Mattheis_LMES2012.pdf

Media

Part of Assessing Cost-Effective Energy Savings on Joint Base Lewis-McChord Housing

extracted text

Assessing Cost-Effective Energy Savings on
Joint Base Lewis-McChord Housing

by
Luke Mattheis

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
July 20th, 2012

© 2012 by Luke Mattheis. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Luke Mattheis

Has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By

______________________________
Rob Knapp
Member of the Faculty

_________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Assessing Cost-Effective Energy Savings on Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Housing
Luke Mattheis
The study focuses on six existing communities consisting of typical sitebuilt single and multi-family houses constructed between 1930 to the mid 1980’s
with an additional, newer modular multifamily Energy Star®/Building America
community, built in 2005-08. These military family housing communities are
located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM). The study employs utility billing
analysis and technical field research to assess baseline energy efficiency while
utilizing the predictive functions of the modeling program BEopt.
Utility billing analysis compares the electric, gas and total annual energy
use within the communities, providing consumption data separated into gas and
electric base-loads for each community, water heater fuel type, and
heating/cooling loads. Energy modeling programs estimate energy consumption
for proposed retrofit measures and assess the potential gains in energy efficiency
available (through retrofit measures) in each of these communities. Field visits to
these communities provided critical data on air leakage rates and other physical
characteristics of importance in the energy modeling. Using all three approaches,
those retrofit measures yielding the greatest energy savings for the lowest cost are
identified. These measures include: 1) improving HVAC ductwork on existing
90% AFUE gas furnaces 2) building envelope air sealing and installation of
ASHRAE 62.2 compliant ventilation systems where needed, 3) ceiling insulation
R15 to R49, and 4) conversion of tank water heaters to tankless gas condensing
water heaters at existing water heater wear-out.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
Abbreviations.................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... viii

CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................ 85
1.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE HOME? ______________............... 85

HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN THE HOME (FULL-TIME
2.
OCCUPANTS)? ______ OTHER ________________________________ ................... 85
3.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HOME MOST OF THE TIME? _____,
AGES ____ ....................................................................................................................... 85
4.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK OR VOLUNTEER OUTSIDE THE
HOME AT LEAST 20 HOURS PER WEEK? ____________, AGES ____ .................. 85
5.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ATTEND SCHOOL AT LEAST 20 HOURS PER
WEEK? ____________, AGES ____............................................................................... 85
ARE ANY OTHER PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOME OFTEN NOT AT
6.
HOME? ARE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO SPEND A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF TIME AT THE HOME? PLEASE DESCRIBE OTHER
OCCUPANCY FACTORS:
______________________________________________________............................... 85
7.
HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK IS NOBODY IN THE HOME?
____________________________________................................................................... 85
HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF
8.
YOUR HOME?................................................................................................................. 85
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: VERY SATISFIED ______ SOMEWHAT
SATISFIED______ SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED_____ VERY
DISSATISFIED _______ ................................................................................................. 85
9.
HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE COMFORT OF YOUR
HOME? ............................................................................................................................. 86
10. WHAT ONE THING WOULD YOU FIX OR REPAIR IN YOUR HOME
IF YOU HAD THE RESOURCES TO DO SO?.............................................................. 86
[DEVELOP LIST OF MEASURES WE WANT TO CHECK]....................................... 86
15.
Would you ever consider purchasing a new home to replace your
current home?.................................................................................................................... 87
iv

YES, ENTHUSIASTICALLY___ YES, WITH SOME RESERVATIONS____,
DEFINITELY NOT_____ ................................................................................................ 87
PLEASE DESCRIBE ANY BENEFITS YOU THINK A NEW HOME WOULD
PROVIDE COMPARED TO YOUR CURRENT HOME? ............................................. 87
WHAT THINGS WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CHOOSE TO
REPLACE YOUR CURRENT HOME WITH A NEW HOME? .................................... 87
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PAY ANY MORE EACH MONTH TO LIVE IN
A NEW HOME? HOW MUCH MORE WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY?
[WE COULD TWEAK THIS TO ASK HOW MUCH THEY THINK IT
WOULD BE WORTH REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY TO PAY?]..................... 87
[WE COULD GIVE EXAMPLES OF THE INCREASED MONTHLY
PAYMENT AND THE POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND SEE IF THAT
WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THEIR INTEREST IN A NEW
HOME. HOWEVER, THEIR ANSWER TO HOW MUCH THEY ARE
WILLING TO PAY MOSTLY GIVES US WHAT WE NEED.].................................... 87
16.
Describe Your heating system:
______________________________________________________............................... 87
17.
Do you have any air conditioning? Please describe: ...................................... 87
MARSCHALL, L.A., MRAN, S.P. (2009). GALILEO'S NEW UNIVERSE: THE REVOLUTION IN.......... 101
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COSMOS. DALLAS: BENBELLA BOOKS, INC. ............................... 101

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Total energy use residential breakdown .............................................................. 6
Figure 2. Mortise and Tenon ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 3. Schematic Of NBS 200 mm guarded-hot-plate apparatus (1928 version) ........ 31
Figure 4. Schematic of prism operation............................................................................ 33
Figure 5. Schematic of blower-door dynamics ................................................................. 38
Figure 6. Simple data entry screen.................................................................................... 41
Figure 7. BEopt geometry screen, unit Evergreen 9280................................................... 43
Figure 8. BEopt options screen, unit Evergreen 9280 ...................................................... 44
Figure 9. BEopt economic parameters screen, unit Evergreen 9280 ............................... 45
Figure 10. BEopt output screen, unit Evergreen 9280...................................................... 46
Figure 11. Furnace/utility room in unit Beachwood 8450................................................ 49
Figure 12. Ductwork within unit Davis Hill 5959 ............................................................ 50
Figure 13. Utility rooms: louvre door, units Davis Hill 5428 & 5959 ............................. 52

LIST OF TABLES
v

Table 1. Community characteristics ................................................................................. 34
Table 2. Cost-savings benefits for Package B averaged in aggregate............................... 21
Table 3. Cost-savings benefits for Package B, excluding Broadmoor houses.................. 31
Table 4. Cost-savings benefits for Package B, excluding non-Broadmoor houses .......... 33
Table 5. Results of SIMPLE and BEopt vs. billing for field test home............................ 38
Table 6. % Deviation of SIMPLE and BEopt from community mean energy
usage….41

Abbreviations

ACH50- Air Change Rate at 50 Pascals pressure
ALA- Associated leakage area
ASRE- American Society of Refrigerating Engineers
Btu- British thermal units
CFM50- Cubic Feet per Minute at 50 Pascals
CFL- Compact Fluorescent Light
DHW- Domestic Hot Water
DoD- Department of Defense
EIA- Energy Information Administration
EQR- Equity Residential
JBLM - Joint Base Lewis-McChord
kWh- Kilowatt-hour
MWh- Megawatt-hour
MVR- Minimum Ventilation Requirement
NBS- National Bureau of Standards

vi

NIST- National Institute of Standards and Technology
NPCC - Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Quad- Quadrillion British thermal units
REE- residential energy efficiency

Acknowledgements

There are many people who offered knowledge and experience, time,
patience, and guidance. Principal among them are Mike Lubliner, Luke Howard,
Ken Ecklund, and Rick Kunckle at the Washington State University Energy
Program; Mike Greer at Equity Residential; and from The Evergreen State
College, Rob Knapp and Ralph Murphy. Offering endless support, insight, humor,
and a sympathetic choir to vent at are my colleagues in the Master of
Environmental Studies, my family, and my friends.

vii

viii

“Our ignorance is not so great as our failure to use what we know”
-Dr. M. King Hubbert

ix

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction and Objective
The U.S. consumes roughly 25% of the world’s resources, chief among
those resources are materials used to generate electricity. E. F Schumacher, author
of Small is Beautiful, puzzled over our treatment of these resources as capital, and
reflected on our usage of these materials as if they are renewable resources when
in fact these materials are not. The combustion of fossil fuels, such oil, coal, and
natural gas (for the purpose of electricity generation) produces staggering
quantities of greenhouse gases. Plastic, a product of petroleum, has become an
indispensable element in everyday life and is non-biodegradable, hazardous to
wildlife, and is recyclable only in part. As it is only a matter of time until they
become scarce, the wisdom in consuming finite fossil fuels and fissile minerals to
supply our country with energy is questionable at best. 1
Stream lining our methods of energy production is one method to reduce
non-renewable resource consumption, but reducing consumption possesses far
greater potential. Within the realm of residential housing and construction some
of the most effective steps toward energy conservation are measures used to
reduce air leakage from building envelopes, increase insulation, upgrade
appliances to energy efficient models when the opportunity presents itself, and to
educate those who consume energy and those who generate energy.
In many respects, education is the most effective of the listed methods of
energy waste reduction. However, effecting change on people’s behavior and
habits is notoriously difficult as there are numerous factors contributing toward
those behaviors. For example, if one reduces air leakage within a building,
conditioned air (meaning air artificially heated or cooled) will remain inside
thereby reducing the need to run the furnace/AC (to match the occupant’s desired
comfort settings). If measures are taken to reduce air leakage within the building
of a low-income family, a family could afford to maintain the space at a
comfortable thermostat setting as opposed to heating the space according to
1

 Fissile materials, such as uranium, used to fuel nuclear fission reactors. 
1

affordability. This situation yields little to no reduction in energy consumption,
but aids the family in maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.
Of equal if not greater importance are the effects of reducing energy
consumption on our health (as a nation of individuals and as a society) and on our
environment. Reducing energy consumption increases environmental health by
reducing tailings and other toxic by-products of fuel extraction, reducing
byproducts of electricity generation, and reducing waste generated in the
transportation of fuel from source to site, to name a few. 2 Reducing the usage of
nuclear fission reduces the radioactive (toxic) byproduct of fission and reduces
the distortion of the natural temperature and operations of the water source
necessary to cool the reactor. Lowering fossil fuel consumption reduces
greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and methane
produced during fossil fuel combustion. Other benefits include a reduction in the
volume of particulate matter (particle-sized organic residuals of combustion)
where the greater the organic matter content, the more particulates are released.
Particulate matter directly impacts respiratory functions and often contains small
amounts of toxic heavy metals such as mercury. 3
Finally, increasing energy efficiency addresses the issue of waste. When
measures to increase household efficiency are available, yet not implemented,
energy is needlessly consumed. We expend the resources, the time, effort, money,
and stress required to extract and process fuel, and to produce energy, only to
waste it. This system is built upon the premise that fuel is abundant to the degree
of being inexhaustible.
The goal of this study was to conduct research into energy consumption on
Joint Base Lewis McChord in order to ascertain energy efficiency among houses
2

 In this instance, transportation is a term encompassing the refined fuel used during the 
extraction of the raw fuel as well as the transportation of that fuel, once extracted. It also 
embraces the impact of heavy machinery on the location of fuel extraction. In order to extract 
raw, unprocessed fuel such as oil, a derrick, drill pipe, generators, living quarters and supplies for 
crews operating the machinery must be transported to the drilling site. Once established, a 
constant stream of support vehicles carrying water, refined fuel for the generators, and 
additional equipment and incidental supplies is required to sustain the extraction process.   
3
 Heavy metals such as mercury do not exit the body meaning the greater the exposure, the 
greater the accumulation of said metal in the body. 
2

located on the base and identify retrofit measures with the greatest reduction in
energy consumption at the lowest cost using a combination of field testing, utility
billing analysis, and energy modeling programs. In addition to this primary
direction of study, research will also be conducted into the energy efficiency of
high efficiency tankless natural gas hot water heaters as compared against powervented standard natural gas water heaters.

1.2 Defining Energy
Energy can be described in many ways, some involving mystical
properties and some philosophical elements. For the purposes of this paper,
energy describes the potential to perform work and it is energy in the form of
electricity and heat is the focus. In the U.S., electricity is the most common form
of energy used and is produced from a variety of sources including the
combustion of fossil fuel, nuclear fission, and hydroelectric, among others. As an
end-product, heat is used primarily to heat buildings and water.
In describing energy production, transmission, and consumption, it is
important to differentiate site energy from primary energy. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) defines site energy as “energy directly
consumed by end users” versus primary energy, defined as “site energy plus the
energy consumed in the production and delivery of energy products” (EIA, 2011).
While the EIA articulates the difference between the two quite well, an alternative
differentiation considers site energy as a household and all the appliances,
Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), entertainment options, etc.
contained therein; source energy considers the machinery and equipment
necessary to extract and process the energy (mining, drilling, refining, etc.) as
well as the process of transporting the energy. This latter assessment of site versus
primary energy is particularly applicable as this report focuses on residential
energy consumption.

3

1.3 Generation and Transmission of Energy
Energy generation occurs in a variety of ways, ranging from fossil fuels to
nuclear, to solar and wind, to geothermal, hydro, and biofuels. While the
dominant sources vary from location to location, on a national level (in 2010) coal
delivered 21.05 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energy, natural gas supplied 24.45
quads, renewable 4 produced 5.74 quads, and liquid fuels (petroleum-based)
provided the U.S. with 36.96 quads of energy (EIA, 2011). 5 When alternative
measures such as energy efficiency exist yet are not utilized, non-renewable
resources such as fossil fuels are needlessly wasted.
At present, we not only rely heavily on fossil fuels for energy production
but also use petroleum in hundreds of different applications. The Texas Alliance
of Energy Producers list roughly 480 different uses for petroleum; while many are
simply different end products within a given industry (such as textiles) the
following excerpt provides an example of material breadth: “typewriter keys; wire
insulation; desk organizers; fake furs; T-shirts; electric scissors; golf bags, skin
conditioners; photographs; (outdoor) carpeting” (Texas Alliance of Energy
Producers, 2012). With so many products derived from petroleum, it would
behoove us, certainly as a nation if not a world, to reduce our consumption of
petrol for the production of energy 6.
Once generated, electricity is transmitted from the source location to its
final destination through a network of cables and lines collectively known as the
grid. The grid is composed of many different elements ranging from high voltage
transmission lines used as conduits for electricity, to transformer stations used to

4

“Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood waste, biogenic municipal wa
ste, other biomas, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal sources” (EIA, 2011). 
5
 Btu stands for British Thermal Unit and is one of the most common measurements of energy 
generation and consumption. One Btu is equivalent to the heat released by burning one kitchen 
match; one kilowatt hour has 3412 Btus, one barrel of crude oil possesses 5,800,0000 Btus, one 
cubic foot of gas contains between 1,008 to 1,034 Btus (http://www.uwsp.edu). America 
produced 72,970,019 billion Btu in 2009 yet consumed 94,578,267 billion Btus 
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/annual.cfm#summary). In order to close the gap between 
generated and consumed, we import oil, 22,849,185 billion Btus worth. In 2009, the U.S. released 
5,424.53 million metric tons of CO2 f from the combustion of fossil fuels.  
6
 It also behooves to reduce our consumption of materials and products that have little to no 
value and are quickly discarded. Or, in the case of packaging material, immediately discarded. 
4

increase and decrease the voltage of long distance electricity transmission (and
thereby the efficiency of transmission), to the power lines running to a house.
During the transmission and distribution of electricity, a percentage of the electric
current is lost as function of resistance (the metal cable is not a perfect conductor)
and through inefficiencies in other transmission equipment 7. In a publication
entitled “Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid”, ABB Inc. describes transmission
loss thusly:
According to data from the Energy Information Administration, net
generation in the US came to over 3.9 billion megawatt hours
(MWh) in 2005 while retail power sales during that year were
about 3.6 billion MWh. T&D losses amounted to 239 million
MWh, or 6.1% of net generation. Multiplying that number by the
national average retail price of electricity for 2005, we can
estimate those losses came at a cost to the US economy of just
under $19.5 billion.
An additional and succinct perspective comes from the EIA: “The losses in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity are more than twice the
amount of electricity delivered to the household” (EIA, 2011). Reduce the need
for energy and the loss in transmission is reduced as well.

1.4 Residential Energy Consumption, Efficiency, and Conservation
1.4.1 National
When electricity reaches its destination, a single-story site-built house for
example, it is consumed through a variety of means. . In the 2005 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), the EIA found that Appliances and
Electronics accounted for 3.25 quads or 31% of household energy use in U.S.
homes. In 1978, Appliances and Electronics represented (only) 1.77 quads, 17%
of household energy consumption.

7

 Losses due to transmission can be measured using the formula Resistance= voltage ÷ current 
(Siemens, 2011). Generally speaking, energy is discharged during transmission through magnetic 
oscillation, a trait of alternating current (AC). This loss is greatly reduced by employing high‐
voltage direct current (DC) lines, as DC lacks the oscillation of AC (ABB, Inc., 2012) 
5

Figure 1. Total energy use residential breakdown, U.S. 2005 RECS

Clothes washers and dryers, televisions and computers, refrigerators and
freezers all consume energy, however space heating, space cooling, and water
heating consume the greatest amount of energy: in 2008, they comprised 72% of
domestic energy consumption within the U.S., 12.23 quads. In comparison, the
U.S. consumed a total of 99.4 quads that year, all sectors combined (EERE,
2011). 8 When considering the fuel required to produce such a vast amount of
energy, it is important to recognize the portion accounted for by imports, roughly
25% or 26 quads of energy (EIA, 2009). This garners as much attention as the
grand total; our national security and stability are influenced by our reliance on oil
imports and our actions, as a country, are often dictated by that reliance. 9
New sources of energy will help sustain our current level of consumption;
however the pool of potential, untapped sources of energy is, at present, not large.
Increased support for research and development into renewable resources such as
8

EERE stands for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a department of the U.S. Department
of Energy.
9
This reflects the author’s opinion, not an official stance by the military or any governmental
body.
6

solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal are expressions of the country’s continuing
search for energy. However our national output of energy from renewable
resources totaled only 7.7 quads. While this number is an improvement from prior
years (just under three quads in 1975), it is rather minor when compared to the
78.4 quads of energy generated through the combustion of fossil fuels (EIA,
2011). This is a substantial increase from the 1975 figure of 29 quads.
With such heavy reliance on fossil fuels, an appraisal of resources is
needed. While very difficult, an estimate is possible, using past extraction rates,
the rate at which production increased in the past, the number of active wells,
regions as yet un-tapped, rate of consumption, population growth coupled with
growth in energy consumption, and many other factors. Arguably the most
famous model that addresses the level of fossil fuels available at present and in
the future is the Hubbert Curve 10.
Amidst the gloomy forecast of dependence on foreign fuel, sponsored
weatherization and efficiency measures available to the nation can be found from
a variety of sources. One of those sources is the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and through it, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
dispersed $5 billion to the states for the purposes of assisting low-income
homeowners with the task of weatherizing their homes (EERE, 2011). This is
accomplished through a variety of means but often involves dispersing funds to
local non-profit organizations that provide retrofitting to homeowners at a reduced
rate. Complementing the work of these non-profits and on occasion working as
partners are utility companies. By offering incentives or rebates to clients, the
utilities encourage homeowners to undertake retrofit measures or upgrade old and
inefficient appliances.

