Incremental Construction Cost Incremental Construction Cost - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Incremental Construction Cost Incremental Construction Cost Analysis for New Homes Robin Snyder, Program Director y , g

Building Codes Assistance Project

Or……… Or………

What’s the ’09 IECC going to cost home buyers i ? in my state?

Why BCAP Conducted the Analysis Why BCAP Conducted the Analysis

• Resistance to code adoption based on

assumed costs of meeting code

• Uncertainty amongst advocates on the true

costs

• DOE report, “Impacts of the 2009 IECC for

Residential Buildings at State Level” available Residential Buildings at State Level available

• RSMeans data

Analysis Doesn’t Include Analysis Doesn t Include

• DOE determined eleven states were at or
• DOE determined eleven states were at or

above ‘09 IECC Four states where DOE could not establish an

• Four states where DOE could not establish an

energy code equivalent as a starting point/baseline point/baseline

• Seven home rule states where DOE

d i d i i ibl i determined it was impossible to approximate a statewide code

Key Findings Key Findings

• Weighted Incremental Cost – $818.72

additional cost over life of the mortgage

• Weighted Energy Savings ‐ $243.37 annual

g gy g $ energy savings

• Bottom line: cost is much lower than claimed

by energy code opponents y gy pp

Methodology Methodology

• DOE defined construction changes required when
• O de

ed co st uct o c a ges equ ed e moving to 2009 IECC in each state

• Energy savings also defined by DOE

gy g y

• BCAP calculated construction costs using

RSMeans including materials, labor, overhead and profit.

1.

Incremental cost was determined for each climate zone in 29 states zone in 29 states

2.

State‐specific weighted averages are based on number of building permits

Weighted Average Incremental Cost Explanation

• The weighted average accounts for
• The weighted average accounts for

construction level in each climate zone, by state and included three data sets: state and included three data sets:

• New home housing permits by county (US Census)
• Climate zone of each county (ICC)

y ( )

• RS Means location factor (eg. construction costs in

some states and cities are higher than others)

• Yielded the most accurate incremental cost for

each state

Results Results

For each state where data was For each state where data was available, results included:

1.

Weighted Average

1.

Weighted Average Incremental Cost for state

2.

Median Energy Savings, sourced from DOE

3.

Simple Payback in years (i t l t/ di (incremental cost/median energy savings)

Clarification on Energy Cost Savings

Energy cost factors do not vary by state Energy cost factors do not vary by state. i Assumptions:

• Natural gas furnace
• Natural gas price = $1.20/therm
• Central electric a/c
• Central electric a/c
• Electricity price = $0.12/kWh

Incremental Cost by State Incremental Cost by State

State Weighted Average Incremental Cost Median Energy Savings Simple Payback Alabama 668.76 205.00 3.26 Arizona 559.49 217.00 2.58 Colorado 922.73 239.50 3.85 Connecticut 897.42 235.00 3.82 Georgia 675.36 206.00 3.28 Idaho 872.81 235.50 3.71 Kansas 799.27 260.50 1.71 Kentucky 773.92 336.00 2.30 Louisiana 572.43 188.50 3.04 Massachusetts 910.99 200.50 4.54 Mississippi 646.08 211.50 3.05

Incremental Cost by State (cont.) y ( )

State Weighted Average Incremental Cost Median Energy Savings Simple Payback Michigan 965 19 274 00 3 52 Michigan 965.19 274.00 3.52 Minnesota 1828.20 315.00 5.80 Missouri 875.28 459.00 1.91 Nevada 777.15 228.50 3.40 New Mexico 666.00 233.50 2.85 New York 835.82 259.00 3.23 North Carolina 1129.93 221.50 5.10 North Dakota 903.79 343.00 2.63 Ohio 765.43 229.00 3.34 Pennsylvania 697.79 240.50 2.90 South Carolina 692.74 207.00 3.35 South Dakota 1293.59 405.00 3.19 Utah 935.58 242.00 3.87 Vi i i 582 07 225 00 2 59 Virginia 582.07 225.00 2.59 Wisconsin 556.18 220.00 2.53 Wyoming 1280.47 391.00 3.27

