used these popu- wide per-unit savings figures, and then
lation breakdowns as a proxy for break- followed the same methodology as with
downs of new construction between the commercial codes to estimate the energy
state’s climate zones. savings in 2020 from the adoption of the
2009 IECC. (We assumed that the 2006
Impact of Commercial Codes IECC was the baseline standard in all
The basis for our analysis of the effect of states; this leads to an extremely conser-
commercial codes is an invaluable 2009 vative estimate of the savings estimated
report from the US Department of En- for upgrading to the 2009 version of that
ergy Building Energy Codes Program, code.) States were assumed to adopt the
“Impacts of Standard 90.1-2007 for Com- 2009 IECC by 2018, in the absence of
mercial Construction at State Level.” This plans calling for its adoption before that
report compares the efficiency of newly time. To estimate savings in Florida, we
constructed buildings built to the state’s used the Building Codes Assistance Proj-

40  Building Better

ect’s estimate that the Florida Residential ton and Oregon, we treated their existing
Construction code is 17% more efficient codes as equivalent to the 2006 IECC and
than the 2006 IECC, but 3% less efficient credited them, as with most other states,
than the 2009 IECC, to obtain a figure with the savings that would come from
for expected savings from the FRCC over transitioning to the 2009 IECC in 2018.
the 2006 IECC.38 In the case of Washing- No estimate was obtained for California.

Methodologies  41
 Notes

1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Information Administration, “International: Fiscal Year 2010 Budget-In-Brief, down-
Total Primary Energy Consumption,” loaded from www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/
downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/interna- budget_10.html, 5 January 2010.
tional/, 15 March 2010. 7 See Ceres and Mercer, Energy Efficiency
2 National Academy of Sciences, Real Pros- and Real Estate: Opportunities for Investors,
pects for Energy Efficiency in the United States, downloaded from www.ceres.org/reales-
downloaded from www.nap.edu/catalog. tatereport, 5 February 2010; and Norm G.
php?record_id=12621, 2 February 2010. Miller et al, University of San Diego Burn-
3 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy ham-Moores Center for Real Estate, Green
Information Administration, “Electric Buildings and Productivity, downloaded from
Sales, Revenue, and Price,” downloaded catcher.sandiego.edu/items/business/Pro-
from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/ ductivity_paper_with_CBRE_and_USD_
table5.html, 8 March 2010. Aug_2009-Miller_Pogue.pdf, 5 February
2010.
4 Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik, Frontier
Group, and Emily Figdor, Environment 8 Keith Schneider, New York Times,
America Research and Policy Center, The “After a Tornado, a Kansas Town Rebuilds
High Cost of Fossil Fuels: Why America Can’t Green,” downloaded from www.nytimes.
Afford to Depend on Dirty Energy, down- com/2009/09/23/realestate/commercial/
loaded from www.environmentamerica. 23kansas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2, 22
org/home/reports/report-archives/new-en- September 2009.
ergy-future/new-energy-future/the-high- 9 National Academy of Sciences, Real Pros-
cost-of-fossil-fuels, 15 October 2009. pects for Energy Efficiency in the United States,
5 Dr. Meg Powers, Economic Opportu- downloaded from www.nap.edu/catalog.
nity Studies, Fuel Poverty in the USA: The php?record_id=12621, 2 February 2010.
Overview and the Outlook, downloaded from 10 ibid.
www.opportunitystudies.org/repository/File/ 11 ibid.
fuel%20poverty.pdf, 5 February 2010.
12 See methodology.
6 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