1.4.2 State
The portion of ARRA funding directed toward Washington State totaled
$59,545,074 and was complemented by a series of grants available through the
10

 Made (public) in 1949, the “Hubbert Curve”, named after Dr. M. King, predicted the peak in 
U.S. oil production would occur around 1970 (Ecotopia, 2011). 
7

State Energy Program (SEP), through which grants are made available for
research and development initiatives ranging from alternative fuels to renewable
energy to carbon capture and sequestration (WA Department of Commerce,
2009).
Washington State, along with Oregon, Idaho, and to a lesser extent
Montana, is somewhat unique among the lower 48 states, in terms of energy
resources, due to the presence of the Grand Coulee dam and other dams along the
Columbia and Snake rivers. These sources of hydroelectric power provide WA
consumers with an average price of $0.077 per kilo-Watt hour (kWh), one of the
lowest rates in the country (as compared to $0.20 per kWh in Connecticut; EIA,
2011). The unusually low price of electricity has not impeded the pursuit of
energy conservation, a pursuit guided by the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (NPCC): a body of eight people, 2 per the states of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Montana, charged, quite simply, with “creating a power plan for the
region” (NPCC, 2011). In its Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power
Plan, the NPCC states enough conservation potential exists and is (cost effective)
within the Pacific Northwest to “meet 85% of the region’s load growth for the
next 20 years” (NPCC, 2011).

1.4.3 U.S. Military and Joint Base Lewis-McChord
In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Department of Defense (DoD) expended $3.6
billion on “facility energy consumption” (Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, 2011). As this report deals primarily in units of energy rather than units
of currency, the following represents consumption in Btus: in 2009, the DoD
consumed 880.3 trillion Btus of energy (EIA, 2011). Divided by the number of
active military and civilian personnel, 2.1 million, the per capita consumption was
roughly 250 MBtus (Karbuz, 2007). Progress is a continual process, however, as
is evidenced by comparing historic amounts of energy consumption with current
rates: the DoD consumed 1,360 trillion Btus in 1975.
In 2007, Joint Base Lewis-McChord consumed 2.7 trillion Btus, roughly
two percent of the state’s total consumption (Wilson, 2007; EIA, 2011). Unless
8

the military implements measures to increase efficiency on base, this amount of
energy consumption will only increase (a result of the growing population of the
base). Four directives, the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Executive Orders
(Eos) 13423 & 13514, and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of
2007 are helping propel JBLM toward a “reduction of energy-consumption
intensity by 3% annually and 30% by FY15, relative to FY03 baseline”
(Comprehensive Energy and Water Master Plan: Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
2010). Potential measures to achieve the goal include the institution of an energy
awareness campaign, replacing and upgrading HVAC, window, and lighting
systems, and installing additional insulation.

CHAPTER 2: BUILDING SCIENCE BACKGROUND

2.1 Conduction, Convection, and Radiation
The passage and exchange of heat is called thermal transfer and it occurs
in three different ways: conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction is the
passage of kinetic energy (heat) from one molecule to the next within a solid
material. Convection is on a larger scale and works primarily through the passage
of air. For example, warm air is discharged from a heater and as that warm air
travels through ductwork, it transmits
the kinetic energy it possesses (Aubrecht, 1995). The third way heat is
transferred is radiation, the broadcast of energy from one place to another.
Convection, conduction, and radiation are the three forms of thermal
(energy) transmission. The three primary sources of thermal energy (heat) within
a built structure are solar radiation, occupants of the building, and mechanical or
electrical devices (Diamant, 1971). Solar radiation is sunlight and it finds its way
inside buildings through windows and through the radiation of heat resulting from
the reaction of the roofing material and sunlight. “Occupants of the building”
refers to the living organisms residing within a built structure who radiate heat at
all times. Mostly this refers to people, who radiate a range of energy from 145
9

watts, or 20.4 Btu/hr from a grown to 65 watts, or 9.2 Btu/hr from an infant
(Diamant, 1971).
Appliances powered by electricity generate heat due to the imperfect,
inefficient conduction and usage of electricity and the greater the inefficiency, the
greater the heat (Diamant, 1971). For example, in an internal combustion engine
petrol is fed to an engine, which is combusted in the engine block, driving pistons
which turn the crankshaft to produce motion. Heat is radiated at every step of the
cycle, and represents a loss of energy; only 25% of the energy contained in the
petrol is converted into motion, and even less for forward motion, as low as 14%
(U.S. DOE, 2011). 11
When establishing the efficiency for a furnace, one looks for the Annual
Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE), a ranking describing how much of the energy
entering the furnace is converted in to heat, versus up a chimney, for example.
Thus an AFUE of 92.5 indicates 92.5% of the energy within the fuel used by a
given furnace heats the dwelling, while the other 7.5% escapes in different ways,
through different inefficiencies, for different fuels. Standard hot water heaters,
those with a large tank containing 30-60 gallons of water and using either
electricity or natural gas to heat the water, lose energy in several ways. One is
through maintaining a reservoir of heated water, regardless of use. Another is heat
loss to the ground beneath the unit (conduction) and to the ambient air
(convection), both of which can be greatly reduced through the use of insulation.
Light bulbs emit energy in two forms, light and heat, and in many
instances the energy radiated as heat is greater than the energy radiated as light.
For example, an incandescent light bulb produces light by moving enough
electricity through a thin wire (the filament, usually made of tungsten) to make
the wire “white-hot”. Thus light bulbs perform two functions, one illuminating a
space and the other, heating a space. This impact is an important consideration for
modeling energy consumption within a house, as replacing incandescent light

11

 The sum of energy loss can be divided into: 70‐72% in the engine (radiator, exhaust heat, etc.); 
17‐21% power to wheels (rolling resistance, braking, etc.); 5‐6% parasitic losses (water pump, 
alternator, etc.); and 5‐6% drivetrain. 
10

bulbs with compact florescent lights (CFLs) will reduce the energy load for
lighting, but will increase the load for heating (at least during cold weather).
In considering the efficiencies of electric appliances and natural gas-fed
appliances, it behooves one to be familiar with the efficiency losses of both
electricity and natural gas as fuels consumed by the residential sector. Electric
appliances operate at very high efficiencies because there is little loss of energy in
heating a cooking element or furnace, for example; utilizing the energy potential
of natural gas requires a change of state and an imperfect capture of energy
released during the transformation leads to a comparatively less efficient
appliance. This is a superficial assessment, however, because the inefficiency in
generating electricity, primarily due to friction, resistance of the conducting
material, and heat loss, is far greater than in combusting natural gas for energy
consumption.

2.2 R-value & U-value
In order to guard against the unwanted transmission of heat (from indoor
to outdoor and vice-versa), houses are lined with insulation, in the walls, ceiling,
and sometimes within the roof. Insulating materials are poor conductors of
energy, and slow the loss of heat through conduction. Two systems of measure
are in place to rate the effectiveness of insulating materials: walls, roofs, and other
structural spaces are given an R-value, the material’s resistance to heat transfer.
Windows, skylights, and other installations featuring transparent or translucent
material receive a U-value, a representation of “the number of Btu[s] that flow
through one square foot of material in one hour” (Darling, 2011). The two values
describes the same quality, a material’s ability to transfer heat, but while a high Rvalue indicates a high resistivity to thermal exchange, a low U-value indicates
(only) a small amount of energy passes through the material in question. In other
words they are different expressions of the same characteristic and are described
by the metric Btu/hr-sq ft °F in the U.S. or W/m2 °C (Darling, 2011). 12
12

  A "British thermal unit" (Btu) is a measure of the heat content of fuels. It is the quantity of 
heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1°F at the temperature that 
11

2.3 Envelope, Insulation, & Ducting
R-values and U-values provide performance ratings for insulating
materials, yet the term insulation usually refers to one of two “distinct processes
at work” (Reid, 1999). Resistance insulation refers to that material slowing the
thermal transfer. This may refer to clothing preventing or slowing the passage of
heat from the body outward, or to materials within a built structure that prevent
heat loss in the cool months and heat gain in the warm months. Capacity
insulation refers to absorption capacity of the air within an enclosure. The larger
the volume the more time is necessary to affect temperatures. Or, the longer the
lag time between applying energy to an existing volume and feeling the effects.
For example, a very large house possesses high capacity insulation because a
large quantity of energy is required to affect all the air residing the envelope. A
small house has low capacity insulation because a relatively small amount of
energy is required to affect the small amount of air in the envelope.
The building envelope (envelope) prevents direct exposure to the raw
elements and it consists of the building's foundation, walls, roof, windows, and
doors (U.S. DOE, 2010). A tight envelope secures the house against the exchange
of conditioned air, while a leaky envelope allows the exchange of conditioned air
for external, unconditioned air. When this exchange takes place, the conditioning
appliances (furnace, A/C unit, heat pump, etc.) must work constantly to heat/cool
the newly introduced air. 13

2.4 Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Understanding how heat is transferred within a house and the metrics used
to gauge efficiency provides an addition way to measure the level of success in
retrofitting measures: how effective those measures are in preventing the
water has its greatest density (approximately 39°F). One Btu is approximately equal to the energy 
released in the burning of a wood match (U.S. EIA).  
13
According to the U.S. DOE, the residential sector within the U.S. consumed roughly 1316.729 
trillion Btu’s from February 1st through the 26th, 2010. 

12

undesired loss of heat, of conditioned air to the exterior environment from the
interior. The exterior environment is Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and the
houses studied reside on the residential section of JBLM, located West of the
Cascade Mountains in Washington State, roughly half way between the cities of
Tacoma and Olympia.
“BRAC” is an acronym that stands for Base Realignment and Closure and
is the process employed by the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure the
integrity of base closure and reorganization (DOD, 2011). BRAC results in
closures, expansions, and mergers throughout all branches of the armed forces.
The 2005 round of BRAC saw the merger of Fort Lewis and McChord Air force
Base and the resulting formation of JBLM. JBLM occupies 90,880 acres in
Thurston and Pierce counties and houses approximately 16,300 people, including
soldiers on active duty and their families (JBLM media relations, personal
communication, April 11, 2011). 14 This number is expected to rise in the future
due to the BRAC process. As a corollary figure, approximately 47,160 people
work on base by participating in the daily operations and affairs of JBLM, but do
not necessarily live on base. This number is a dramatic increase from 27,888 in
2003 and a slightly smaller count than the expected population of 2016, 48,389
(Comprehensive Energy and Water Master Plan: Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
2010).
In many respects, JBLM resembles a large town or community in
population and in the many services offered, and is in fact the sixth largest city in
Washington (personal communication with Eric Waeling). If hungry, one will
find Manchu Wok, Charley's Steakery, Cinnabon, Koibito Sushi, and Robin Hood
Sandwich Shop at the Exchange (similar in function and intent to a mall) and
several more located throughout the base grounds (U.S. Army, 2011). For
entertainment, one finds a movie theater, an arts-and-crafts center, golf center, a
paintball field, and a collection of retail stores including Sprint, Gamestop, GNC
14

  The Yakima Training facility was incorporated into the Joint Base Lewis‐McChord merger, but 
as this study focuses on REE and the Yakima training facility has no full time residents, all 
statistics and values refer to the (primary) base located in  
Western Washington. 
13

Supplement center, as well as various salons and cafés (The Exchange, 2011).
Tacoma Power Utilities provides the base with electricity and Puget Sound
Energy supplies the base with natural gas. It is one of the largest military
complexes on the West Coast and operates simultaneously under six different
sustainability mandates (personal communication with department of media
relations, JBLM, 2011) 15.

2.4.1 Fort Lewis
On January 6th, 1917, residents of Pierce County voted on a $2 million
bond to purchase roughly 62,432 acres of land on the Nisqually plains and invited
the US army to build a base, provided the army construct and occupy the base
permanently. The army accepted the invitation and on July 5th 1917, construction
began on Fort Lewis, named after Captain Meriwether Lewis of the 1804 Lewis
and Clark expedition. The first recruits to be trained at Fort Lewis arrived in early
September, 1917 and by December 31st, “37,000 officers, cadre, garrison, and
trainees were on post” (Fort Lewis Museum, 2011). The fort served as a training
facility during World War I and served the 91st Infantry Division as well as the
13th Infantry Division, which did not actually deploy due to the signing of the
armistice November 11th, 1918 (United States Army).
The peace-time following the conclusion of WWI led to a sharp reduction
in military funding and a consequent lull in Fort Lewis operations. In May of
1926, congress approved $4.5 million to rehabilitate three bases across the
country, of which Fort Lewis was one. With $800,000 in hand, the army began
constructing permanent structures (brick vs. temporary wood-built structures) and
securing the future of the fort.

2.4.2 McChord Air Force Base
15

 EO 13514 (2009) Federal leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance; DoD 
SSPP (2010) The DoD Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan;  Army Strategy for the 
Environment; ASCP (2010) The Army Sustainability Campaign Plan; Installation Management 
Campaign Plan (2010‐2017); Installation Sustainability Program (2002). ~Paul Steucke, 
Environmental Division‐Public works, JBLM, WA  
14

On April 21st, 1929, construction began on Tacoma field, a 1,000 acre
airport hosting a 3,000 foot landing circle, a 5,400 foot runway, and a hangar
boasting 27,600 square feet of storage space among other things (McChord Air
Museum). On May 5th, 1938, Peirce County passed the title for the airport to the
War Department amidst struggling finances. Shortly thereafter, the military
christened the field McChord Field, honoring Colonel William C. McChord of
Richmond, Virginia. By 1939, the field would boast 5 hangars, 3 runways,
housing (including a 1,285-man barrack), a radio transmitter building, hospital,
central heating plant, electric distribution system, and a 300,000 gallon water
tower among other features (McChord Air Museum).

2.5 Elements of Energy Efficiency on Joint Base Lewis McChord
Residents of JBLM do not pay for electricity or gas, with the exception of
usage roughly 30% above the mean for a given housing community (McMakin,
1999; U.S. Department of Defense, 2005; U.S. Department of Defense, 2008).
The mean usage is calculated on a monthly basis. For example, if the communal
average electricity usage is 850 kWh in a given month, and a household uses 1150
kWh in that month, that household is charged for the amount of energy consumed
above the communal. The absence of a usage-based fee reduces the occupant’s
financial motivation to conserve energy and when making comparisons to other
non-military compound studies, this impact must be considered.
A second impact on energy usage is the duration of occupancy on base
and homeownership: occupancy ranges from six months to approximately three
years and no one owns their house. Conventional wisdom holds the greater the
duration of study or observation, the greater the accuracy of estimations resulting
from that study or observation due to a greater population base. Another result of
absent homeownership is lack of incentive to invest in weatherization and other
energy-saving retrofits. Home ownership provides incentive to invest in energy
efficiency measures because a) the value of the house increases, once retrofitted,
and b) the costs associated with basic utilities decreases.

15

A third impact is the independence of the residential sector from the other
base operations. The 2010 Comprehensive Energy and Water Master Plan for
Joint Base Lewis-McChord lays out current consumption of both water and
energy on base, includes recommendations for improvements, as well as a plan to
implement the recommendations. The exception to the plan is the residential
(termed family housing in the report) portion of the base. The residential
structures within the base are managed and maintained by Equity Residential
while the utility billing is managed by Minol USA.
This impact is felt through structural and financial avenues: because
buildings outside the residential area are managed directly by the military,
directives aimed at reducing energy consumption will be funded & carried out to
specified buildings by the military. While the private entity managing the
residential portions of the base receives payment for its services from the military
and commands a respectable pool of resources, it is nonetheless quite small in
comparison to the military’s.

2.6 Management of Property and Billing on Joint Base Lewis-McChord
2.6.1 Equity Residential and Housing Stock
Equity Residential (EQR) manages the residential real estate on JBLM. It
is a property manager, owning or investing in 442 properties consisting of
127,711 apartment units in 17 states and the District of Columbia (EQR, 2010). In
April of 2002, 2 firms from the private sector, EQR and Lincoln Property, began
managing the residential properties on Ft. Lewis and McChord AFB, making Ft.
Lewis the second military base to divest residential property management to the
private sector. While Lincoln Property coordinated new construction in Ft. Lewis,
EQR oversaw the remaining obligations and responsibilities on Ft. Lewis as well
as new construction in McChord AFB (M. Greer, personal communication,
December 1st, 2011). The remaining obligations and responsibilities include
renovation, retrofitting, and maintenance of existing houses. As the entity
responsible for the physical state of housing on base, EQR was closely involved
with nearly all elements of the study and acted as a resource of building data and
16

records of prior work or work-plans, the workforce responsible for correcting any
problems that may arise with the house, and is a likely candidate for
implementing retrofit designs arising in the future.
Within the Fort Lewis portion of JBLM there are 15 residential
communities consisting of more than 1,800 buildings and over 3,700 units. This
study evaluated six of those communities: Broadmoor, New Hillside, Beachwood,
Davis Hill, Evergreen, and Discovery Village/Miller Hill (DV/MH). While the
houses within these communities were constructed over a period of nearly 80
years, the overwhelming majority was constructed in the late 1960s-early 1970’s
and possesses certain similarities in design, manner or style of construction, and
in the material used in construction. These similarities include spacing of framing
studs, architectural layout, style of windows, type of furnace & hot water heater 16,
and the manner in which conditioned air & water are distributed throughout the
house.
The communities with ductwork (all but the historic Broadmoor homes)
have trunk lines with neither insulation nor sealed seams and branch lines
insulated to R-8. All houses have programmable thermostats, three exterior
entrances, and the vast majority is situated on slab-on-grade foundations. In 2003,
EQR began a three year program focused on replacing all existing furnaces to
high efficiency (92%) sealed-combustion gas furnaces.
Broadmoor is predominantly composed of single family residences built in
1931 or prior. The historic buildings are anomalous, relative to the newer
buildings, because they are under historic preservation and there are restrictions
on the type of renovation and retrofitting based on the degree of physical
(structural) invasiveness. This results in buildings with large footprints, ranging in
size from 1,865 ft2 to 2,650 ft2, minimal insulation, single-pane windows, little
weatherization, and antiquated hydronic heating systems. In addition, the historic
houses in the Broadmoor community have unique features such as two stories,
basements, additions to the original structure, and fireplaces.

