Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment...2017/07/12 · Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment 2 | TRC...

4120 SE International Way, Suite A 110, Milwaukie, OR 97222

Email: [email protected]

Oregon Multifamily Market

Assessment July 12, 2017

Submitted To:

State of Oregon: Housing and

Community Services

1225 Ferry St SE

Salem, OR 97301

Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment

i | TRC Energy Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MARKET ASSESSMENT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 1

2. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................. 3

3. DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................... 6

Resident Income ........................................................................................................................... 6

Resident Population Types ......................................................................................................... 7

4. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK ............................................................................................ 9

Multifamily vs. Single-family Distribution ............................................................................... 9

Vintage ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Building Size ................................................................................................................................ 12

Fuel Types .................................................................................................................................... 13

5. UTILITY SERVICES AREAS & RATES ...................................................................................... 15

6. LOW-INCOME MARKET SEGMENTS ................................................................................... 17

Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................... 17

Developers .................................................................................................................................. 19

Complementary Programs ...................................................................................................... 21

7. NEW CONSTRUCTION MARKET INDICATORS ................................................................... 22

8. CLIMATE ZONES ...................................................................................................................... 24

9. MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................... 27

Building Envelope ...................................................................................................................... 27

HVAC Systems ............................................................................................................................ 32

Domestic Hot Water Systems ................................................................................................. 35

Lighting......................................................................................................................................... 36

Miscellaneous Equipment & Appliances .............................................................................. 40

10. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 42

11. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 43

12. APPENDIX A: MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS............................................ 44

Construction Type ..................................................................................................................... 44

Windows ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Walls ............................................................................................................................................. 46

Ceilings ......................................................................................................................................... 47

Floors ............................................................................................................................................ 49


ii | TRC Energy Services

Heating Systems ........................................................................................................................ 51

Cooling Systems - Common Area ........................................................................................... 54

Cooling Systems - In-Unit ......................................................................................................... 54

Ventilation Systems .................................................................................................................. 55

Domestic Hot Water Systems ................................................................................................. 56

Lighting - Common Area .......................................................................................................... 58

Lighting - Exterior ...................................................................................................................... 59

Lighting - In-Unit ........................................................................................................................ 60

Common Area Laundry ............................................................................................................ 61

Elevators ...................................................................................................................................... 62

Pools ............................................................................................................................................. 63

Thermostats ................................................................................................................................ 63

In-Unit Appliances ..................................................................................................................... 64

13. APPENDIX B: TABLES .............................................................................................................. 66


iii | TRC Energy Services

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: County Map of All Multifamily Units per Census 2010 ............................................................. 4

Figure 2: County Map of OHCS Multifamily Inventory (5+ Units) as of May 2016 ............................... 4

Figure 3: Estimated Low-income Multifamily Meters in PGE & PAC Service Territory ....................... 5

Figure 4: Oregon Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 5: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Inventory as of May 2016 ......................................... 7

Figure 6: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Properties in Top 6 Counties ................................... 8

Figure 7: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift .............. 9

Figure 8: Housing Stock Makeup .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 9: Residential Housing Stock Vintage by County .......................................................................... 11

Figure 10: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings by Building Size and Vintage .................................. 11

Figure 11: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings & Units by Number of Stories ................................ 12

Figure 12: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size ................................................................ 13

Figure 13: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type.......................................................... 14

Figure 14: Top 6 Counties Residential Housing Heating Fuel Breakdown .......................................... 14

Figure 15: Low-income Eligible Multifamily Units in PGE & PAC Service Area .................................. 16

Figure 16: PGE & PAC Utility Rates ............................................................................................................... 16

Figure 17: Cumulative Funding Source Breakdown of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects from 2002 -

2016 ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 18: Funding Summary of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects ................................................... 18

Figure 19: Forty Most Active Affordable Multifamily Developers and Owners in Oregon ............. 20

Figure 20: Complimentary Programs by Program Type and Sector ..................................................... 21

Figure 21: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift ......... 22

Figure 22: NC Building Permits per Units by Oregon Metro Areas ....................................................... 23