42  Building Better

13 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 22 Austin Energy, “About the Energy Con-
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, servation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD)
2009 Buildings Energy Data Book, down- Ordinance,” downloaded from www.
loaded from buildingsdatabook.eere.energy. austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Environm
gov/, 7 January 2010. ental%20Initiatives/ordinance/index.htm,
14 Based on U.S. Department of Energy, 26 January 2010.
Energy Information Administration, 2005 23 State of Massachusetts, Energy and
Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Table Environmental Affairs “Zero Net Energy
HC3.4, downloaded from www.eia.doe. Buildings,” downloaded from www.mass.gov
gov/emeu/recs/, 7 January 2010. /?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home
15 U.S. Department of Energy, Weather- &L1=Energy%2C+Utilities+%26+Clean+T
ization Assistance Program, www.waptac. echnologies&L2=Energy+Efficiency&sid=E
org/sp.asp?id=1437, 15 December 2009. oeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_lbe_initia-
tives_zneb&csid=Eoeea, 1 September 2009.
16 Green Building Advisor, Remodel
Project: Deep Energy Retrofits, www. 24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
greenbuildingadvisor.com/green-basics/ Information Administration, “Natural Gas
remodel-project-deep-energy-retrofit, 8 Consumption by End Use,” downloaded
January 2010. from www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/
info_glance/natural_gas.html, 28 January
17 Smart Communities Network: Creating 2010.
Energy Smart Communities, “Block-By-
Block Weatherization Program,” down- 25 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
loaded from www.smartcommunities.ncat. Information Administration, “Residential
org/success/block.shtml, 15 October 2009. Heating Oil Prices: What Consumers
Should Know,” downloaded from www.eia.
18 Architecture 2030, “Local Government: doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/pe-
2030 Challenge Adopters,” downloaded troleum.html, 28 January 2010.
from www.architecture2030.org/regional_
solutions/city.html 26 January 2010. 26 StateMaster, “Energy Statistics: Oil
Consumption (Most Recent) By State,”
19 The White House, Office of the downloaded from www.statemaster.com/
Press Secretary, “President Obama Signs graph/ene_pet_con-energy-oil-consump-
an Executive Order Focused on Federal tion, 28 January 2010.
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance,” downloaded from 27 American Gas Association, Annual Sta-
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ tistics, “Average Residential Gas Consump-
President-Obama-signs-an-Executive-Or- tion and Costs,” downloaded from www.
der-Focused-on-Federal-Leadership-in-En- aga.org/Research/statistics/annualstats/
vironmental-Energy-and-Economic-Per- prices/AverageResidentialGasConsump-
formance, 26 January 2010. tionCosts.htm, 26 February 2010.

20 The White House, Council on Envi- 28 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

ronmental Quality, “Recovery Through Information Administration, Annual Energy
Retrofit,” downloaded from www.white- Outlook 2009 With Projections for 2030,
house.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initia- downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/
tives/retrofit, 19 October 2009. aeo/index.html, 5 January 2010.

21 State of Maine, Office of the Governor, 29 United Nations Statistics Division, De-
“Governor Baldacci Touts Weatherization partment of Economic and Social Affairs,
Partnerships,” downloaded from www. Millenium Development Goals Indicators,
maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topi downloaded from mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/
c=Gov+News&id=84417&v=Article-2006, SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=, 26 Feb-
26 January 2010. ruary 2010.
30 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Notes  43
 Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, 34 American Council for an Energy-Ef-
GridWorks, sites.energetics.com/grid- ficient Economy, The 2009 State Energy
works/grid.html, 8 January 2010. Efficiency Scorecard, downloaded from www.
31 Based on U.S. Department of Energy, aceee.org/pubs/e097.htm, October 2009;
Energy Information Administration, State and Building Code Assistance Project,
Energy Data Systems, Table S1, download- Code Status and Maps, downloaded from
ed from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_ bcap-energy.org/node/5.
seds.html, 27 January 2010. 35 U.S. Department of Energy, Weather-
32 Peter Behr, New York Times, “En- ization Assistance Program, www.waptac.
ergy Conservation Helps Stymie a Major org/sp.asp?id=1437, 15 December 2009.
Transmission Line,” downloaded from 36 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/06/ Information Administration, “An Updated
06climatewire-energy-conservation-helps- Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference
stymie-a-major-tra-71702.html, 6 January Case,” downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/
2010. oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/arra.html
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 37 Energy Efficient Codes Coalition,
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: downloaded from www.thirtypercent-
Building Codes for Energy Efficiency, down- solution.org/modules/news/article.
loaded from www.epa.gov/RDEE/docu- php?storyid=12, 6 January 2010.
ments/buildingcodesfactsheet.pdf, 8 Octo- 38 Building Codes Assistance Project,
ber 2009. “Code Status: Florida,” downloaded from
bcap-energy.org/node/61, 6 January 2010.

44  Building Better