16

 “Type” refers to fuel source, efficiency rating, sizing requirements, etc. 
17

The remaining housing stock within Broadmoor is composed of multi-unit
structures built in 1934, 1939, and 1948, and single family dwellings built
between1959-1963. The multi-family buildings are excluded from this study
largely due to aggregate gas metering per building. The newer single-family
dwellings are included in the study and have characteristics such as crawl spaces
covered in cement (also known as a “rat-slab”) with ductwork routed through the
crawlspace, large glazing surfaces, and fire-places.
Beachwood, New Hillside, and Davis Hill share many characteristics as a
result of vintage and of retrofit measures: they have slab-on-grade foundations,
are of early 1960’s vintage, and range in footprints from 1154 ft2 - 1262 ft2. Light
fixtures are primarily CFL, windows are double-pane with vinyl frames, and most
units feature three bedrooms. 95% of ductwork is located in the ceiling. The hot
water heater and furnace are housed within a mechanical room, located within the
structure and accessed from either inside or outside, depending on the particular
unit. Units with mechanical rooms accessed from outside include louvered doors
and are locked to the occupants, accessible only by EQR technicians. 17 The
communities are composed mostly of duplexes; units have common rooftops
above carport space, not common walls. 18
Beachwood differs slightly from the Davis Hill and New Hillside. A
portion of the community is composed of newer dwellings constructed in 20032005 which are composed of duplexes ranging in size from 1497 ft2 - 2263 ft2.
However, these were not included in the study due to the relative lack of necessity
concerning retrofitting. Those units included in the study featured footprints up to
1580 ft2 and nearly half are single-family residences.
Evergreen also experienced two stages of development, the first in 1984
and the second in 1995. The earlier vintage homes have slab-on-grade
foundations, range in size from 1200 ft2 - 1560 ft2, have predominantly
incandescent lighting, double-pane aluminum, first generation windows, and have
17

 Units with mechanical rooms accessed from the inside are also accessible only to EQR 
technicians. 
18
 There is a wall dividing the carport space between the two units however its function is solely 
to divide one exterior space into two; the carport remains a carport.  
18

two to three bedrooms. The houses built in 1995 range from 1600 ft2 - 1900 ft2,
have two to three bedrooms, and are far fewer in number.
The newest of the communities is Discovery Village and its subset, Miller
Hills. Constructed between 2005 and 2007, these homes feature modular
construction, energy efficient envelope design and construction materials as well
as Energy Star appliances. The footprints range between 1,711 ft2 and 1843 ft2,
and have three to four bedrooms. An important distinction between the units in
DV and MH is the installation of tankless water heaters in Miller Hill. The
opportunity to gauge the relative efficiencies between water heaters accounts for
their inclusion in this study.

2.6.2 Minol
Minol is a German-based company specializing in energy management
including water and energy conservation, comprehensive utility billing, submetering, and metering research and development (Minol, 2011). Minol USA is a
satellite entity, managing operations in the U.S. (as the name suggests) including
the billing operations for electricity and natural gas on JBLM. Beginning in
September 2005, Minol USA began assisting the military in transitioning from a
free consumption system, where residents paid no money regardless of lifestyle19,
to the present system of minor incentive/disincentive. This function is one Minol
USA has performed for the military in the past and will, presumably, continue to
do so in the future. Residents are notified of the upcoming change to the
established no-fee system, and a year-long mock-billing cycle is put in place to
facilitate the transition.

19

 A descriptive anecdote: (some) residents would turn the heat as high as it would go, then open 
the windows to moderate the overall interior temperature. 
19

CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW

3.1 Building Materials and Insulation
The field of residential energy efficiency (REE) is multi-disciplined,
drawing from the fields of architecture, chemistry, and physics, among others. In
order to establish a historical perspective on REE, I will draw on the history of
architecture to illustrate practices recognizable for their contributions to REE’s
evolution. Within this history lie improvements to the building envelope,
including structural advancements and the incorporation of and improvements to
insulation, and the design of heating and cooling systems.
For the purposes of this project, the review of residential energy efficiency
begins in the 17th century, in the colonial/post-colonial period of American
architecture. Construction practices in the 17th century relied on well-established
building materials, such as wood, brick and mortar, and on occasion stone and
cob. Handlin (1985) describes common residential building practices in early 17th
century Virginia as consisting of wood and using brick primarily for foundations
and chimney; neither material possesses high or even moderate insulation values.
Other accounts, such as Kimball & Edgell (1918) suggest the composition of
Virginian housing (at that time) to contain a high percentage of clay-based
structures, with a push toward brick housing. However the “first house wholly of
brick does not seem to have been built until 1638” (Kimball & Edgell, 1918).
Methods and designs involved the use of standard tools (hammer & nails, saw,
chisel, spade, etc.) and included log cabins, post-hole construction, Mortise and
Tenon joining (as depicted in figure 1), and small one to three room houses.

20

Figure 2. Mortise and Tenon joining.

Handlin and Kostof (1985) note an increase in Victorian-style, multiple
storied mansions toward the end of the 17th century. While possessing different
physical capacities for strength (density, brittleness, flexibility, load-bearing
capacity, etc.), the basic building materials lacked the inherent insulating capacity
to isolate the interior (building) environment from outside temperature
fluctuations. 20
The next significant jump in housing, with respect to REE, did not occur
until the early 19th century, when a particular style of construction began to
emerge: the balloon-frame model. This style is significant because of a) its
pervasiveness, assisting in the facilitation of expansive westward movement, and
b) its representation of “protoindustrial building practices” (Cavanagh, 1997). 21
Houses built in the balloon-frame style are designed to have each component wall
assembled on the ground, then raised and secured to one another. Because this
style of construction requires a relatively modest amount of skill, houses built in
this style could be erected in short period of time. However, the balloon-frame
style allowed for a high rate of envelope penetration (quality workmanship
sacrificed for expediency and cost) and a high potential for house fire. 22 The
20

  See Appendix B for R/U‐values of building materials. 
Cavanagh expands thusly: “…it was a particular example of the “progressive” modification of 
conventional building practices. These progressive practices would reduce craft labor, produce 
components industrially, revise the method of assembly, simplify the joint or develop an 
identifiable connector, employ lightweight materials, and improve structural efficiency”. 
(Cavanagh, 1997).
22
 The issues with insulation and fire both involve a particular element in the design of the 
balloon house, the wall cavity. The term “wall cavity” refers to the gap between the studs, 
extending from the sill to the eaves with no barrier separating the first and second stories. This 
created a chute for fire to quickly travel between stories.  
21

21

balloon frame method of residential construction is a foundation for modern
building practices and lead to the platform style of construction and further
compartmentalization of framing (McAlester,1994). 23 One characteristic of this
style important to this history of REE is the wall cavity: the space between studs
is an ideal location for insulation.
While the structural features of housing slowly evolved, so too did
insulation. However, documenting the contribution of insulation to REE presents
a slight challenge. This is not necessarily from lack of records; Ancient Egyptians
employed asbestos in the embalming process and ancient Persia imported a
similar process from (ancient) India, while ancient Greece incorporated asbestos
into clothing, enjoying the mineral’s numerous insulating and protective qualities
(Ringsurf, 2009). Within building science and the history thereof, it can be
difficult to separate motivations for building in a particular fashion or using
specific materials. Function over form? Did a builder choose a particular material
for building because of its structural strengths, resistance to rot, insulation
capacity, or none of the above?
Many contributions to the evolution of the (residential) built structure and
to insulation arise from the culture brought to the U.S. with the arrival of
immigrants from other countries. For example, Ostrander & Satko (2011) note
that plans dating to 1805 credit the English with a cavity-wall style of masonry,
where in a 6-inch gap separating an interior and exterior brick wall provided
protection from moisture and if well-constructed, such a double-wall would serve
as excellent insulation.
Gaynor (1976) describes a contribution found among German immigrants
in the town of Zoar, Ohio, called the “Dutch Biscuit”, a construct composed of
wood planks wrapped with mud, hay, and sometimes lime. When placed between
two levels (attic-ceiling or floor-basement), the Dutch Biscuit provided a

23

 Platform building modified the balloon‐frame method by essentially dividing the building 
structure into two individual units, one built directly atop the other. The result is a two story 
house, the same as a balloon‐frame yet the additional steps introduced a barrier to fire and 
further structural support (Calloway, 1991) 
22

moderate degree of protection against thermal conduction and potentially
convection as well, depending on the individual instance.
Wyllie-Echeverria & Cox (1999) and Dowling (2009) wrote on Zostera
Marina, or Eel grass, a marine plant employed by generations by Nova Scotian
and New Englanders for its insulation capability, compressibility, durability, and
resistance to fire. In 1891 Samuel Cabot, Inc. developed “Cabot’s Insulating and
Deafening Quilt”, or “Cabot’s Quilt…by stitching various thicknesses of dry Z.
marina, leaves between layers of heavy Kraft paper” (Wyllie-Echeverria, S., Cox,
P., 1999).
While the Dutch-Biscuit and eel grass served as insulators within specific
geographic areas, they did not find wide-spread acceptance as insulators. Mineral
wool is one of the first materials produced on a commercial scale and used as
insulation in industrial, commercial, and housing applications. Numerous
academic ventures into the origin of mineral wool have delivered numerous
different claims of ownership: Warnford-Lock (1889), Thornbury (1938), Singh
& Coffman (1991), and Panayi (2007) attribute the manufacture of mineral wool
to different people in different times and different places, ranging from England,
to Russia, to Germany. Bynum (2001) states the earliest recorded commercial
production of mineral wool (used to insulate pipe) is in Wales, during the year
1840. Lamm (2007) writes that mineral wool’s close cousin, glass wool, possesses
an equally diverse history: originally patented in Paris, France, the capability to
produce glass wool on an industrial scale was developed in the U.S.by OwensIllinois in 1931. 24 Bynum provides addition background, dating usage of glass
fibers to ancient Egypt.
Rigid insulation is synonymous today with foam-board insulation and is
commonly referred to as Styrofoam (extruded polystyrene), yet modern foamboard insulation incorporates several different types of manufacture for different
purposes. The U.S. Department of Energy provides a listing of the types of rigid
24

 Owens‐Illinois was a company originally known for producing fiberglass; the term fiberglass 
refers to a resinous compound of composed plastic and glass fibers; when molten, the compound 
is poured into a mold, forming panels in the shape of the mold. Fiberglass insulation resembles 
cotton candy, though instead of spun sugar, the fluffy matrix is composed of spun glass.  
23

foam board insulation, including molded expanded polystyrene, extruded
expanded polystyrene, polyisocyanurate, and polyurethane (U.S. DOE, 2011).
Rigid board insulation is not new; Bock (1992) identifies several types of rigid
board insulation composed of compressed cellulosic material (organic, woody
byproducts); among them are Insulite, Cane Board, Inso Board, Maftex, Flax-linum, and Balsam Wool. These products first appeared around 1912, but were
more aggressively marketed during the 1920’s.

3.2 Standardization of Building Requirements
While history provides the opportunity to ascertain who developed what,
when, and where, it also identifies organizations responsible for developing or
furthering research on a subject. An example of this can be found in the
development of the guarded hotbox, an apparatus used to test and rate insulating
material such as mineral wool, rigid insulation, glass-wool insulation, and even
saw dust for thermal conductivity (Southern Ice Exchange,1897; Butterfield,
1916).
In the instance of the guarded hotbox, the American Society of
Refrigerating Engineers (ASRE) submitted a request to Congress for, in essence,
usable data with which to design refrigeration products (NIST, 1999). Congress
responded with funding to the newly-formed National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
and research into the guarded hotbox ensued. Societies such as ASRE and NBS,
now the National Institute of Standards and Technology, articulate the need for
technological progress, and (often) provide funding in addition to communication
with individuals and bodies in possession of needed resources. In Proclaiming the
Truth: an illustrated history of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., Comstock and Spanos recount the merging
of ASRE with the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers
(ASHVE). 25 Their work provides a measure against which modern standards can
be compared against as well as a fascinating context in which one can place the
25

 In 1954, ASHVE changed its name to the American Society of Heating and Air‐Conditioning 
Engineers (ASHAE), reflecting the rise in forced‐air (conditioning) systems in buildings (Comstock 
and Spanos 1995). 
24

progress of (the) industry. For example, Stewart A. Jellet recounts how “Until
about 1890 the business of heating and ventilating had been largely based on the
most ancient rule known to engineers, the rule of thumb…” (Comstock, 1995).
While windows into our cultural and technical history intrigue and
fascinate, the year 1975 saw ASHRAE’s development of Standard 90-75 (Energy
Conservation in New Building Design), and Standard 62-73 (Standards for
Natural and Mechanical Ventilation). 26 While the standards resulted from many
laborious hours by ASHRAE, they represented the culmination of efforts by many
organizations. In the case of Standard 90-75, ASHRAE worked off a 1974 NBS
energy conservation report (NBSIR 74-452) at the behest of the National
Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) to develop a
national building standard incorporating energy efficiency (Jarnagin, 2010). These
two standards interacted with existing building codes, forcefully encouraging the
employment and utilization of more energy efficient building styles and methods
in place of more traditional methods, methods (often) borne from the rule of
thumb.
Primary impacts of Federal Standard 62-73 included the standardization of
requirements for indoor air quality (IAQ) and the changes to building methods
and materials necessitated by (the implementation of) Standard 62-73. In order to
accommodate the needed number of air changes per hour, a given building needs
to have a ventilation system or central air system capable of delivering clean air to
the proper location. These required, by law, changes to the design and installation
of windows and doors, vents, ventilation conduits, and any element of a building
with an impact on air movement. As time progressed, revisions to the standard
occurred to accommodate improvements in technology as well greater
understanding of building science and its interaction with the health and comfort
of a building’s occupants. In Building Standards and Codes for Energy
Conservation, Gross and Pielert (1977) describe the evolution of ASHRAE
Standard 90-75 (90-75), from several pieces of federal legislation to its delivery in
26

 In 1916, “Margaret Ingels becomes the first woman in the world to earn a degree in 
mechanical engineering”‐  The ASHRAE Centennial: 100 Years of Progress  
25

October of 1975, one of the first energy efficiency standards applied to the
building industry.
One evaluation of the standard, performed by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
assessed the implications of 90-75 and found it would reduce “annual energy
consumption in all building types and locations” (Little, p 20). Specifically, Little,
Inc. found 90-75 stood to increase the energy efficiency in buildings of the 1970era by: 11.3% in single family residences; 42.7% in low-rise apartment buildings;
59.7% in office buildings; 40.1% in retail stores; and 48.1% in school buildings
(Education Development Center, Inc., 2011).
From 90-75 arose Public Law 94-163 in December 22nd, 1975 & Public
Law 94-385 in August 14th, 1976. Public Law 94-163 offered financial assistances
to those states desiring or considering implementation of energy codes (Gross and
Pielert, 1977). Public Law 94-385 includes within it: Title III, Energy
Conservation Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976, a measure requiring the
development of a national standard for energy efficiency and requiring states to
meet that national standard (Gross and Pielert, 1977).

3.3 The Oil Embargo of 1973 & NPCC/WPPSS
The catalyst for the standard 90-75 was necessity. The necessity, or
perceived necessity, arrived in the form of the 1973 oil embargo. The
Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) ceased exporting
petroleum to the U.S. and Holland for their support of Israel in the Yom Kippur
war. The U.S. responded by forming the national Strategic Oil Reserve, President
Nixon signed into law the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, and energy
efficiency rose to the forefront of national attention. 27 Gasoline shortages and
rationing highlighted automotive fuel economy and the inadequate thermal

27

 President Ford would later enact the Solar Energy Research Development and Demonstration 
Act of 1974, create the Federal Energy Administration, and the Carter Administration would pass 
the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) in 1978, establish the Department of Energy, a 
National Energy Policy, and would erect solar panels on the roof of the White House. The Reagan 
administration removed the solar panels. 

26

performance (illustrated through utility bills) of buildings received critical notice,
prompting efforts to increase the thermal performance of buildings.
While the country struggled to reduce usage of and dependency on oil,
Washington State experienced a different energy-related struggle called the
Washington Public Power Supply System, or WPPSS (or “Whoops”). The
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) provides a succinct and
remarkable recounting of WPPSS, describing it as a program designed to meet the
expected linear and unflagging rise in both energy consumption and population
through the construction of new power generating facilities: “21,400 megawatts
of thermal power — two coal-fired plants and 20 nuclear plants — and 20,000
megawatts of new hydropower between 1971 and 1990, at an estimated cost of
$15 billion” (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2011).
Released in January of 1976, a study called Energy 1990 predicted both a
reduction in the rate of increase in power consumption and established efficiency
as a legitimate means of meeting the power requirements on the part of ratepayers. 28 A second study, commissioned by the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) and conducted by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, revealed a substantial
potential for energy efficiency existed and the development of said efficiency
“would be as much as six times less expensive than building an equivalent
amount of nuclear power” (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2011).
In the Pacific Northwest, WPPSS is largely responsible for focusing
attention on energy conservation and directly responsible for the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Act, legislation enacted on December
5th, 1980 engendering the creation of the NPCC.
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Act not only
established the NPCC 29, but it also charged the council with the task of producing
an evaluation of the Pacific Northwest’s energy resources and recommendations
for meeting the energy demand placed on those resources while protecting the fish
28

 Energy 1990 was part of the negotiated settlement between the City of Seattle and pro 
environmental groups, who challenged the City of Seattle’s involvement of in WPPSS (Northwest 
Power and Conservation Council, 2011) 
29
 Technically, it established the NPCC’s forerunner, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and 
Conservation Planning Council. 
27

and wildlife within the region (Northwest Power Act, 1980). In April 1983, the
first such report, the Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, delivered
“a regional conservation and electric power plan and a program to protect,
mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife” (Northwest Power Act, 1980). The NPCC
released its sixth power plan in February of 2010.
In 1974, the City of Seattle introduced a building insulation standard into
code, and in 1976, the resolutions 25257 & 25259 stated energy efficiency would
be pursued as a primary method of meeting energy demand, rather than building
more power plants. The state energy code arose from Model Conservation
Standards, developed in the Pacific Northwest under the Northwest Power
Planning Act, passed by Congress in 1980. The State Energy Code required
conservation as the preferred method to accommodate load growth in the
Bonneville Power Administration Region. Subsequent updated editions of the
code were released in 1984, 2001, and 2009, and with each edition the basic
standard for insulation, building envelope tightness and other elements of energy
efficiency grew (Lynn Benningfield, John Hogan, 2003).

3.4 Studies on Residential Energy Efficiency
Washington State University Energy Extension Program (WSU EE)
conducted research comparing actual energy consumption versus predicted energy
consumption of Northwest Energy Star rated modular (manufactured) homes
within the Discovery Village community on JBLM in the study Measured vs.
Predicted Analysis of Energy Star Modular Permanent Military Housing: Fort
Lewis Case Study (Lubliner, Kunkle, Gordon, and Blasnik, 2010). The study
complements the current investigation in many methodological respects from
utility billing analysis to the comparison of actual energy usage compared to
modeled usage. However the current study focuses on retrofitting existing homes
while the earlier study focused on new construction. In addition, the prior study
uses one energy modeling program, Energy Gauge U.S. 2.8, while the current
study uses two programs, SIMPLE and BEopt.

28

McMakin et al. authored a study in 1999, Energy Efficiency Campaign for
Residential Housing at the Fort Lewis Army Installation, addressing energy
consumption within the realm of occupant behavior. In this study, McMakin notes
there is no one influence or factor determining the behavior of (housing)
occupants. Thus, there is no one answer, no singular action available to
successfully address egregious energy consumption. Such a statement provides
relief; rather than trying to address one big problem with one big solution,
numerous smaller problems can be met with multiple manageable solutions. The
smaller the area, the greater the degree to which a solution can be contoured to
individual needs, and the greater the likelihood of success. In addition, McMakin
et al. provide the basis for a question: if the baseline energy efficiency of the
residential buildings is increased, will the behavioral elements impacting energy
usage have a reduced impact? 30
A seminal study in the area of residential energy efficiency is the Houston
Home Energy Efficiency Study by Hassel, Blasnik, and Hannas (2009). In it, the
authors analyzed and compared the energy performance of 226,873 new houses in
the Houston, TX region. Of the 226,873 homes analyzed, 114,035 were built to
local code and functioned as a baseline, 106,197 were rated to Energy Star
standards, and 6,641 were rated to Guaranteed Performance Homes 31. The study
found all houses demonstrated a substantial increase in energy efficiency, relative
to houses built prior to 2001 32, and the baseline homes in particular performed
better than anticipated, thereby lowering the performance gap between houses
built to Energy Star specifications and those built to code (only). The increase in
performance is due to a variety of factors, mostly within the realm of economics
and the implementation of the TX energy code (Hassel, Blasnik, and Hannas,
2009).