Model House Model House

Model House Specifications Model House Specifications

Model House – 2,400 Sq. Foot House Components

• Sq. Feet

Ceiling 1,200 Window (U Factor/SHGC Factor) 357 Window (U Factor/SHGC Factor) 357 Wood Frame Wall 2,380 Floor 1,200 Basement Wall (If Applicable) 1,120 Slab (If Applicable) 1,200 Crawlspace (If Applicable) 1,200 Improved Duct Sealing/Testing Standard Cost Lighting Standard Cost

Statewide Incremental Cost (Example)

Iowa Incremental Cost Analysis Iowa Climate Zone 5

Components Current Practice 2009 IECC Change Per

• Sq. Ft
• Sq. Feet

Location Factor Total Change $ $ Ceiling (R‐Factor) 38 38 1,200 $.89 $ 0 Window (U Factor/SHGC Factor) .35/NR .35/NR 357 $.89 $ 0 Wood Frame Wall (R Factor) 19 20 $.19 2,380 $.89 $ 402.46 Floor (R Factor) 30 30 1,200 $.89 $ 0 Basement (R Factor) 10/13 10/13 1,120 $.89 $ 0 Slab (R Factor) 10, 2 ft 10, 2 ft 1,200 $.89 $ 0 Crawlspace (R Factor) 10/13 10/13 1,200 $.89 $ 0 Improved Duct Sealing/Testing $ 350 Lighting $ 50 Total $ 802.46

Statewide Incremental Cost (cont.) Statewide Incremental Cost (cont.)

Iowa Incremental Cost Analysis Iowa Climate Zone 6

Components Current Practice 2009 IECC Change Per

• Sq. Ft
• Sq. Feet

Location Factor Total Change $ $ Ceiling (R‐Factor) 49 49 1,200 $.78 $ 0 Window (U Factor/SHGC Factor) .35/NR .35/NR 357 $.78 $ 0 Wood Frame Wall (R Factor) 19 20 $.19 2,380 $.78 $ 352.72 Floor (R Factor) 30 30 1,200 $.78 $ 0 Basement (R Factor) 10/13 15/19 $.40 1,120 $.78 $ 349.44 Slab (R Factor) 10, 4 ft 10, 4 ft 1,200 $.78 $ 0 Crawlspace (R Factor) 10/13 10/13 1,200 $.78 $ 0 Improved Duct Sealing/Testing $ 350 Lighting $ 50 Total $ 1,102.16

Statewide Incremental Cost (cont.) Statewide Incremental Cost (cont.)

Iowa Incremental Cost Analysis Total

Weighted Average Incremental Cost (total) $863.69 Estimated Energy Payback (annual) $260.50 Simple Payback (Years) 3 32 Simple Payback (Years) 3.32

Future Research Future Research

• Overall cost estimates are conservative.

1.

RSMeans viewed as a conservative source

2.

Did not utilize advanced framing techniques (OVE), “right‐sizing” of HVAC equipment to account for g g q p envelope improvements, or other innovations

• More sophisticated Cost Benefit Analysis would
• More sophisticated Cost Benefit Analysis would

demonstrate cost to homebuyers is low because incremental costs are amortized in mortgage Looking ahead Costing the proposed IECC 2012

• Looking ahead – Costing the proposed IECC 2012

changes.

• Further targeted outreach materials.

First Cost of ‘09 IECC in KY First Cost of 09 IECC in KY

Month Homebuyer Cost Utility bill savings Cumulative Savings 1 ($154.78) $28.00 ($126.78) 2 ($3.01) $28.00 ($101.79) 3 ($3 01) $28 00 ($76 80) 3 ($3.01) $28.00 ($76.80) 4 ($3.01) $28.00 ($51.81) 5 ($3.01) $28.00 ($26.82) $ $ $ 6 ($3.01) $28.00 ($1.83) 7 ($3.01) $28.00 $ 23.16 8 ($3.01) $28.00 $ 48.15 9 ($3.01) $28.00 $ 73.14 10 ($3.01) $28.00 $ 98.13 11 ($3 01) $28 00 $123 12 11 ($3.01) $28.00 $123.12 12 ($3.01) $28.00 $148.11

Full Report Full Report

• Visit bcap‐ocean org click Tools and
• Visit bcap ocean.org, click Tools, and

“Incremental Cost Analysis” Available Online: Research Summary Full

• Available Online: Research Summary, Full

Report, and Excel file with calculations and data data.

Robin Snyder, Robin Snyder, Program Director

Rsnyder@ase org Rsnyder@ase.org

202‐530‐2226