skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Challenge Home Program Certification of Production Builders

Abstract

The purpose of this project was to evaluate integrated packages of advanced measures in individual test homes to assess their performance with respect to Building America Program goals, specifically compliance with the DOE Challenge Home Program. BSC consulted on the construction of five test houses by three Cold Climate production builders in three separate US cities. BSC worked with the builders to develop a design package tailored to the cost-related impacts for each builder. Therefore, the resulting design packages do vary from builder to builder. BSC provided support through this research project on the design, construction and performance testing of the five test homes. Overall, the builders have concluded that the energy related upgrades (either through the prescriptive or performance path) represent reasonable upgrades. The builders commented that while not every improvement in specification was cost effective (as in a reasonable payback period), many were improvements that could improve the marketability of the homes and serve to attract more energy efficiency discerning prospective homeowners. However, the builders did express reservations on the associated checklists and added certifications. An increase in administrative time was observed with all builders. The checklists and certifications also inherently increase cost due to: 1. Adding servicesmore » to the scope of work for various trades, such as HERS Rater, HVAC contractor; 2. Increased material costs related to the checklists, especially the EPA Indoor airPLUS and EPA WaterSense(R) Efficient Hot Water Distribution requirement.« less

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Office
OSTI Identifier:
1158447
Report Number(s):
DOE/GO-102014-4482
KNDJ-0-40337-04
DOE Contract Number:
AC36-08GO28308
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Related Information: Work performed by Building Science Corporation, Somerville, Massachusetts
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION; RESIDENTIAL; RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS; BSC; BUILDING AMERICA; DOE CHALLENGE HOME PROGRAM; PRODUCTION BUILDERS; NEW CONSTRUCTION; SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; HERS INDEX; EPA INDOOR AIRPLUS; EPA WATERSENSE; ENERGY STAR FOR HOMES; Buildings

Citation Formats

Kerrigan, P., and Loomis, H. Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Challenge Home Program Certification of Production Builders. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.2172/1158447.
Kerrigan, P., & Loomis, H. Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Challenge Home Program Certification of Production Builders. United States. doi:10.2172/1158447.
Kerrigan, P., and Loomis, H. Mon . "Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Challenge Home Program Certification of Production Builders". United States. doi:10.2172/1158447. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1158447.
@article{osti_1158447,
title = {Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Challenge Home Program Certification of Production Builders},
author = {Kerrigan, P. and Loomis, H.},
abstractNote = {The purpose of this project was to evaluate integrated packages of advanced measures in individual test homes to assess their performance with respect to Building America Program goals, specifically compliance with the DOE Challenge Home Program. BSC consulted on the construction of five test houses by three Cold Climate production builders in three separate US cities. BSC worked with the builders to develop a design package tailored to the cost-related impacts for each builder. Therefore, the resulting design packages do vary from builder to builder. BSC provided support through this research project on the design, construction and performance testing of the five test homes. Overall, the builders have concluded that the energy related upgrades (either through the prescriptive or performance path) represent reasonable upgrades. The builders commented that while not every improvement in specification was cost effective (as in a reasonable payback period), many were improvements that could improve the marketability of the homes and serve to attract more energy efficiency discerning prospective homeowners. However, the builders did express reservations on the associated checklists and added certifications. An increase in administrative time was observed with all builders. The checklists and certifications also inherently increase cost due to: 1. Adding services to the scope of work for various trades, such as HERS Rater, HVAC contractor; 2. Increased material costs related to the checklists, especially the EPA Indoor airPLUS and EPA WaterSense(R) Efficient Hot Water Distribution requirement.},
doi = {10.2172/1158447},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The purpose of this project was to evaluate integrated packages of advanced measures in individual test homes to assess their performance with respect to Building America program goals, specifically compliance with the DOE Challenge Home Program. BSC consulted on the construction of five test houses by three cold climate production builders in three U.S. cities and worked with the builders to develop a design package tailored to the cost-related impacts for each builder. Also, BSC provided support through performance testing of the five test homes. Overall, the builders have concluded that the energy related upgrades (either through the prescriptive ormore » performance path) represent reasonable upgrades. The builders commented that while not every improvement in specification was cost effective (as in a reasonable payback period), many were improvements that could improve the marketability of the homes and serve to attract more energy efficiency discerning prospective homeowners. However, the builders did express reservations on the associated checklists and added certifications. An increase in administrative time was observed with all builders. The checklists and certifications also inherently increase cost due to: adding services to the scope of work for various trades, such as HERS Rater, HVAC contractor; and increased material costs related to the checklists, especially the EPA Indoor airPLUS and EPA WaterSense┬« Efficient Hot Water Distribution requirement.« less
  • DOE funded several small-town energy planning projects, through the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) Area Development Assistance Planning Grant Program. DOE intended that this program should: (1) encourage community energy planning and the development of Integrated Community Energy Systems (ICES) and (2) provide a testing ground for the technologies and planning methods developed by its Buildings and Community Systems Division. FmHA intended that the joint program should further the development of rural areas and make DOE expertise available to grant recipients doing energy planning. All grantees under this joint program endeavored to define their local energy problems and to find localmore » solutions. However, the resulting energy cost savings were not always impressive, and generally they were not very well documented. Lack of implementation power, lack of focus, and inability to generate local financial support for projects and further planning were the main reasons for this performance. The lack of sufficient documentation could be the result of DOE's failure to require a standardized and systematic accounting of grantees' accomplishments. The recommended changes in the scope-of-work requirements suggested in this report would cause grantees to focus their energy-planning activities so as to increase local financial support. The appendixes give a standardized format by which grantees would account for the energy savings and production made possible by their planning efforts.« less
  • NETL has reviewed available information and evaluated the deep geothermal and natural gas resources located beneath the Camp Dawson National Guard Training Center in West Virginia. This facility is located in the northeastern portion of the state in Preston County, near the town of Kingwood. This study reviews options for the onsite drilling of wells for the production of geothermal heat or natural gas, as well as the utilization of these resources for on-site power and heating needs. Resources of potential interest are at subsurface depths between 7,000 feet and 15,000 feet.
  • Procedures used in the preparation of a manual on the construction of energy-saving one- and two-family houses are described. Prior to writing the manual, builders were interviewed and a bibliographic search was conducted to obtain information on the design, construction and marketing of energy conserving homes. The packaging and distribution of the manual was planned. When written FEA will publish the manual. (ERA citation 04:044977)
  • This report presents an evaluation of the water quality monitoring data obtained by the Y-12 Plant Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP) in the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime) during calendar year (CY) 1998. The East Fork Regime contains many confirmed and potential sources of groundwater and surface water contamination associated with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Applicable provisions of DOE Order 5400.1A - General Environmental Protection Program - require evaluation of groundwater and surface water quality near the Y-12 Plant to: (1) gauge groundwater quality in areas that are, or couldmore » be, affected by plant operations, (2) determine the quality of surface water and groundwater where contaminants are most likely to migrate beyond the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) property line, and (3) identify and characterize long-term trends in groundwater quality at the Y-12 Plant. The following sections of this report contain relevant background information (Section 2.0); describe the results of the respective data evaluations required under DOE Order 5400.1A (Section 3.0); summarize significant findings of each evaluation (Section 4.0); and list the technical reports and regulatory documents cited for more detailed information (Section 5.0). All of the illustrations (maps and trend graphs) and data summary tables referenced in each section are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.« less