30

 While this is an important question, it is not pursued further in this study. 

31

Guaranteed Performance Homes is a standard slightly more stringent than ENERGY STAR and
upheld by a collection of organizations such as Masco, who participated in the study, Tuscon
Electric Power, Advanced Energy, and General Electric.

32

 In June, 2001 the Texas legislature approved the first‐ever energy code, Senate Bill 5.   
29

3.5 Review of Existing Modeling Programs
The U.S. DOE’s Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)
department lists 393 software programs designed to produce energy consumption
projections (EERE, 2011). This list is not exhaustive, yet serves to illustrate the
dizzying diversity within the field of energy modeling software. The field of
energy (consumption) modeling as practiced today is relatively new, yet the
foundational principles are old. A settler in the early 19th century who gauges the
amount of wood needed to counter a cold winter attempts to predict how much
energy, released in the combustion of fuel, will be necessary to offset the
migration of heat from inside to outside. Articles in trade journals dating back to
1906 document the efforts made to quantify the impact of weather upon heating
and cooling load estimations: “for any given outside temperature there is a
corresponding amount of heat that must be supplied in order to offset the heat
losses through the walls and windows” (Fels, 1986). 33
A noteworthy step toward the process of modeling energy consumption
began within the HVAC industry, where engineers employed thermodynamics,
seeking to predict heating and cooling load requirements. The development of the
guarded hot-box, as described in section 3.2, represents one of the more notable
contributions toward measuring an object’s thermal conductivity.

33

 “Highest Economy in furnace heating: Proper temperatures, ventilation and coal consumption 
for different outside temperatures, The Metal Worker, Plumber and Steam Fitter, 66 (November, 
1906) 47‐49. “ 
30

Figure 3. Schematic of NBS 200 mm guarded-hot-plate apparatus, 1928
version.

(Zarr, R. 2001)

The hot-box is a construct designed to measure the conductivity of a wall
assembly, accomplished by placing the test wall within an apparatus that
simulates an environment where in one side of a wall is exposed to heat via an
electrically-heated plate (traditionally of copper) while the other side of the wall is
exposed to cold, provided through water-cooled plates. The guarded hot-box,
shown in Figure 2, differs from the traditional hot box in the etching of a square
into the heated plate, to a depth nearly equal to that of the plate itself (Zarr, 2001).
This produces a marked reduction in lateral heat flow in the conduction of heat
through the hot plate allowing the assessment of conductivity within a clearly
defined and controlled space. 34

34
 Another perspective on the benefit of the guarded hot box approach identifies the added precision 
gained through removing the slight resistance encountered at the edges and surfaces of a tested material as 
an important contributor to the increased precision off measurements. 

31

3.5.1 Computer-assisted Simulations, PRISM
Employing computers to generate simulations of a given building’s energy
consumption is a fairly common practice today yet transitioning the existing
engineering 35, a product of field work, numerous computations calculated by
hand, invention, rules-of-thumb, etc., that evolved over decades, to a system
employing a computer to perform many of those functions is a slow process. The
computers calculate material and building performance by assigning values to
said materials and building.
The work of Tamami Kusuda, among many others, pioneered the way
toward using computers to aid in energy consumption projections (Jenkins, 2011;
Kusuda, 2001; IBPSA NEWS, 2004). While working under Professor Threlkeld
at the University of Minnesota, Kusuda received in-depth exposure to
thermodynamics and heat transfer theories, including “psychrometrics, advanced
refrigeration cycles, solar energy, transient heat conduction through multi-layer
walls, etc. All of these analyses were very much relevant to computer simulation
in later years…” (Kusuda, 2001). Kusuda continued to push the developing field
of computer modeling: one of the earliest utilizations of a computer (a Bendix G15, used to deliver numerous predictions on the behavior of hot-air originating
from heated coils); co-authoring the first ASHRAE paper relying on computerderived computations of pressure allocation in the performance of a multicylinder refrigeration compressors; and in modeling the fluid mechanics of air
with a sealed nuclear fallout shelter and more (Kusuda, 2001). 36
Regardless of the arena in which it takes place, estimation is a delicate
thing, and estimating energy usage by a building is no exception. With inputs
ranging from building envelope integrity, to appliance energy efficiency and
consumption, to insulation, to occupant behavior, there are a host of factors whose
inclusion or exclusion can dramatically impact or alter a given energy usage
estimate. Yet few factors have a greater impact than weather, and it was the

35

 This refers to the late 1950’s. 

36

 A copy of “A Tribut to Dr. Tamami Kusuda 1925‐2003” , from the ibpsaNews v. 14 edition is 
available in Appendix D. 
32

capacity to successfully incorporate weather data into an energy modeling
program that made PRInceton Scorekeeping Method (PRISM) rather unique.
Introduced in 1985 yet originating in the early 1970s, PRISM incorporated
two inputs, utility billing analysis (to gauge past energy usage) and weather data
(to aid in explaining instances or periods of unusually high rates of energy
consumption). This approach is very useful when dealing with existing buildings
because there is existing data on energy consumption and abnormal usages due to
weather can be adjusted. The PRISM model, depicted in Figure 3, broke from the
mainstream pattern of making predictions based on calculated material
performance under ideal circumstances while neglecting inputs from
imperfections in construction and installation, weather, etc.; this structure is
employed by many modeling programs today.

Figure 4. Schematic of PRISM model and operation

Additional breaks from tradition include an emphasis on delivering a system
wherein current consumption is compared against prior usage as opposed to
predicting future usage, a figure based on utility billing, on real consumption, on
33

recorded climatic data, and the inclusion of control houses during the
experimental/developmental stage of the program.

CHAPTER 4: METHODS

4.1 Utility Billing Analysis
Minol U.S. delivered utility billing data for 2,276 housing units (located
within the six identified communities on JBLM) for 23 monthly periods
beginning January 14, 2009 and running through December 15, 2010. Physical
parameters of the housing units in question came from both Minol and EQR.
Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service and Tacoma City Light provides
electricity to JBLM. Table 1 provides some basic characteristics for each of these
communities.

Units

Typical
Square
Feet

Typical
Vintage

Gas Hot
Water
Heat
(units)

Electric Hot
Water Heat
(units)

Beachwood

512

12201494

19591963/
2003

129

383

Broadmoor

169

Pre-1950

72

97

Davis Hill

433

1959-1963

224

209

Discovery
Village

458

2005-2007

458

0

Miller Hill 37 

34

2008

34

0

Evergreen

147

1984/1995

147

0

New Hillside

523

1959-1963

0

523

Total

2276

-

1030

1212

19002844
11541262
17002062
17802062
14641580
12201378
-

Table 1. Community Characteristics

37

 Miller Hill is a subset of Discovery Village and therefor the hot water heater types are 
incorporated into The Discovery Village listing. 
34

Our 38 analysis of the billing data consisted of three stages, the first being
aggregate monthly energy statistics for 23 monthly periods for each community.
To calculate monthly usage, meter readings from the beginning and end of the
particular period were tallied for each unit within in a given community while
statistics were calculated for all the units within a given community for that
period.
The second stage of data analysis consisted of aggregate annual energy
statistics for each community. These annual periods begin with the annual period
ending on January 14, 2010 and end with the annual period ending on December
15, 2010. Annual usage was calculated from the beginning and ending meter
readings for an annual period per each unit in a community and statistics were
calculated for all the units in the community for that annual period.
In order to complete these two stages of analysis, the data required several
stages of filtering and organization. The initial stage addressed a variety of
abnormalities, such as estimated readings 39, fluctuations in occupancy status,
utility meter roll-overs, off-sets for those roll-overs, and distinguishing those units
with natural gas-fueled hot water heaters for those with electric hot water heaters.
Once initial organization and filtration occurred, the data traveled to the
programming department with Washington State University Energy Program
where the data received comprehensive cleaning, sorting, and organization.
Finally, a regression analysis of baseline energy usage by unit was
performed by Michael Blasnik of Blasnik & Associates. Mr. Blasnik’s work
provided a more realistic assessment of the houses, both individually and
communally 40, by extracting baseload (space heating, water heating, and lighting)
38
 “Our” refers to initial efforts by Luke Mattheis, and to consequential efforts by Rick Kunkle and 
Vince Schueler of WSU EE. 
39
 Generally speaking, the estimates were arrived at by averaging the month prior to the missing 
month with the next available reading. The hardware is somewhat antiquated and transmits the 
readings wirelessly from individual house to neighborhood hubs. However, the transmission 
requires line‐of‐sight to function, and when line‐of‐sight is not available, there is no reading for 
that month.  
40
Time constraints prevented engaging our initial plan of using the weather‐normalized data to 
select community‐representative houses. However, the differences in power consumption 
between houses within a given community are relatively slight and little impact to data accuracy 
is anticipated.  We therefore chose the houses on a basis of availability.

35

electricity and natural gas consumption and normalizing this data set for
fluctuations in weather, using Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3)
information.
Essentially, the regression considers the spread of various data points,
looks for a pattern within that spread and establishes the pattern that best fits the
data. The X & Y axes are used to find specific pieces of information. By
incorporating patterns representing heating degree-days (HDD) and cooling
degree-days (CDD), acquired from TMY3 weather data, the data is adjusted to
reflect what a true average would be. Essentially, the regression analysis allows
one to separate the energy use due to a leaky house.
The regression model fits the equation:

Use/day = baseload/day + heating slope * HDD/day
This reduces the impact of incidental energy use from consumer
electronics & other energy-consumptive devices on the summative energy use for
the house. By focusing on the performance of the residential structure and the
primary appliances (furnace, water heater) rather than the choices of the
occupants, a more accurate representation of the overall efficiency is delivered. 41
The utility billing analysis provides essential background for the field
testing and for the computer modeling. With the results of the billing analysis in
hand, the examination and analysis of individual houses can be compared against
the characteristics of the surrounding community. This comparison is necessary
because it establishes the house in question as representative of the greater
surrounding community and with so few houses tested, the relationship between
the individual house and the community becomes very important. This
comparison is necessary because it establishes the house in question as
representative of the greater surrounding community; tables 5 and 6, found on
pages 69 and 70 illustrate that relationship.

41

 Formulas are courtesy of Michael Blasnik 
36

4.2 Field Testing
Field testing provided a variety of information ranging from air infiltration
rates, to duct leakage rates, condition of the exterior and the interior, appliances,
notable repairs, and items or circumstances in need of repair. Houses were
selected on the basis of condition and availability. While less than ideal, the
method of selection delivered houses with average energy usage and
representative physical conditions.

4.2.1 Blower Door Testing
We 42 performed full energy audits, including blower-door tests, Leakageto-Exterior tests, and physical & visual inspections of the exterior, interior,
heating and cooling systems, and appliances. A blower-door test, pictured in
figure 4, is used to establish the tightness of a given structure’s building envelope
and is conducted by placing an industrial-strength fan in an open exterior door
within a nylon sheath fitted to the door frame (creating a rough air barrier).
Connected to the fan is a manometer, a device used to measure pressure. Once
activated, the goal is to either pressurize or depressurize the building, while
recording the volume of airflow required to achieve the desired pressure level. In
general, the tighter the building envelope, the lower the volume of air passage
through the fan; conversely, the leakier the building envelope the higher the
airflow and the harder the fan must work to maintain a give pressure.

42

 “We” refers to Luke Howard of WSU EE and Luke Mattheis. 
37

Figure 5. Schematic of blower-door dynamics
(The Energy Conservatory, 2011)

Several metrics are used to describe air movement and infiltration,
however nearly all rely on a measurement delivered by the blower door: Cubic
Feet per Minute at 50 Pascals (CFM50). The CFM50 is a measurement of the
(actual) flow rate of the air as it moves through the fan and with it, extrapolations
to other gauges of infiltration and leakiness become possible. In this study I will
use Air Changes per Hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50), a measurement of how many
times per hour the air within a building is exchanged for outdoor-air when the
building is pressurized to -50 Pascals. Minimum Ventilation Requirement (MVR)
defines the minimum level of air movement for health and air quality purposes
while Approximate Leakage Area (ALA), is a calculation describing the leakage

38

surface area where all the direct and indirect openings in the envelope combined
into one large hole (Sherman, 1998; Krigger & Dorsi, 2009; U.S. DOE, 2001).

4.2.2 Duct Blower Testing
A Leakage-to-Exterior test incorporates a second fan system into the
blower door test and is intended to deduce the tightness of a building’s ductwork.
The test operates on similar principles as the blower-door test and is conducted by
first pressurizing the building (using a blower-door), then hooking a duct-blower
(a much smaller version of the fan used in the blower-door test) to the duct
system. If both building and duct system are brought to the same pressure, in
essence to equilibrium, there should be no airflow between the two. The airflow
that does occur goes outside through the duct system (Krigger & Dorsi, 2009).

4.3 Energy Modeling Programs
Matching the billing analysis with the audits provides the means to
establish which houses are the most and energy efficient and why.
Complementing the billing analysis is a secondary line of analysis in the form of
energy modeling programs. The goal in using energy modeling is to estimate the
energy usage of a specified retrofit measure. For example, if I want to explore
upgrading the insulation in my house from nothing to high-density spray-in foam
combined with blown-in cellulose, I would describe both the retrofit and the
existing house to the modeling program. With all required inputs in place, the
program estimates how much energy will be consumed, based on characteristics
of the retrofit measure (insulation in this case) and on characteristics of the house
as a system.
By modeling the various retrofit options in this fashion, I am able to
establish & compare rates of energy efficiency as well as produce cost-benefit
analyses. The cost benefit calculations are based on the estimated energy savings
generated by the modeling software Building Energy optimization (BEopt) and
include: financial saving per year and per month; cost of the retrofit measure;
simple payback of the measure, in years; and the monthly savings of the measure.
39

By running two modeling programs on each house, the results can be
compared against one another and against the utility bills. The results of this
comparison provide indications of both accuracy and precision of the two
programs. With this information, a) JBLM will be better situated to make betterinformed decisions when faced with retrofitting other buildings as well as new
construction, and b) the developers of the software programs will be able refine
the operations of the modeling programs.

4.3.1 SIMPLE
SIMPLE is a spreadsheet designed by Michael Blasnik to allow the input
of qualitative data to generate the estimated energy use for the house in question.
The quantitative values given to the qualitative entries are drawn from extensive
analyses of energy consumption from all over the country and represent averaged
values of those qualitatively described inputs. For example, wall insulation is
entered as “no insulation, partial/semi insulation, standard insulation, good
insulation, very good/foam”; this is in place of a specific R value. However,
should the user desire to enter specific values or parameters for the house, such as
air leakage measurements, SIMPLE provides the user with the ability to override
the standard values.
The model itself possesses neither hourly nor bin calculations, enabling
the program to quickly deliver a multivariable linear regression. SIMPLE works
off pre-calculated results from hourly modeling and analysis for a given weather
station using TMY3 weather files. The results are summarized into key
parameters that are used in a simplified engineering heat balance approach,
resulting in a program geared to empirical data.
Once all parameters are entered, SIMPLE generates Annual usage
Estimates for both homes, broken into the categories of Heating, Water Heating,
Cooling, and All Else, and displays energy usage in terms of natural gas and
electricity. Figure 5 depicts the SIMPLE interface.

40

Figure 6. SIMPLE data entry screen

4.3.2 BEopt
Developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), BEopt
predicts the amount of energy usage for a given building based on the building’s
characteristics such as age, dimensions, construction style & method, utility rates
& type of heating fuel, orientation of the house, occupancy, appliances, and
occupant behavior, generally speaking. The software user identifies and selects
41

these characteristics (materials, designs, location) with known properties through
a series of drop-down menus and when all selections are made, the software
program estimates and the energy consumption. This occurs through the rapid
calculation of energy consumption using known values, such as kWh/year in the
case of refrigerators, or BTUs for water heaters; known rates of energy
consumption are used to calculate the energy consumption over the course of a
year. 43 The calculations incorporate the impacts of each factor on the performance
of the other factors.
For example, if one replaces incandescent light bulbs for compact
fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs one will save energy due the greater efficiency of
the CFL. However, the heat discharged by the incandescent bulbs contributes to
the overall temperature of the conditioned space. This means the furnace will
need to work slightly more than before the changeover and recognizing the
relationship between separate actions is a function performed by BEopt.
In this study, the primary function served by BEopt is generating energy
consumption estimates for certain retrofit measures, individually and in groups.
These values are matched with cost information provided by local contractors to
provide economic parameters including simple payback, monthly & annual
savings, and monthly & annual cash flow.
BEopt uses three main input screens to generate the predicted energy
consumption, associated costs, and costs of the varying modeling options, such as
increasing attic insulation to R-49. The first screen, shown in Figure 6 & referred
to as the Geometry Screen, directs the user to graphically map the physical
dimensions of the house, including foundation & above-surface stories, the
associated square footage, and number of rooms. Within the geometry screen (as
well as the Options Screen) the user can create different Cases. These function as
folders within the project and contain a variety of files called Designs. Designs
are files containing the different elements comprising the modeled houses and it is
the selection or de-selection of these elements that create a modeled house.
43

 These values often originate with the manufacturer but also come from other testing facilities 
such as Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory or Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
42

Figure 7. BEopt geometry screen, unit Evergreen 9280

The second screen, referred to as the Options Screen and displayed in
Figure 7, lists the individual measures (that) comprise the finished house,
organized in a cascading, collapsible menu of options. The measures include
structural elements such as framing as well as appliances, building orientation,
HVAC, and other relevant inputs. Once the geometric entries are made, the
individual component options are selected, filling out the shell constructed by the
user in the geometry screen. In the option screen, the user is able to create
multiple variations of the existing house, with each variation representing a
potential retro fit measure or group of measures.

43

Figure 8. BEopt options screen, unit Evergreen 9280

The third screen, displayed in Figure 8 and referred to as the Economic
Parameters screen, contains inputs for local energy rates, electricity, natural gas,
oil, etc. It also includes inputs for mortgage rate/duration input, location, carbon
emissions, and the multiplying factor used to calculate source energy
consumption.

44

Figure 9. BEopt economic parameters screen, unit Evergreen 9280

Once all parameters are entered and the analysis run, the results are
displayed on the Output Screen (pictured in Figure 9) and subdivided into three
sections. One section displays the Annualized Energy Related Costs by plotting
the reductions in energy usage against the energy-related cash flows for each
design, allowing the user to determine which design produces the greatest energy
savings and the price of those savings. Another section provides a graphic and
numerical accounting of energy usage by the selected parameters of the modeled
house, the HVAC system, lighting, heating, appliances, etc. This accounting can
be viewed in terms of utility bills, CO2 emissions, source energy, and site energy,
divided into electricity, natural gas, propane, and heating oil. The third section
provides a visual comparison of what elements of a given design differ from the
original model, the existing house, the percent energy savings and cost of the
respective measure.

45

Figure 10. BEopt output screen, featuring the unit Evergreen 9280
BEopt was engaged by creating a base case model for each audited house,
using the measurements, structural, and compositional elements observed during
the audits as well as from data sent from EQR. Compared against the base case
are the modeled retrofit measures, with one variation (the retrofit measure) per
design. The package retrofit modeling operated under identical circumstances,
with each package compared against the base case as described by the energy
audits and EQR. Plotting the retrofits in this fashion enables the user to compare
the costs and benefits of each measure, both in terms of energy use and in
finances, to identify savings opportunities

4.4 Practical Feasibility
While cost is a primary factor in the cost-benefit evaluation of these
retrofit measures, other factors need to be considered when evaluating the retrofit
measures. For example, can the measure in question be applied to all houses on
JBLM? What impact does time have on a retrofit measure? Does the measure
require special training or tools to implement? What pricing structure exists? Can
46

a retrofit measure be modeled within a reasonable range of complexity? While a
given retrofit measure may present superior energy or financial savings, if its
implementation is not feasible, the savings offered become moot. The practical
feasibility of certain measures will be further examined in section 5.3 on pg 55.

CHAPTER 5: DATA & RESULTS
(Utility billing analysis draws heavily on work performed by Rick Kunckle)

5.1 Utility Billing Analysis
Utility billing analysis reveals several patterns within the 6 communities
studied. One such pattern is the modest amount by which both individual houses
& communities differ in energy use. Other patterns are visible when comparing
houses built before Washington State adopted an energy code. For example, those
houses constructed prior to 1977 (the year of the initial energy code adoption)
underperform houses constructed after 1977. Subsequent, updated editions of the
code were released in 1984, 2001, and 2009, and with each edition the basic
standard for insulation, building envelope tightness and other elements of energy
efficiency grew. The houses within the Discovery Village/Miller Hill community
are of 2005-2007 vintage, and easily outperform older houses. This is due in part
to increases in materials technology and to the wear associated with age, however
the obligation to use these technologies is, in large part, the result of code
evolution.
Billing analysis also served to identify water heaters as a distinguishing
factor when comparing energy usage among houses or communities. Natural gasfired water heaters use, in general, less energy than electric-fired water heaters.
While this statement leads into the complex arena of source energy vs. site
energy, the basic premise is the generation and transportation of electricity is a
rather inefficient process while the transportation and combustion of natural gas is
comparatively more efficient.

47

One community, Davis Hill, demonstrates this disparity in efficiency well
due the mixed composition of natural gas water heat and electric water heat.
Within the community, houses with electric water heat used an average of 14.4
MBtus/year less than those houses using natural gas water heat, however there are
15 fewer units using electric water heaters. 44 Because electric water heaters utilize
energy more efficiently (than gas-fired models), this difference is expected.

Comment [LM1]: Howz ‘bout this?

Considering the low rate of efficiency in the generation and transmission of
electricity, however, natural gas remains the preferable choice. This choice is
preferable when considering the broader impact of electricity generation, the
production of CO, CO2, mercury, and particulates in the case of coal-fired power

Comment [LM2]:
preferable to policy maker may differ
from preferable to householder or
property manager. I’d at least mention
that here, and whether there’s a
divergence of perspectives on this point.

plants. However, such a perspective may not hold among homeowners or property
managers, who may find advantages such as lower monthly costs, in pursuing
Comment [LM3]: This is….?

electric services.
Within the Discovery Village/Miller Hill community, a baseload
difference of 51 therms (22 percent of natural gas baseload) was established
between two series of houses with identical floor plans and construction. The
difference between houses lies in the type of water heater: the higher-use homes
had standard water heaters while the lower-use homes used tankless water heaters.
However, the houses with tankless water heaters numbered 34, making for a
rather small sample. Because of this, drawing too many conclusions from this
particular finding is must be approached with caution.

5.2 Field Testing Results
5.2.1 Field Audits
The field audits both describe the status of the buildings and provide
measurements with which to gauge a building’s energy efficiency. Key among
these measurements is the blower door test and to a lesser extent, the leakage to
exterior test. The results of the blower door tests placed houses into one of three
classifications, 50% of Minimum Ventilation Requirement (MVR; 3.5 ACH50),
44

Additional details/data are available in Appendix A.

48

100% of MVR (7.1 ACH50), and 150% of MVR (10.5 ACH50). 45 Seven of the 12
audited houses delivered CFM50 tests ranging from 11.15 to 12.95 ACH50, while
the remaining five tested between 9.87 and 10.46 ACH50. 46 These results do not
specify where the leaks are, however by calculating the Approximate Leakage
Area (ALA), an estimate of the aggregate size of the leaks is obtained. The
average ALA of the houses tested is ~220 square inches, excepting the historic
Broadmoor homes whose ALA average ~416 square inches. The historic
Broadmoor houses have notably larger square footage so this is not unexpected.
Field audits identified several areas for improvement common in most
homes tested. While the housing stock on JBLM received furnace upgrades to
92% efficient condensing gas furnaces several years ago, the current state of
ductwork indicates further attention is warranted. Figure 10 displays the plenum
running from the air handler to the ductwork, located in the attic. While this
particular example is atypical in the degree of deterioration, it is an example of a
problem in need of a fix, and an example of the type of problem field technicians

Comment [LM4]:
if it is atypical, i.e. not really indicative of
the typical situation, you need to explain
why you are showing it to us.
Comment [LM5]: ?

encounter.

Figure 11. Furnace/utility room in unit Beachwood 8450
45

 The values are averages of the twelve houses. 
 Results of blower door and duct testing may be viewed in Table X, Appendix C. 

46

49

Unsealed tabs provide
another avenue for air loss.

The general depression in the
sheet metal, the bent latches,
and the pinched roof of the
main line provide ample
opportunity for air loss and
suggest prior stepping or

Figure 12. Ductwork within unit Davis Hill 5959

The trunk duct lines were un-insulated rigid aluminum plenums while the
branch lines were flexible ducting (flex duct) as shown in Figure 11. The flex duct
had 1-2” of fiberglass bat wrapped around it, roughly estimated at R-8 and
protected by thick black plastic sheathing; however the junction between trunk
and branch lines often was usually unsecured & unsealed. The trunk line often
displayed dents, depressions, gaps between sections, and junctions sealed with
duct tape (often very brittle and non-functional). In all but one community,
Broadmoor, supply ductwork ran through the attic while return air entered the
furnace through a vent or grill located in the wall separating the mechanical room
from the living space. The space available to inspect & correct problems in the
attic space is extremely limited in certain houses and helps to account for the state
of ductwork. Attic insulation levels averaged ~9-12” of blown-in fiberglass,
roughly estimated at R-15. In the Broadmoor community, tested houses either
employed hydronic heating systems or routed the ductwork in the crawlspace
beneath the building.

50

Routing ductwork through the crawl space will generally result in a heated
crawl space if the ductwork is leaky and un-insulated (as is the case with this
ductwork). If the crawlspace is ventilated, the conditioned air will move to the
exterior. If the floor of the house is un-insulated, some of the heat will migrate to
the space above. Finally, a conditioned crawl space provides an attractive
Comment [LM6]: Not usually.

environment for rodents.
The audits identified several common points of air leakage: openings in
the building envelope resulting from bathroom vent penetrations; doors with
deteriorated or missing weatherization; and plumbing & electrical conduit
passages are not sealed (running from the attic to the conditioned interior).
In addition to those areas commonly found in the communities studied, the
furnace/utility room was (also) identified as a source of heat loss; however this
status depends on the style of house. While the majority of utility rooms were
located inside the conditioned area, several were accessed through an exterior,
louvered door pictured in Figure 12. The likely cause for this was the provision of
appropriate ventilation for a previous, atmospherically-vented furnace. However,
with the upgrade to the 92% efficient sealed combustion gas furnaces, the vented
rooms now serve to leak conditioned air to the exterior environment.

51

Comment [LM7]:
to maintain a parallel structure in the list
of common points, you should start with
the problem, then stick on the additional
explanatory info, i.e. turn this prase
around.
Comment [LM8]: Turned!

Figure 13. Utility Rooms: Louvre Door, units Davis Hill 5428 & 5959

52

Paralleling the blower-door results, the duct testing results ranged from a
maximum of 460 CFM50 to a minimum of 85 CFM50. When converted into a
percentage of conditioned floor area leaking to the outside, the audited houses
yield duct leakage rates ranging from 9-40% (indicating 9-40% of conditioned air
passing through the ductwork leaks into the surrounding environment).

5.2.2 High Bill Complaints
In order to provide further background information on housing at JBLM,
including occupant behavior and condition of houses while occupied, three highbill complaint site-visits were conducted. A site visit investigates potential causes
for deviant energy usage and is conducted by EQR maintenance technicians. Site
visits are triggered by either occupant inquiry or by EQR’s observation of high
energy use. These site visits occurred in the communities of Beachwood, New
Hillside & Discovery Village, and consisted of a scaled-down energy audit &
occupant interview (available in Appendix C). In addition to the three occupied
units visited, an unoccupied home in the Parkway development was visited and
tested. The houses visited during the project had renovations performed on them
(already) or had no renovation performed on them. This provided an opportunity
to inspect a unit before renovation and after.
The results of the audits and testing of these homes were very similar to
the results from the 12 unoccupied field tested homes in this study, with virtually
identical insulation levels and window types. Infiltration rates for the homes
tested in Beachwood, New Hillside and Discovery Village were within 5% of the
average test result. Duct testing results for the Discovery Village home was below
the Northwest Energy Star Homes specification of 6 CFM per 100 square feet of
conditioned floor area at 50 Pascals. 47 For the three other homes the leakage rate
was higher than the average for all housing types tested within this study. At the
Beachwood home, the duct system tested at 340 CFM, due to a partially
47

 From the Washington State Energy Code 2009 pg 23: “Leakage to outdoors shall be less than or 
equal to 6 CFM per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area”, meaning the amount of air 
escaping to the exterior environment cannot exceed cannot exceed 110 CFM (using a square 
footage of 1,843, representative of those homes). 
53

Comment [LM9]: Here is the reason
why, however I am not sure if removing
it would be a a more straightforward
move.

disconnected duct. The duct was reattached by Equity staff and the duct system
retested at 270 CFM. Among the houses tested, the average leakage-to-exterior
was 258 CFM. The New hillside homes showed more duct leakage, however no
obvious disconnect or system deficiencies were identified.

Comment [LM10]:
Comment [LM11]:
this is the reduction; how near or far from
average for total leakage was the
improved result?

In all but one case (Beachwood), results from the occupant survey showed
that occupant behavior was at least partially responsible for perceived and real
high energy use concerns. Examples of energy-intensive occupant behavior
include maintaining the thermostat at 78°F, multiple televisions operating
throughout the day, and continual use of interior and exterior lights. Balancing
those behaviors are conservative ones such as unplugging appliances and devices
when not in use and maintaining a low-temperature thermostat setting.
Performance testing supports that in all but one case (Discovery Village)
duct system leakage is also a significant contributor to homes with higher than
average consumption. In addition, pre- and post-window retrofit infiltration rates

Comment [LM12]:
where can we see those? and can you
give us a number for this right here?

at the Parkway home illustrate the importance of installing quality windows,
tightly fitted and mounted to the wall. Prior to retrofitting, the unit delivered a
blower door test of 3000 CFM50 and after retrofitting the unit tested at 2445
CFM50, a reduction of roughly 20%.
The results from the audits on these homes further supports
recommendations based on the unoccupied home audits. Air sealing of both the
envelope and the duct system should be the highest priority, and increasing
insulation performance in attics should be performed in conjunction with air
sealing.
Additionally, recommendations for the Parkway development go beyond
those previously made for homes included in this study. The Parkway homes are
built over unconditioned basements containing un-insulated and unsealed metal
ducts within an exposed, un-insulated framed floor. Significant effort should be
made to air seal and insulate (to R-30) the floor. Ducts in these homes are much

54

Comment [LM13]:

more accessible than homes with ducts in the attics, and should be considered a
high priority for renovation.

5.3 Analysis of the Modeling Programs BEopt and SIMPLE
The primary energy modeling program used in this study is BEopt, with
correlating/reference data provided by SIMPLE. For each house modeled in
BEopt, an alternate model exists with one variable (the retrofit measure) changed.
In addition to the individual measures, packages of measures were also modeled.
The retro fit measures modeled included:
Improve HVAC ductwork on existing .90 AFUE 48 (high

1)

efficiency) gas furnaces
b) Dense-packing 49 the historical houses located in the Broadmoor community
2)

Complete comprehensive building envelope air sealing, to three
distinct targets:
a)

Air sealing to 150% of MVR

b) Air sealing to 100% of MVR
c) Air sealing to 50% of MVR, with the additional installation of an
ASHRAE 62.2 complaint ventilation system
3) Increase ceiling insulation from R-15 to R-49
4) Conversion of older, standard gas water heaters to tankless gas, and tankless gas
condensing water heaters
a) Upgrade from gas standard DHW to Gas Tankless water heater
b) Upgrade from gas standard DHW to Gas Tankless, condensing water
heater
5) Conversion of older, standard electric water heaters to tankless gas, and tankless
gas condensing water heaters
a) Upgrade from electric standard DHW to Gas Tankless water heater

48

 Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency 
 Dense‐packing refers to blowing cellulose insulation (essentially shredded newspaper treated 
with fire retardant) under high pressure into the wall cavity, attic, or other desired locations. By 
using a higher pressure, the cellulose fibers can be installed with greater density. This not only 
insulates against thermal bridging but helps to reduce unwanted airflow (conduction) as well.  
49

55

Comment [LM14]:
what’s this?

b) Upgrade from electric standard DHW to Gas Tankless, condensing
water heater
6) Replacing existing boilers with high-efficiency models at wear-out. This applies
only to the historic residences with the Broadmoor community.
7) Installation of Energy Star refrigerator, clothes washer, and lighting

In addition to these individual measures, three packages were created:
A.

Improve HVAC ductwork; Air sealing to 150% of MVR; and Attic
insulation R-15 to R-49

B.

Improve HVAC ductwork; Air sealing to 100% of MVR; and Attic
insulation R-15 to R-49

C.

Improve HVAC ductwork; Air sealing to 50% of MVR + installation of
mechanical ventilation; and Attic insulation R-15 to R-49.
These three cost effective measures involve either alteration to the
building envelope or an improvement in close proximity. By offering these
separate measures as a package, the highest number of buildings would receive
the best retrofitting for the lowest cost. Furthermore, the maximum gain in
efficiency is achieved when the measures are used in concert. For example, if one
installs attic insulation without air sealing the building (or at least the attic), one
runs the risk of reducing efficiency though air infiltration (convection).

5.3.1 Retrofit Analysis: Cost-Energy Savings
The cost-energy savings shown here are averages of the twelve houses
modeled; Appendix A contains cost-energy savings data separated into aggregate
(shown), aggregate excluding Broadmoor, and Broadmoor solo. Because the
Broadmoor community includes houses with architectural and structural features
unique to the particular houses within that community, such as partially vaulted
ceilings and conditioned cement crawlspaces as well as houses falling under
historic preservation ordinances, the reductions in energy consumption and

56

resulting financial savings will be proportionately greater in comparison to the
remaining houses. Analysis of the modeling simulations demonstrate that all
measures produce energy savings, ranging from 1.17 MBtus to 50.4 MBtus 50,
with duct-sealing and ceiling insulation yielding the greatest. For comparison of
the specific costs and savings see Appendix A.
Table 2, located on page 69, displays the projected energy and monetary
savings resulting from the implementation of Package B. Averaged into the
aggregate are 4 houses from the Broadmoor community; two of these houses were
built in the early 20th century and are protected under historic preservation
measures while the other two were built around 1960 and incorporate unique
building characteristics (relative to the other buildings in the study). One
consequence of the historic presentation is high energy usage, the result of a host

Comment [LM15]: yes
Comment [LM16]:
these are the ones you mentioned above,
right?

of factors ranging from insulation to inadequate weatherization to systematic air
leakage through fireplace chimneys. For example, the historic Broadmoor houses
have hydronic heating, a system utilizing a boiler and a network of piping to
deliver heated water throughout the house. There is nothing inherently inefficient
in hydronic heating systems, however the boiler model found in these houses have
an AFUE of 81% and the distribution network for the hot water is antiquated. 51
Other houses within the Broadmoor community were built in the 1970’s
and feature unique architectural features, such as a ceiling half of which is
vaulted, half of which is a standard 8-foot high flat ceiling. This impacts
calculations involving volume as well as insulation measures for the ceiling.
These houses have different foundations: still cement, but with a crawlspace
housing the ductwork. Because the ductwork is not insulated and is not sealed at
seams and joints, energy is lost via heated air escaping through the ductwork, and
50

 This is an exceptionally large estimated savings, due in part to the exceptional nature of the 
buildings. Existing within the protection of historic preservation, the initial state is such that most 
efforts to improve efficiency will yield strong results. 
51
 The condensing gas furnaces found in the other houses studied have AFUEs ranging from 92%‐
95%. 

57

Comment [LM17]:
I’d say something like ‘systematic air
leakage through fireplace chimneys’
Comment [LM18]: ☺
Comment [LM19]:
This doesn;t connect well with the “host
of factors” list you just gave. Boilerbased hydronic heating isn’t
automatically an energy loser.
Comment [LM20]:

through the emission of heat from the un-insulated ductwork. One effect this has
is the conditioning of the cement crawlspace, which, once achieved, moderates
the overall loss of energy from the ductwork. 52
These different architectural elements generate different analytical
elements between the Broadmoor houses and the remaining eight houses tested.
One difference is difference in range of savings: the estimated energy savings
were greater for these houses yet the initial level of consumption was also greater.
Other differences include the addition of subtraction of retrofit measures deployed
in the other houses; because there is no ducting in the historic Broadmoor
housing, the measure dedicated to improving ductwork is not present.
Because of these differences, I calculated a separate analysis on those four
houses within the Broadmoor community by themselves (Table 3), and on the
eight houses outside the Broadmoor community (Table 4).

AVERAGE ESTIMATED
Site Energy Savings in MMbtus/year
Site Energy Savings in $/year (gas + elec)
Cost per measure

PACKAGE B: 2,
3b, 4
24.8
$250.32
$2,632.14

Simple payback in years =

10.5

Monthly savings in $ =

$20.86

Table 2. Cost-savings benefits for Package B averaged in aggregate

52

 A different approach to this is comparing the loss of heat from a house during mid‐winter 
versus the loss during late spring: the smaller the difference between inside temperatures and 
outside temperatures, the less energy is flows from a heated space to an unheated space 
(otherwise known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics).    
58

AVERAGE ESTIMATED

PACKAGE B: 2,
3b, 4

Site Energy Savings in MMbtus/year

22.7

Site Energy Savings in $/year (gas + elec)

$229.55

Cost per measure

$2,663.70

Simple payback in years =

11.6

Monthly savings in $ =

$19.13

Table 3. Cost-savings benefits for Package B, excluding Broadmoor houses

AVERAGE ESTIMATED

PACKAGE B: 2,

Site Energy Savings in MMbtus/year
Site Energy Savings in $/year (gas + elec)
Cost per measure

3b, 4
32.2
$322.93
$2,569.03

Simple payback in years =

8

Monthly savings in $ =

$26.91

Table 4. Cost-savings benefits for Package B, excluding non-Broadmoor
houses 53

5.3.2 Models and Actual Usage Comparison
The predictive ability of a model varies from case to case, but by
comparing the estimates of BEopt with those of SIMPLE and ultimately against
the actual energy usage, the degree of deviation can be gauged. Such a
comparison can be found in Table 5.
53

 The four houses located in the Broadmoor community tested low enough, in terms of air 
infiltration, to exclude Package A from modeling. 
59

Percent Difference With

Energy Usage in MMBtus
Community

Utility Billing

Utility Billing

SIMPLE

BEopt

SIMPLE

BEopt

unit 8450

66.2

80.6

106.5

22%

61%

unit 8636

106.6

99.64

101.7

-7%

-5%

unit 6759

118.1

87.68

112.7

-26%

-5%

unit 6768

144.3

80.66

103.9

-44%

-28%

unit 5428

91.1

85.25

108.4

-6%

19%

unit 5959

119.5

98.65

131.2

-17%

10%

unit 9280

78.6

110.76

81.9

41%

4%

unit 9290

90.9

105.92

139.5

17%

53%

Historic, 2309

209.4

186.65

238.6

-11%

14%

Historic, 2351

278.7

198.82

236.5

-29%

-15%

unit 2651

102.9

96.49

208.2

-6%

102%

unit 2652

90.8

95.79

152

5%

67%

Beachwood

New Hillside

Davis Hill

Evergreen I

Broadmoor

Table 5. Results of SIMPLE and BEopt modeling vs. utility billing for field
tested homes
Table 6 describes an alternative gauge of the modeling program’s
accuracy: comparing a modeled house against the aggregate community energy
usage. Comparing the modeled energy consumption of one house against a
community’s provides several benefits: the impact of fluctuations in energy usage
resulting from occupant behavior is greatly reduced (assuming one is interested in
communal-scale energy usage); the ability to factor in DHW fuel type when

60

comparing individual houses to communities; and the larger sample size of the
community en masse produces results with a higher degree of confidence.
Communities
with Electric
Water Heat

Mean
Energy Use
in MMBtus

Beachwood

86.8

New Hillside

97.7

Davis Hill

Unit
Number

SIMPLE
Projections in
MMBtus and %

BEopt
Projections in
MMBtus and %

8450

80.6 (-7%)

106.5 (22.7%)

8636

99.6 (15%)

101.7 (17%)

6759

87.7 (-10%)

112.7 (15%)

6768

80.7 (-17%)

103.8 (6%)

91.5

5428

85.3 (-7%)

108.4 (18%)

Communities
with Natrual
Gas Water
Heat

Mean
Energy Use
in MMBtus

Unit
Number

SIMPLE
Projections in
MMBtus and %

BEopt
Projections in
MMBtus and %

Davis Hill

105.9

5959

98.7 (-7%)

131.2 (24%)

Evergreen I

96.7

Broadmoor,
historic
245.3

Broadmoor,
1960's
vintage

9280

110.8 (15%)

81.9 (-15%)

9290

105.9 (10%)

139.5 (44%)

2309

186.7 (-24%)

238.6 (-3%)

2351

198.8 (-19%)

236.5 (-4%)

2651

96.5 (-61%)

208.2 (-15%)

2652

95.8 (-61%)

152.0 (-38%)

Table 6. % Deviation of SIMPLE and BEopt from community mean energy
usage

Modeling programs are useful tools when gauging the behavior of an
unoccupied building under a given set of conditions and for detailing how the
building uses energy. However, using only models to predict the energy usage of
an existing, occupied house must be approached with some caution. The models
calculate what should be the gas or electric usage in this house under steady,
61

relatively static conditions; in other words, the modeling program operates under
a set of assumptions and the more sophisticated the program, the greater and more
complicated the assumptions. When the basis for those assumptions is challenged
by unforeseen occurrences (occupant behavior, for example), the assumption the
precision and accuracy of the modeling program suffers. The assumptions can be
adjusted to reflect what the expected behavior is, but it is guesswork, to some
degree. For example, included in the modeling analysis is the ability to set a
background temperature. EQR sets the thermostat at 72°F for unoccupied houses
however I used the Department of Energy-sponsored Building America program
benchmark of 71°F, a representation of the official estimate of an average
household’s baseline thermostat setting.
In this situation, the billing analysis and field testing provide as much
information to the modeling program as possible and are useful when considering
the proposed energy consumption delivered by the program. Are the estimates
reasonable, based on what (we) know of environment? If the answer is “no”, the
inputs are double and triple checked for data-entry errors. While the differences in
energy usage between individual houses can be ascribed, to a certain extent, to
occupant behavior, when observed on a community-wide level, the impact from
an individual occupant’s behavior can be mollified. Further discussion of
occupant behavior occurs in section 6.

5.4 Practical Feasibility
After running the models and reviewing the projected costs and benefits, I
scrutinized the retrofit measures for other obstacles or complicating factors that
might arise. Measure 1b, dense-packing insulation, produced excellent energy
savings, as did measure 6, upgrading existing boilers to high-efficiency models.
However, these measures would apply to a very small group of houses. The
likelihood of pursuing measure 6 decreases further upon consideration of the
recent installation of new boilers.
When approaching measure seven, upgrading existing lighting and certain
appliances to high-efficiency models, several complications arose. Most houses
62

on JBLM have both florescent and incandescent lights; determining the
percentage of one type would be rather difficult and the process of determination
would be prone to errors and far-reaching estimations. Of greater impact to this
measure is the ever-evolving state energy code, because, as time passes and the
requirement for energy-efficient lighting and appliances becomes law, installing
energy efficient appliances and lighting will be required. In addition, nearly all
existing dishwashers are Energy Star and clothes washer/dryer units are owned &
installed by the occupant, further complicating both the formation and the
eventual implementation of said measure.
Balancing these drawbacks is the position of EQR as an entity that can
recommend the purchase of an energy efficient appliance (clothes washer) to the
residents. Establishing a relationship with large retail distributor or other
commercial entities with the ability to provide reduced price on units could
provide more residents on JBLM the opportunity to heed that recommendation.54
The installation of U-0.30 windows was considered as a potential measure
for analysis, however several obstacles rendered windows as infeasible very early
on: the lack of a clear pricing structure; an existing population composed of both
functional and non-functional windows; and the in-depth series of customizations
within the modeling program required for model rendering possess a high
potential for error. Thus, it was not considered to be practically feasible.

CHAPTER 6: EXOGENOUS VARIABLES

Weather conditions and occupant behavior are two exogenous factors with
substantial impact on the results of this analysis. Weather is the primary driver
behind weatherization and retrofitting: insulation from the undesired outdoor
elements. It impacts nearly every aspect of daily life, is a dynamic force able to
buck any given behavioral prediction, and will ultimately dictate the evolution of
54

 EQR can recommend the purchase of an energy efficient appliance to the residents; in a similar 
vein, establishing a relationship with large retail distributor or other commercial entity with the 
ability to provide reduced price on untis. 
63

the NW over the coming years. Should the average temperature rise, the Pacific
Northwest will lean toward a cooling environment: weatherization and retrofitting
will aim to retain cooled and dehumidified air. Should the summers become hotter
and winters cooler designs will need to accommodate that greater fluctuation.
Should the annual snow pack and snow melt lessen or become more volatile,
houses may require a much greater degree of efficiency in the use of all resources.
The heart of the matter is control; we have absolutely no control over the
weather and must therefore rely on reducing the impact of the uncontrollable on
our comfort level. While the weather itself has a minor impact on the functioning
of my recommendations, it affects the behavior of a house as a system. An
increase in humidity, for example will lead to swelling of wood members and
increase the likelihood of mold, but will not reduce the importance of tight
ductwork or attic insulation. While the weather will not impact the importance of
my recommendations, it will substantially affect occupant behavior.
Occupant behavior is a quality than can be guided, through incentives &
disincentives, educational outreach, etc., but not controlled. Spontaneity, medical
conditions, forgetfulness, personal preferences, distractions and reactions to
stimulus originating from an infinite number of possible circumstances make
accurate prediction of behavior rather difficult. Impacts of occupant behavior
include the preferred thermostat settings; length of time lights are left on for;
number and type of personal electronic devices 55 and duration of use; and
maintaining a clean furnace filter. All these factors contribute to the overall
energy consumption.
Generally speaking, one factor influencing on an occupant’s behavior is
monetary accounting for energy usage; lower energy use = lower bills. However,
on JBLM there is no per-kWh fee or other method of accounting, except when the
occupants consume 30% above or below the encompassing community’s mean
energy use. 56

55

 A radio vs a new video game console or plasma TV. 
 Above the communal usage = fee; below the communal usage = dividend. 

56

64

A tangential impact of the no-fee system employed on JBLM is the
relative difficulty in comparing the findings or methodology of this report to other
studies. On a community-wide scale, this difficulty can be assuaged by the
averaging of statistics: given that all members of these communities participate in
this (billing) system, its significance as a variable within the broader JBLM
community is slight. Comparing small sample sizes or individuals, however, is
quite difficult due to the difference in behavior engendered by financial incentive.

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion
Joint Base Lewis McChord houses more than 4,900 opportunities to
conserve energy within the residential sector. By applying the strengths of utility
billing analysis, field testing, and energy modeling in unison, a thorough analysis
of the potential gains from installing retrofit measures within the residential sector
of JBLM is produced .This study indicates several measures (that) when
implemented either independently or in concert can deliver significant reductions
in energy consumption. These measures include air sealing, increasing attic
insulation level to R-49, rehabilitating ductwork, and exchanging standard (tank)
water heaters for tankless water heaters at wear-out. It is important to recognize

Comment [LM21]:
notice that your work includes tacit
assumptions about the institutional side of
installing retrofits, not just the house by
house physical side. Some measures
aren’t considered because they would be
difficult to implement within th eproperty
management structure that exists. This is
not a flw in your work; it’s just a
background feature of it. But it’s worth
noticing.

recommendations on JBLM as unseen restrictions or policies may well obstruct

Comment [LM22]:
not quite the right word - ‘level’ would be
better. Also it’s R-49 in roofs, right, not
all over. Should mention that.

the implementation of a given measure.

Comment [LM23]: How about this?

the impact of the existing managerial infrastructure on the applicability of these

Several factors lead to the exclusion of measures 1b, 6, and 7. Measure 1b,
dense-packing the Broadmoor historical houses, produced excellent savings but
was excluded due to its restrictive applicability: only a very small number of
houses on base would qualify. Measure 6, replacing existing boilers with highefficiency models at wear-out, produced solid savings however the number of
buildings with boilers is relatively small, and because those buildings received
new boilers very recently, the occasion to install new boilers in the near future is
not expected to arise. Furthermore, the historic Broadmoor houses have a unique
65

(relative to the other houses in the study) option when changing the furnace or hot
water appliance, which is to install an integrated system capable of performing
both functions Measure 7, installation of Energy Star refrigerator, clothes washer,
and lighting faced several obstacles such as the difficulty in estimating the ratio of
fluorescent to incandescent lights among the housing and consequently, the
potential savings that exist from moving to 100% CFL. 57
As the state energy code continues to evolve, requirements for installing
energy-efficient lighting and appliances for both new construction and retrofits
will become more stringent. Furthermore, nearly all existing dishwashers are
Energy Star and clothes washer/dryer units are owned & installed by the
occupant.
The element of energy pricing mitigates the economic significance of
these findings, however. Because JBLM receives electricity at reduced rate
($0.42/kWh), there is less monetary incentive to invest in the retrofit measures a)
in the immediate future, and b) to the fullest degree possible. Off-setting the
reduced incentive is the military’s dedication to energy conservation. What
impact this factor will have on the managerial decisions made by EQR in the
future is both difficult to foresee and outside the scope of this project.

7.2 Identification of Problems and Recommended Solutions
The research performed in this study includes identification & recognition
of several problematic elements of residential housing on JBLM. The following
recommendations address those elements.
□ Condition of Existing Ductwork.
⇒ As service calls & occupant turnover permit, inspect ductwork for leaks,
punctures, disconnections, ruptures, and any other malfunctions with the ability to
divert air from the duct system. Take corrective measures (such as applying
mastic to all seams), as outlined by a recognized agency or standard such as (the)

57

 Including CFL, LED, high‐efficiency incandescent lighting and other forms of energy efficient 
lighting. 
66

Comment [LM24]:
should be ‘fluorescent’

Building Performance Institute or Performance Tested Comfort Systems, and
incorporate those measures into routine inspections.
□ Bolstering Skill Sets of Maintenance Technicians
⇒ Equip maintenance staff with an improved capacity for the identification and
correction of existing or potential problems (troubleshooting) such that they will
be able to properly correct any deficiency encountered. The improved capacity
can be acquired through trainings, workshops, and other educational measures.
□ Engage residents with educational programs, Occupant Behavior
⇒ Develop and implement a program to educate residents of JBLM on energy
conservation and the benefits thereof including financial, environmental, and
communal. This should be pursued with a fairly broad range of approaches or
themes in order to access as many people as possible. The range would include
traditional forms of interaction with the residents, such as fliers, but more direct
methods need consideration, if not inclusion, when appealing to such a large
audience with as many relatively unique characteristics as this audience has.
□ Addressing insufficient attic insulation
⇒ As service calls & occupant turnover permit, increase attic insulation to R-49.
Incorporate air sealing into this action, using a sealing protocol established by a
recognized authority on weatherization and energy efficiency. This measure need
not be exhaustive in its application to a given house; indeed, characteristics of a
given house or other factors such as cost may be prohibitive to a measure.
□ Addressing Deficient Weatherization
⇒ Apply weatherization measures where existing measures are damaged or none
exist, including: weatherizing door and window frames; sealing recessed lighting
fixtures; and sealing penetrations to the building envelope.
□ Increasing Energy Efficiency of Water Heaters
⇒ As existing water heaters are retired, replace with tankless water heaters,
depending on volume capacity of gas piping. For the present & immediate future,
insulate all standard water heaters both around and beneath the unit’s body.

7.3 Discussion
67

Utilizing these findings offers the potential to reduce energy consumption
and thereby reduce the financial expenditure (on residential energy). This
outcome stands to benefit the occupants, by providing a greater level of comfort,
and EQR, who receives “a fee that is based on the amount of the projects net
income so any decrease in expenses, such as utilities, increased our
fee proportionately” (M. Greer, personal communication, December 7th, 2011).
The reduction in energy consumption also benefits the military, which is
actively pursuing energy efficiency in variety of fashions and could provide
assistance, financial or labor, toward implementing these measures. For example,
JBLM is dedicated to a “3% annual reduction of energy consumption intensity”,
beginning in fiscal year 2006 and ending with a 30% reduction by fiscal year
2015 (Rexroad APG, 2010). 58 Finally, EQR is a large company, acquiring more
than $1 billion in assets during late 2009-2010 and as such could access resources
not available to other parties, or secure financing at a low interest rate (Equity
Residential, 2010).
Additional complications arrive in the form of state and federal rebate
programs. For example, the utility providing electricity to the city of Seattle,
Seattle City Light offers these rebates toward replacing an existing appliance with
an energy efficient model: $50 per refrigerator as well as $30 for recycling the
existing refrigerator (including pick-up); $50-100 per clothes washer; $250 for
installing a heat pump water heater; and $1,200 toward installing a ductless heat
pump (City of Seattle , 2011). 59
Tacoma Power, the utility providing electricity to JBLM, offers financial
assistance through rebates, zero-interest loans, and grants. One example of such

58
 This particular move to increase energy efficiency a) results from Executive Order 13423, b) 
established the target of based on fiscal year 2003 consumption rates, and c) requires further 
reduction in energy consumption intensity by 6.1 MBtu/KSF annually for the next six years in 
order meet the target reduction. This including energy increases made to date (Rexroad APG, 
2010). 
59

 These rebates must be applied for. 
68

assistance is the offer to provide up to $3,450 toward insulating ceilings, floors
and walls as well as duct sealing (Tacoma Power, 2011). 60
Federal tax incentives are fluctuating at present as some existing offers,
those addressing a majority of smaller retrofits such as HVAC, insulation and
water heater upgrades, are set to expire on December 31st, 2011 and at present it is
difficult to foresee if these incentives will extend into 2012. Other incentives will
continue through December 31st, 2016, including geothermal heat pumps, solar
energy systems, wind energy systems (U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy, 2011).
These incentives are applicable to the residential sector; EQR may qualify
as a commercial entity in addition and have access to the incentives offered to that
sector. With the number of factors involved in this particular situation, there is
considerable potential for implementing at least some of the described
recommendations.
It is noteworthy to recognize the importance of implementing such
measures as opportunities arise. One such opportunity was lost when the highefficiency furnaces were installed without improving existing ductwork. Skilled
labor with access to the vacant building and possessing appropriate equipment
could have addressed the leaky ductwork when changing furnaces. Presently, a
high-efficiency furnace heats the air more efficiently (than its predecessor) but
much of that efficiency is lost when the conditioned air escapes through leaky
ductwork.

CHAPTER 8: IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES
The greatest challenge in this study was the degree of organization and
communication needed to conduct research, acquire field data, perform analysis,
and the multitude of other functions comprising this study: Joint Base LewisMcChord requires appropriate documentation and security clearance in order to
60

 Stipulations include: being a Tacoma Power customer; the house in question is electrically 
heated and built prior to 1988. 
69

enter the base. Finding and accessing the appropriate personnel within the military
and Equity Residential was often a time-consuming process and, on occasion,
rather confusing. Engaging the assistance of a third party analyst who works and
lives on the East coast presented some difficulty in maintaining clear
communications.
Augmenting those challenges and the ensuing difficulties were the
duration of this project, the sporadic & restrictive nature of the research, the scope
of the project, and the number of different professions and professionals working
on it.
Other challenges include matching different metrics, acquired through
different sources to yield a common unit of measurement; the steep learning curve
of the modeling program BEopt; sifting through 23 months of utility billing data
in order to find one year’s worth of usable data; constructing the analytical
framework needed to produce a pricing structure; and managing such a large and
Comment [LM25]:
as it stands, this seems like a weak ending
to the document as a whole. The content
is OK, though it’s pretty brief about
things like communication difficulties.
But I wouldn’t worry about that. What I
would do is locate this away from the
end, somewhere up in the body. That way
you can finsih with your
recommendations, and the positive note
they provide.

often convoluted mass of data.

70

Appendix A

Community

Units

Actual Annual
Average
(therms)

Regression
Average Annual
Use (therms)

Davis Hill

224

809

846

Discovery
Village/Miller
Hill

492

460

464

Evergreen

147

667

635

Table 1. Total natural gas use for communities with natural gas water heat

Community

Units

Actual Annual
Average (kWh)

Regression
Average Annual
Use (kWh)

Davis Hill

224

7332

7249

Discovery
Village/Miller Hill

492

8828

8854

Evergreen

147

8795

8409

Table 2. Total electricity use for communities with natural gas water Heat

71

Regression
Average
Annual Use
(therms)

Community

Units

Actual Annual
Average
(therms)

Beachwood

383

501

482

Davis Hill

209

538

555

New Hillside

523

582

569

Table 3. Total natural gas use for communities with electric water heat

Regression
Average
Annual Use
(kWh)

Community

Units

Actual Annual
Average (kWh)

Beachwood

383

10761

10604

Davis Hill

209

11046

11248

New Hillside

523

11573

11641

Table 4. Total electricity use for communities with electric water heat

72

Blower-Door
Test

ACH50

Approximate
Leakage
Area

Leakage-toExterior

Leakage
Fraction in
Ductwork

Housing Type

Housing
Vintage

unit 8450

2000
CFM50

12.95

200 inches²

160 CFM50

14%

Duplx
w/shared
carport

19591961

unit 8636

950 CFM50

5.36

205.1
inches²

300 CFM50

23%

Single family,
detached

19591961

unit 5428

1890
CFM50

12.28

189 inches²

275 CFM50

24%

unit 5959

1525
CFM50

9.87

152.5
inches²

460 CFM50

40%

unit 6768

2100
CFM50

12.91

210 inches²

85 CFM50

7%

unit 6759

1800
CFM50

13

180 inches²

390 CFM50

34%

unit 9290

2000
CFM50

10.2

200 inches²

135 CFM50

9%

Single family,
detached

1984

unit 9280

2175
CFM50

10.46

217.5
inches²

212 CFM50

14%

Single family,
detached

1984

Historic
unit 2309

4100
CFM50

10.56

410 inches²

Hydronic
Heating

Single family,
detached

1931

Historic
unit 2351

4225
CFM50

10.51

422.5
inches²

Hydronic
Heating

Single family,
detached

1931

unit 2651

2850
CFM50

11.15

285 inches²

280 CFM50

18%

Single family,
detached

19591963

unit 2652

2800
CFM50

10.95

280 inches²

175 CFM50

11%

Single family,
detached

19591963

Beachwood

Davis Hills
Duplx
w/shared
carport
Duplx
w/shared
carport

19601963
19601963

New
Hillside
Duplx
w/shared
carport
Duplx
w/shared
carport

1960

1960

Evergreen

Broadmoor

Table 5. Results of blower door and duct testing, housing vintage & style

73

1) Improve
ductwork

2a) Envelope air
sealing to 10.5
ACH50

2b) Envelope air
sealing to 7.1
ACH50

2c) Envelope air
sealing to 3.5
ACH50, inc. mech.
vent.

Site Energy Savings
in MMbtus/year

8.8

3.3

8.8

9.5

Site Energy Savings
in $/year

$87.45

$144.36

$88.88

$91.82

Cost per measure

$394.24

$225.00

$879.17

2137.5

Simple payback in
years

4.5

1.6

9.9

15.5

Monthly savings in
$

$7.29

$12.03

$7.41

$7.65

3) Ceiling
insulation to
R49

4a) Gas Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless

4b) Gas Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless,
Condensing

5a) Electric
Standard DWH to
Gas Tankless

5b) Electric
Standard DWH to
Gas Tankless,
Condensing

Site Energy Savings
in MMbtus/year

8.4

5.2

7

-2.3

-0.5

Site Energy Savings
in $/year

$86.98

$51.04

$68.87

$138.61

$156.39

$1,424.44

$1,138.00

$1,350.00

$1,278.00

$1,490.00

16.4

22.3

19.6

9.2

9.5

$7.25

$4.25

$5.74

$11.55

$13.03

Cost per measure
Simple payback in
years
Monthly savings in
$

Table 6. Cost-savings benefits for individual measures, averaged in aggregate

74

1) Improve
ductwork

2a) Envelope air
sealing to 10.5
ACH50

2b) Envelope
air sealing to
7.1 ACH50

2c) Envelope air
sealing to 3.5
ACH50, inc. mech.
vent.

3) Ceiling
insulation to
R49

Site Energy Savings in
MMbtus/year

9.03

3.28

6.07

1.26

8.05

Site Energy Savings in
$/year

$87.45

$144.36

$88.88

$91.82

$86.98

Cost per measure

$378.90

$225.00

$715.63

$1,734.38

$1,569.17

Simple payback in
years =

4.33

1.33

7.03

11.33

18.04

Monthly savings in $

$7.29

$12.03

$7.41

$7.65

$7.25

4a) Gas
Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless

4b) Gas Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless,
Condensing

5a) Electric
Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless

5b) Electric
Standard DWH to
Gas Tankless,
Condensing

Site Energy Savings in
MMbtus/year

5.19

6.97

-2.22

-0.45

Site Energy Savings in
$/year

$51.16

$68.74

$136.83

$154.34

Cost per measure

$1,138.00

$1,350.00

$1,278.00

$1,490.00

Simple payback in
years

22.25

19.64

9.39

9.7

Monthly savings in $

$4.26

$5.73

$11.40

$12.86

Table 7. Cost-savings benefits for individual measures, averaged in
aggregate, excluding Broadmoor

75

1)
Improve
ductwork

1b) Densepack historic
Broadmoor

2b) Envelope
air sealing to
7.1 ACH50

2c) Envelope air
sealing to 3.5
ACH50, inc. mech.
vent.

3) Ceiling
insulation to
R49

7.93

50.35

14.16

25.91

7.58

Site Energy Savings in
$/year

$74.53

$501.21

$142.83

$259.11

$78.97

Cost per measure*

$455.60

$3,001.00

$1,206.25

$2,943.75

$1,134.98

Simple payback in years

6.11

5.99

8.45

11.36

14.37

Monthly savings in $
Monthly cost at 7% over
30yrs
Monthly Cash Flow at 7%
over 30yrs

$6.21

$41.77

$11.90

$21.59

$6.58

$4.11

$21.01

$6.79

$10.13

$17.04

$2.10

$20.76

$5.11

$11.46

-$10.46

$2.81

$14.33

$4.63

$6.91

$11.62

$3.40

$27.44

$7.27

$14.68

-$5.04

Monthly cost at 4% over
30yrs
Monthly Cash Flow at 4%
over 30yrs

4a) Gas
Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless

4b) Gas Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless,
Condensing

5a) Electric
Standard
DWH to Gas
Tankless

5b) Electric
Standard DWH to
Gas Tankless,
Condensing

Site Energy Savings in
MMbtus/year

5.15

7.01

-2.38

-0.52

Site Energy Savings in
$/year

$50.78

$69.13

$142.15

$160.50

Cost per measure

$1,138.00

$1,350.00

$1,278.00

$1,490.00

Simple payback in
years

22.41

19.53

8.99

9.28

Monthly savings in $

$4.23

$5.76

$11.85

$13.38

Table 8. Cost-savings benefits for individual measures, averaged in
aggregate, only Broadmoor

76

Appendix B
Hardwoods, such as oak, possess an R-value of 0.71/inch Btu/ hr while softer
wood, such as white pine, have an R-value of 1.41/ inch Btu/hr
(coloradoenergy.org). For reference, a modern double-paned low-E window has
an U-factor of 0.4, roughly equivalent to a R-value of 3.13. The following is a
listing of common materials and their respective R-values:

R-Value Table - English (US) Units
Material

R/Inch

R/Thickness

hr·ft2·°F/Btu

hr·ft2·°F/Btu

Insulation Materials
Fiberglass Batts

3.14-4.30

3 1/2" Fiberglass Batt

11

3 5/8" Fiberglass Batt

13

3 1/2" Fiberglass Batt
(high density)

15

6 1/2" Fiberglass Batt

19

5 1/4" Fiberglass Batt
(high density)
8" Fiberglass Batt

21
25
30

8" Fiberglass Batt
(high density)
9 1/2" Fiberglass Batt

30

12" Fiberglass Batt

38

Fiberglass Blown (attic)

2.20-4.30

Fiberglass Blown (wall)

3.70-4.30

Rock Wool Batt

3.14-4.00

Rock Wool Blown (attic)

3.10-4.00

Rock Wool Blown (wall)

3.10-4.00

77

Cellulose Blown (attic)

3.60-3.701

Cellulose Blown (wall)

3.80-3.901

Vermiculite

2.13

Autoclaved Aerated

1.05

Concrete
Urea Terpolymer Foam

4.48

Rigid Fiberglass (>
4lb/ft3)

4

Expanded Polystyrene
(beadboard)

4

Extruded Polystyrene

5

Polyurethane (foamed-inplace)
Polyisocyanurate (foilfaced)

6.25
7.2

A more detailed list may be found at
http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm

Appendix C
A Short History of Thermodynamics
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines
thermodynamics as “The study of the effects of work, heat, and energy on a
system” (NASA, 2010). This study examines several systems (individual houses
and communities) in hopes of determining the existing energy efficiency of these
systems and, if appropriate, offer courses of action. In other, familiar words this
project studies the “effects of work, heat, and energy on a system”. This study
uses thermodynamics to gauge how efficient the target system is, and the greater
the understanding of thermodynamics, the greater the understanding of this study
Comment [LM26]: Is this
introduction/explanation good?

and its results.

78

To list the work on thermodynamics is, in many respects, picking up a
thread from the history of Physics and Chemistry. But where does one pick up
that thread? Within ancient Greece lie early records of atomic theory, attributed to
the writings of Leucippus. Archimedes and Aristotle laid foundational work for
much of our scientific method, as practiced today, and Hero of Alexandria
described a primitive form of the reaction turbine called the Aeolipyle (Hills,
1989). However, Libby (1918) writes how records of Ancient Egypt demonstrate

Comment [LM27]:
just as important -- give readers a phrase
or half-sentence about why you’re taking
them into this.
Comment [LM28]: When I wrote this
it was with the intent of combining a
literature review with a historical review
of the subject matter, but it doesn’t seem
terribly important at this stage. I believe
having historical context will always
stand one in stronger stead, which is the
reason I’d like to keep it. Hopefully the
explanation here in the paper works…

detailed understanding of metallurgy, astronomy, medicine, and other areas of
highly complicated scientific study thousands of years before the Greeks. He also
notes how knowledge flowed from Egypt to Greece, through the travels of
individuals such as Pythagoras.
Is it better to pick up the thread a bit later with, for example, Galileo
Galilei, who is credited with producing the first thermometer, measuring
temperature via the expansion and contraction of heated air (Asimov, 1991;
Marschall, Maran, 2009)? 61 Valleriani (2010), however, notes pneumatic devices
enjoyed utilization in Hellenistic times. Knowing this, is ascribing the beginning
of thermodynamic studies to Galileo’s time appropriate? What of Boyle’s work
on the properties of a vacuum or Newton’s laws of motion?
These renowned figures and too many others to name here, all contribute
to thermodynamics and to our understanding of that natural world, but in From
Watt to Clausius: the rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age, D. S. L.
Cardwell (1971) posits (how) the study of thermal transfer originated in the early
61

  The term “thermometer” refers only to a device used to ascertain the air temperature, not to 
a particular method of measure or of constructing the device.   
79

Comment [LM29]:
should be ‘renowned’

18th century within the fields of engineering and chemistry. Such a statement is, or
course, debatable, but for the purpose of introducing the subject of
thermodynamics, Cardwell’s hypothesis works well. With the aid of Richard
Hills, John H. Lienhard gives a figurative yet illustrative description of the steam
engine’s early (developmental) days and why the stream engine is viewed as an
identifiable point of origin for the study of thermodynamics. 62
The thermometer enabled one to measure change in temperature, a
fundamental element in conducting experiments and research in thermodynamics.
In keeping with NASA’s working definition of thermodynamics, the study of the
effects of work, heat, and energy on a system, the guarded hot-box represents one
of the largest contributions to residential energy efficiency because it enables the
measurement of thermal conductivity in a closed (determinable) environment. In
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards in Building
Codes, Designation: C 1363 – 97, one finds the description “This test method
covers the laboratory measurement of heat transfer through a specimen under
controlled air temperature, air velocity, and thermal radiation conditions
established in a metering chamber on one side and in a climatic chamber on the
other side” (ASTM, 2004). 63
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identifies
Hobart C. Dickenson as the first American to develop a guarded hotbox, in the
year 1912. However, two years earlier the German researcher Richard Poensgen’s

62

 This depiction may be found on p 81 (the next page). 
 This section is entitled “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus”.
63

80

developed his own guarded hotbox; Dickenson would later learn of this while
travelling abroad through Europe, (Lide, 2001; NIST, 2011). Shirtliffe & Tye
(1985) write how Poensgen developed the hotbox in 1910, yet identifies the work
of E.R Metz & A. Behne and R. Bquard as influences “who both reported on
guard ring applications at the 2nd International Cold Congress in Vienna in 1910”.
A. Berget is reportedly the first to use a guard ring, yet he references the work of
W. Thompson, author of Report on Electrometers and Electrostatic
Measurements, recorded in Report of the 37th Meeting of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science, held at Dundee in September 1867 (1868),
London (Shirtliffe, 1985). Identifying the lineage of apparatus such as the guarded
hot-box (can) reveal the interconnectedness of scientific communities and the rate
Comment [LM30]:
I think these paragraphs could mostly be
eliminated, in favor of a citation pointing
to the hotbox history when you use that
term in the paragraph just following
these, two pages down.

of idea and information transfer.

A partial transcript from J.H. Lienhard’s The Engines of Our Ingenuity, No.
1686: MYSTERIOUS HEAT:
Thermodynamics, the modern science of heat, was largely driven into
being by the steam engine. It began taking its modern form just before
1700, and it finally found solid footing after 1850. The story of
thermodynamics and the steam engine is really a story about theory and
practice finally making peace with one another.
Historian Richard Hills helps us understand the situation. Suppose you
lived two hundred years ago, and you came upon an early steam engine.
What would you see? A connecting rod moving up and down in a big
piston, driving a rocker arm. The far end of the arm would drive a pump or
turn a wheel.
You'd see the effects of pressure. You'd see forces exerted. You'd see the
effects of flowing steam. As your mind reached for analogies, you'd see
81

something that reminded you of the familiar waterwheel. The burning
coal, heating the boiler, was out of your line of sight. Heat flow was not
what would catch your attention. This machine appeared to be all about
pressure and flow.
So scientists struggled to see what made these strange machines work,
while practical people struggled to build better engines. Most early steamengine builders had also worked with waterwheels. Like steam engines,
waterwheels turn and turn and do useful work. Waterwheels led our minds
away from heat and temperature.
One inventor did take a scientific interest in heat. James Watt began as a
machinist at the University of Glasgow. He experimented with heat while
he talked to thermodynamic pioneer Joseph Black. Watt's greatest steamengine invention was the separate condenser. What it did was greatly
reduce wasted heat.

Further description of convection, conduction, and radiation:
Cathy Inglis: Thermal (Brickworks building products):
Conduction is the molecule-to-molecule transfer of kinetic energy (one molecule
becomes energized and, in turn, energizes adjacent molecules). Eg. A cast-iron
skillet handle heats up because of conduction through the metal.
Convection is the transfer of heat by physically moving the molecules from one
place to another. Eg. Hot air rises.
Radiation is the transfer of heat through space via electromagnetic waves (radiant
energy). Eg.Acampfire can warm you even if there is wind between you and the
fire, because radiation is not affected by air.
Further description of Thermodynamics
The thermal mass effect is a combination of heat capacity and conductivity

82

Heat capacity –
•

Is a measure of how much heat a material can hold

•

Is the ratio between the amount of heat energy transferred to the object and the
resulting increase in the temperature

•

Specific heat is the amount of heat a material can hold per unit of mass.

•

The greater the specific heat, the more energy is required to heat up the material.
Conductivity –

•

Is a measure of the rate of heat transfer by conduction
Thermal resistance (R Value) -

•

Is a measure of the resistance of a material to heat flow by conduction

•

ie. The ease with which heat can travel through a material

•

The higher the R-value of a material, the better it is at resisting heat loss (or heat
gain)

•

The time delay due to the thermal mass is known as a thermal lag.

•

The thicker and more resistive the material, the longer it will take for heat waves
to pass through.

•

The reduction in cyclical temperature on the inside surface compared to the
outside surface is known as the decrement factor.

83

Appendix D
JBLM FIELD SURVEY 2011
High Bill Complaint Field Visit
For USDOE – PNNL
Site ID#_________
Date_______________
Occupant
Name__________________________Address____________________________
_____
City, State _____________________________ Zip__________
Phone_________________
Utility (include both gas & electric) _________________________________
Electric Meter ID # ________________ Gas Meter ID # _____________
Other (wood) # cords per year _________________ (what years used)
_________________
Propane (propane dealer name and account #) ___________________
Person filling out this report_____________________________________
Basic Information
Home Type: double wide, single wide, other ____________ (circle one)
Floor Area: _____ ft2, Volume = ______ft3 Comments
______________________
Year built: _______
Mfg: ________, Model ________ Serial # _____ HUD # _________________
Super Good Cents, MAP, Energy Star, other ________________
HVAC system type, make and model #: __________________
Duct leakage results: _____ CFM@50PA to outside, _____CFM@50 total
Blower Door Test: _____ CFM@ 50PA, _____ft3 volume, _____ ACH@50 PA
DHW type, make and model #: ________________
Appliances (Energy Star) yes or no
Dishwasher: Make ______________, Model ________________
Refrigerator: Make ______________, Model ________________
Laundry:
Make ______________, Model ________________
Lighting:
_____% CFL (estimate)
84

Describe additional loads that would affect a billing analysis (well pump, welder,
outbuildings, etc.):
__________________________________________________________________
__________
Plans Available: Y or N (circle one). If no: Attach a sketch floor plan with
exterior dimensions.

Include Pictures & ID#:
___________________________________________________________

Consumer Questionnaire
1.
2.

3.

How long have you lived in the home? ______________
How many people live in the home (full-time occupants)? ______ Other
________________________________
How many people are home most of the time? _____, Ages ____

4.

How many people work or volunteer outside the home at least 20 hours per
week? ____________, Ages ____

5.

How many people attend school at least 20 hours per week? ____________,
Ages ____

6.

Are any other people living in the home often not at home? Are there any
other people who spend a significant amount of time at the home? Please
describe other occupancy factors:
______________________________________________________

7.

How many hours a week is nobody in the home?
____________________________________

8.

How satisfied are you with the energy efficiency of your home?
Energy Efficiency: Very satisfied ______ Somewhat satisfied______ Somewhat
dissatisfied_____ Very dissatisfied _______
Why do you say [insert what they picked]:
85

9.

How satisfied are you with the comfort of your home?
Comfort: Very satisfied ______ Somewhat satisfied______ Somewhat
dissatisfied_____ Very dissatisfied _______
Why do you say [insert what they picked]:
[we could specifically ask about certain aspect of their comfort – are they warm/cold;
adequate lighting; noise, fresh air, healthy, etc.]

10.

What one thing would you fix or repair in your home if you had the
resources to do so?

11.

Are there other things that need to be fixed or repaired? Please describe?

12.

Have there been any significant improvements made to your home in the last
5 years? Please describe?

13.

Have there been any energy efficiency (weatherization) improvements made
to your home? Please describe.

14.

Have you made any of the following energy efficiency upgrades (read items in
the list that they did not mention in #13)
[develop list of measures we want to check]

86

15.

Would you ever consider purchasing a new home to replace
your current home?
Yes, enthusiastically___ Yes, with some reservations____, Definitely not_____
Please describe any benefits you think a new home would provide compared to
your current home?
What things would make it difficult for you to choose to replace your current
home with a new home?
Would you be able to pay any more each month to live in a new home? How
much more would you be willing to pay? [we could tweak this to ask how much
they think it would be worth regardless of their ability to pay?]
[We could give examples of the increased monthly payment and the potential
energy savings and see if that would make any difference in their interest in a
new home. However, their answer to how much they are willing to pay mostly
gives us what we need.]

16.

Describe Your heating system:
______________________________________________________
How often do you change your furnace filter?________________

17.
18.

Do you have any air conditioning? Please describe:
What temperature is your thermostat set at when someone is home? winter
____ summer____

19.

Do you lower the temperature on your thermostat when no one is at home or
at night (when you are sleeping)? ___ yes ___ no
Describe:________________

20.

Do you have a programmable thermostat? Do you program the temperature
settings on your thermostat (for different days and times of days)?
Heat Pump T-stat [do we need to ask this or is programmable good enough?]

87

Air Quality/Ventilation
Technician's observations of odors or moisture
____None
____Odors
____Moisture
_____Mold/Mildew
Location and
Description:________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
__
Note any conditions which may significantly affect air quality or ventilation
(e.g. smokers, solvents,
aquarium):_______________________________________________________
__
_________________________________________________________________
_____
Number of full-time _______ adult occupants
______children (under 12)
Exhaust Ventilation Systems
Location
Daily
Photo ID#
Flow
Noisy
Make and Model
(cfm)

run
time
(hrs)

?

Kitchen
Master bath
Bath 2
Laundry
Whole House

*manual switch, timer
(note flow measurement device used)
___________________________
Is whole house fan operating as designed? Yes No
Location of whole house fan switch
___________________
Yes No

Is switch labeled?

Note any problems (no exhaust stack, suspected disconnect between fan and
termination, etc.):
______________________________________________________________________
________________
______________________________________________________________________
_______________

88

Control
type*

Classify the make-up air or other type ventilation system
None
Passive duct to HVAC return
Dampered duct to HVAC return
Air Inlets vents in windows/walls (circle one)
Other

Make-up duct diameter _______inches. Flow Rate _______
Note if the make-up damper is jammed or otherwise inoperable:
________________________________________________________________
_____.
Do all bedrooms have pass-through vents or door undercuts? Yes ____
No_____
Room pressures > 3 Pa ?
Note deficiencies and comfort issues)? If so,
note here:
__________________________________________________________________
___
Use of windows for ventilation:
___________________________________________

Interior/exterior Lighting review
List each fixture type observed in the house. Include exterior lights attached to the
house. Describe these fixtures as they appear when developing the lighting power
for the house each of these fixtures should be represented in the fixture counts in
the next section. If two fixtures are essentially identical but have different lamps
then enter them as separate fixtures with separate wattage.
Where fixture descriptions beyond the generic types would be helpful the auditor
can add them with the appropriate lamp and ballast information. Use the notes
field to expand on the description as needed.

Fixture Schedule:
Fixture
Type
ID

Fixture/lamp
Type1

# of
Lamp Ballast Watts/
s
Type2 Fixture

1
2

89

Fiel Estim
d ated?
Veri Y/N
f

Notes

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
2

Use generic fixture descriptions: Incandesent, CFL, Linear fluorescent, Track light, Other
Magnetic or electronic from instrument

90

Appendix E

91

92

93

94

Bibliography
ABB, Inc. (2012). Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid. Retrieved 7 12, 2011,
from The ABB Group:
http://www.abb.com/search.aspx?q=energy%20efficiency%20in%20the%
20power%20grid
ABB, Inc. (2012). Energy Efficiency. Retrieved 2011, from ABB in the United
States: http://www.abb.us/industries/us/9AAC171174.aspx
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1975). Energy Conservation in New Building Design: An
Impact Assessment of ASHRAE Standard 90-75. Conservation and
Environment Buildings Programs. Conservation Number 43B.
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Office, Washington, D.C.
20402. (ERIC Document No. ED140508). Retrieved July 11th, 2011, from
ERIC database.
Ashrae. Ashrae Standard 62-73R: Standards for Natural and Mechanical
Ventilation. New York: ASHRAE, 1973.
Asimov, I. Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Earth and Space. New York: The Random
House, 1991.
ASTM, (1987), E779-87, ASTM Method for Determining Air Leakage Rates by
Fan Pressurization Test, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM. (2004). ASTM Standards in Building Codes: Specification, Test
Methods, Practices, Classifications, Terminology (41st Ed), v 2, p 1495.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2004.

95

Aubrecht, Gordon J. Energy (2nd Edition). 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Prentice
Hall, 1994.
Blasnik, M., Fitzgerald, J. (December, 1992). In search of the missing leak:
Methods for Detecting Air Infiltration in Buildings. Home Energy, 9, 2732.
Bock, G. (Jan/Feb, 1992). Insulation for Old Houses: What You Might Encounter
–Retrofit Recommendations. Old House Journal, vol. XX, 1, p 26-29.
Butterfiled, W.H. (Nov. 1915 to April 1916). THE COUNTRY HOME ICEHOUSE. Country Life in America: A Magazine for the Home-maker in the
Country, v 29, p 44. [Electronic copy]
Byers, R., Palmiter, L. (1988). Analysis of the Agreement Between Predicted and
Monitored Annual Space Heat for a Large Sample of Homes in the Pacific
Northwest. Ecotope, Inc., Seattle, WA; Washington State Energy Office.

Bynum, R. T. Insulation handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Cardwell, D.S.L. From Watt to Clausius: The Rise of Thermodynamics in the
Early Industrial Age. London: Heinemann, 1971.
Calloway, Stephen and Cromley, Elizabeth. (1991). The Elements of Style. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Cavanagh, T. (1997). Balloon Houses: The Original Aspects of Conventional
Wood-Frame Construction Re-examined. Journal of Architectural
Education, (Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc) v 51, n 1, 5-15.

96

Christensen, C., et al. (April, 2005). BEopt: Software for Identifying Optimal
Building Designs on the Path to Zero Net Energy. Conference paper
NREL/CP-550-37733, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO.
City of Seattle . (2011). Appliance Rebates. Retrieved December 2011, from
Seattle City Light:
http://www.seattle.gov/light/conserve/resident/appliances/
Comstock, S.W., Spanos, B.J. Proclaiming the truth: an illustrated history of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeratin, and Air-conditioning
Engineers, Inc. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 1995.
Conceptualized reference Database for Building Envelope Research. Retrieved
January 25, 2011, from http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/index.html
Darling, D. (2011). coefficient of heat transmission (U-value). Retrieved
December 2011, from ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
AND SUSTAINABLE LIVING :
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/AE_coefficient_of_heat_tra
nsmission.html
Equity Residential. (2010). Equity Residential 2010 Annual Report. Chicago.
Degelmean, L. (April, 2004). A Tribute to Dr Tamami Kusuda 1925 – 2003. The
journal of the International Building Performance Simulation Association
NEWS, 14, number 1.
Diamant, R. M. E. The internal environment of dwellings. London: Hutchinson
Educational, 1971.

97

Ecotopia. (2011). M. King Hubbert. Retrieved April 13th, 2011, from The
Coming Global Oil Crisis: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
Education Development Center, Inc. (2011). An Impact Study of ASHRAE 90-75,
Energy Conservation in New Building Design. Washington, DC:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Office. (ERIC Document
No. ED140508).
Equity Residential. (2010). Equity Residential 2010 Annual Report. Chicago.
Eldrige, M., Neubauer, M., York, D., Vaidyanathan, S., Chittum, A., Nadel, S.
(2008). The 2008 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. ACEEE Report
Number E086.
Fels, M.F., ed. (1986). Measuring Energy Savings: the Scorekeeping Approach,
special issue of Energy and Buildings, 9, #1-2, Elsevier, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Fitzgerald, J., Nevitt, R., Blasnik, M. (September, 1994). User-friendly pressure
diagnostics. Home Energy, v11, 19-24.
Gaynor, J., (1976). Nineteenth Century Architectural Insulation: Zoar, Ohio.
Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, 8(4), 101-112.
Gross, G., Pielert, J. (February, 1977). Building Standards and Codes for Energy
Conservation. Journal of Architectural Education, v. 30, no. 3, p. 54-57.
Handlin, D.P. (2004). American Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
Hassel, S., Hannas, B., Blasnik, M. (2011). Energy-Efficient Homes: Predictions,
Performance, and Real-World Results. Home Energy, 28, 28-33.

98

Heldenbrand, J. (January, 2001). A Century of Excellence in Measurements,
Standards, and Technology: A Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST Publications,
1901-2000. Lide, D.R., (Ed), National Institute of Standards and
Technology Special Publication 958, 260-265. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Hills, R.L. (1989). Power from steam: a history of the stationary steam engine.
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press,.
Hubbert, M. (February, 1949). Energy from Fossil Fuels. American Association
For The Advancement of Science, 109, 103-109.
ICASBS. (2009). Retrieved September 2011, from www.icasbs.com:
http://www.icasbs.com/images/GuardedHot-BoxTesting.pdf
ICE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. (July- December 1897). Ice and refrigeration,
v 13, p 97-101.
Inglis, C. (2011). Thermal Mass. Sustainable Living: Does It Measure Up?
Melbourne, Australia: Brickworks Building Products.
Jarnagin, R. (December, 2010). Energy profile: Where have we been, and where
are we headed? Looking at energy consumption patterns of the past can
help us promote responsible energy use in the future [Electronic Version].
Consulting-Specifying Engineer. Retrieved August 6th, 2011 from
http://m.csemag.com/index.php?id=2832&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=40209&cH
ash=28f2450f4c
Kimball, F., Edgell, G.H. (1918). A History of Architecture. New York: Harper &
Bros.

99

Krigger, J., Dorsi, C. (2009). Residential Energy: Cost Savings and Comfort for
Existing Building. Montana: Saturn Resource Management, Inc.
Kostof, Spiro. (1985). A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Karbuz, S. (May, 2007). US military energy consumption – facts and figures.
Retrieved March 20th, 2011, from:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925
Kusuda, K. (2001). Building environment simulation before desk top computers
in the USA through a personal memory. Energy and Buildings, 33,
291±302
Lamm, M. (2007, Spring). The Fiberglass Story [Electronic Version]. Invention &
Technology.

Retrieved on February 10th, 2010, from

http://is.gd/a6veh
Libby, W. (1918). An introduction to the History of Science. London: Harrap.
Lienhard, J.H. The Engines of Our Ingenuity, No. 1686: MYSTERIOUS HEAT.
Transcription retrieved July 8th, 2011 from
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1686.htm
Lubliner, M., Blasnik, M., Kunkle, R., Gordon, A. (2009). Measured vs. Predicted
Analysis of Energy Star Modular Permanent Military Housing: Fort Lewis
Case Study. Washington State University Extension Energy Program for
USDOE.

100

Lynn Benningfield, John Hogan. (2003). Building Energy Code Enforcement: A
Looke at California and Seattle. Seattle: Heschong Mahone Group, City of
Seattle.
Marschall, L.A., Mran, S.P. (2009). Galileo's New Universe: The Revolution in
Our Understanding of the Cosmos. Dallas: Benbella Books, Inc.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. (1994). Great American Houses and Their
Architectural Styles. New York: Abbeville Press.
McChord Air Museum. (2011). McChord Air Museum. Retrieved April 2011,
from McChord Air Museum, Our History:
http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/REV%20B%20TITLES%20OUR%2
0HISTORY4.htm
McMakin, A. H., Lundgren, R. E., Malone, E. L. (1999, October). Energy
Efficiency Campaign for Residential Housing at the Fort Lewis Army
Installation. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Technical Report
PNNL-13089.
Min, J., Hausfather, Z., Lin, Q. F. (2010). A High-Resolution Statistical Model of
Residential Energy End Use Characteristics for the United States. Journal
of Industrial Ecology,14, 5, 791-807.
Minol. (2011). Products and Services. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from Minol
USA: http://www.minolusa.com/products-services.html
NASA. (2010, September). What is Thermodynamics? Retrieved March 2011,
from National Aeronautics and Space Admin:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo.html

101

National Housing Research Committee/Concordia University. (2010, April).
Conceptualized Reference Database for Building Envelope Research.
Retrieved January 25th, 2011, from Conceptualized Reference Database
for Building Envelope Research:
http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2011). Building Energy Optimization
(BEOPT). Golden, Colorado, US.
NIST. (2011, July 27th). Early Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus. Retrieved August
9th, 2011, from NIST Engineering Laboratory:
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_environment/history.cfm
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2011). Hydro-Thermal Power
Program. Retrieved August 2011, from Northwest Power and
Conservation Council: http://www.nwcouncil.org
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. (2011, May 17th). Facilities
Energy Directorate. Retrieved March 11th, 2011, from Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense: Installations and Environment:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/energy/index.shtml
Ostrander, C., Satko, J. (2011) History of Insulation with Masonry. Masonry
Advisory Council. Retrieved July12th, 2011 from
http://www.maconline.org/tech/rvalues/historyofinsulation/historyofinsula
tion.html
Palmiter, L., DeLaHunt, M. J.,Hanford, J. (1984). Optimal Conservation for 23
Northwest Climates. Ecotope, Inc., Seattle, WA.

102

Parroco, C. (2011, May). Influence of Design and Climate Change on the Annual
Energy Consumption of a Passive Solar House. Master’s thesis.
Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Prasher, R., McCormick, C. (2010, March). Building Energy Efficiency, ARPA-E
Pre-Summit Workshop.
Proctor, J., Downey, T., Blasnik, M. Diagnosing ducts: Finding the energy
culprits. Home Energy,10, 26-31.
Rexroad APG, LPA. (July, 2010). Comprehensive Energy and Water Master
Plan: Joint Base Lewis-McChord. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Contract No: W912DY-06-D-0006-0018.
Ringsurf. (2009). History of Asbestos. Retrieved 2 21, 2010, from Ringsurf:
http://www.ringsurf.com/online/2061-history_of_asbestos.html
Sherman, M. (1998, March). The Use of Blower-Door Data. Lawrence Berkley
National Laboratory, Technical Report #35173.
Shirtliffe, C. J., Tye, R. P. (1985). Guarded hot plate and heat flow meter
methodology: a symposium. ASTM Committee C-16 on Thermal
Insulation, National Research Council of Canada.
Smil, V. (2006). Energy: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld.
Sommers, P. (July, 2004). Economic Impacts of the Military Bases in
Washington, Ft. Lewis and McChord AFB in Pierce County. Washington
State Office of Financial Management.

103

South Sound Military & Communities Partnership. (2012). Final Plan. Retrieved
January 25th, 2011, from Joint Base Lewis-McChord Growth
Coordination Plan: http://www.jblm-growth.com/plan.php
Spears, J. (1992). Residential Duct System Performance Evaluation Literature
Review. Electric Power Research Institute, Technical Report-101347.
Swan, L. G., Ugursal, V. I. (September, 2008). Modeling of end-use consumption
in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 8, 1819-1835.
Steucke, P. Joint Base Lewis McChord Sustainability Program. Environmental
Division – Public Works, JBLM, Washington. GreenGov Symposium 2,
Washington D.C. October, 2010.
Tacoma Power. (2011). Tacoma Power. Retrieved December 2011, from Tacoma
Power: http://www.mytpu.org/tacomapower/conserve-energy/conserveat/weatherization/Default.htm
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. (2012). The many uses of petroleum.
Retrieved February 26th, 2011, from Texas Alliance of Energy Producers:
http://www.texasalliance.org/admin/assets/PDFs/The_many_uses_of_Petr
oleum.pdf
The Exchange. (2011). The Exchange. Retrieved February 16th, 2011, from The
Exchange: http://www.shopmyexchange.com/
U.S. Army. (n.d.). Fort Lewis History . Retrieved February 28th, 2011, from
Lewis Army Museum:
http://www.lewis.army.mil/dptms/museum/history.htm

104

U.S. Army. (2011, December). Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Retrieved July, 2011,
from Joint Base Lewis-McChord: http://www.lewis.army.mil/
U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 2005.
Retrieved 2011, from U.S. Department of Defense:
http://www.defense.gov/brac/
U.S. Department of Energy. (2001, October 16). Energy Star Home Sealing
Specification. United States.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011, February). Energy Savers. Retrieved May
2011, from U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/insulation_airsealing/index.cfm?
mytopic=11510
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012). Energy Sources. Retrieved 2011, from
ENERGY.GOV: http://energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources
U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (2011,
April). Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency. Retrieved December 2011, from
Energy Savers:
http://www.energysavers.gov/financial/70010.html#products_2011
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Fuel Economy: Where the Energy Goes.
Retrieved December 27th, 2011, from www.fueleconomy.goc:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (2011, April). Tax Credits
for Energy Efficiency. Retrieved December, 2011, from Energy Savers:
http://www.energysavers.gov/financial/70010.html#products_2011

105

U.S. Energy Information Asministration. (2012). Independent Statistics &
Analysis. Retrieved 2011, 2010, from Independent Statistics & Analysis:
http://www.eia.gov/
United States Army. (n.d.). Fort Lewis History . Retrieved February 28th, 2011,
from Lewis Army Museum:
http://www.lewis.army.mil/dptms/museum/history.htm
U.S. Department of Defense. (2005). Letter to Requirements and Billing Info to
Fort Lewis Residents Regarding Army’s Residential Communities (RCI)
Residential Utility Policy.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2008). Memo and Attachment: Army’s Residential
Communities (RCI) Residential Utility Policy Update.
Valleriani, M. (2010). Galileo Engineer. New York: Springer.
Walker, I.S., Sherman, M. H. (2008). Energy implications of meeting ASHRAE
Standard 62.2. Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Technical Report62446.
Washington State Department of Commerce. (2009). Washington State Energy
Office. Retrieved May 7th, 2011, from WA Department of Commerce:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/526/default.aspx
Wyllie-Echeverria, S., Cox, P., (October-December, 1999). The Seagrass
(Zostera Marina [Zosteraceae]) Industry of Nova Scotia (1907-1960).
Economic Botany, 53, 4, pp. 419-426.
Zarr, R. ( June, 2001). A History of Testing Heat Insulators at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. ASHRAE Transactions, 107, Pt. 2.

106

Zogg, R. A., Alberino, D. L. (1998). Electricity Consumption by Small End Uses
In Residential Buildings, Final Report. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge,
MA.

107