Figure 23: Northwest Regional Technical Forum’s Heating Zones ....................................................... 25

Figure 24: Northwest Regional Technical Forum’s Cooling Zone .......................................................... 25

Figure 25: County Map of IECC 2012 Climate Zones ................................................................................ 26

Figure 26: Distribution of Structural System Types by Buildings Size .................................................. 27

Figure 27: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type ............................. 28


iv | TRC Energy Services

Figure 28: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type .......................................................................... 29

Figure 29: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type .................................................................. 30

Figure 30: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type ....................................................................... 31

Figure 31: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size .................................................... 32

Figure 32: Distribution of In-Unit & Common Area Cooling System .................................................... 33

Figure 33: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System ....................................................... 34

Figure 34: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size .............................................................. 35

Figure 35: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use .............................................................. 36

Figure 36: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size............................ 37

Figure 37: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types ......................................................... 37

Figure 38: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size ........................................ 38


Figure 40: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types........................................................................................... 39

Figure 41: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior ............................................................................. 40

Figure 42: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage ................................................................... 41

Figure 43: Distribution of Structural System Types by Building Size .................................................... 44

Figure 44: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type ............................. 45

Figure 45: Distribution of Wall Area by Building Size and Wall Type ................................................... 46

Figure 46: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type .......................................................................... 46

Figure 47: Distribution of Ceiling Area by Building Size and Ceiling Type ........................................... 47

Figure 48: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type .................................................................. 48

Figure 49: Distribution of Floor Area by Building Size and Floor Type ................................................. 49

Figure 50: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type ....................................................................... 50

Figure 51: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type.......................................................... 51

Figure 52: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size .................................................... 52

Figure 53: Distribution of Secondary Heating System by Building Size ............................................... 53

Figure 54: Distribution of Common Area Cooling Systems .................................................................... 54

Figure 55: Distribution of Units with In-Unit Cooling Systems by Building Size ................................ 54

Figure 56: Distribution of In-Unit Cooling Systems .................................................................................. 55


v | TRC Energy Services

Figure 57: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System ....................................................... 55

Figure 58: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size .............................................................. 56

Figure 59: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use .............................................................. 57

Figure 60: Distribution of In-Unit Water Heater Types ........................................................................... 57

Figure 61: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size............................ 58


Figure 63: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamps Type and Building Size ...................................... 59

Figure 64: Distribution of Exterior Lighting Control Types ..................................................................... 59

Figure 65: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types........................................................................................... 60

Figure 66: In-Unit Lighting Characteristics ................................................................................................. 60

Figure 67: Distribution of Building Laundry by Building Vintage ........................................................... 61

Figure 68: Distribution of Common Area Dryers by Dryer Vintage ...................................................... 62

Figure 69: Percentage of Buildings with Elevators by Building Size ..................................................... 62

Figure 70: Percentage of Buildings with Pools by Pool Type & Building Size ..................................... 63

Figure 71: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior ............................................................................. 63

Figure 72: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage ................................................................... 64

Figure 73: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Washers by Vintage ............................................................. 64

Figure 74: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Dryers by Vintage ................................................................. 65

Figure 75: Distribution of In-Unit Dishwashers by Vintage .................................................................... 65

Figure 76: OHCS Multifamily Inventory vs. Total Multifamily Units as of Census 2010................... 66

Figure 77: Population Demographics by County ....................................................................................... 68

Figure 78: Residential Housing Type Makeup per County ...................................................................... 70

Figure 79: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size ................................................................ 71

Figure 80: Residential Housing Stock Vintage ........................................................................................... 72

Figure 81: Residential Housing Stock Heating Fuel Type by County .................................................... 74

Figure 82: PGE & PacifiCorp Low-income Eligible Units .......................................................................... 76

Figure 83: NC Buildings Permits Statewide and by Metro Areas .......................................................... 78

Figure 84: Climate Zones by County ............................................................................................................ 79


1 | TRC Energy Services

1. MARKET ASSESSMENT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The intent of this market assessment is to inform the design of the low-income Multifamily Energy Program (formerly known as the multifamily low income weatherization program, MULTIFAMILY ENERGY PROGRAM) so it is responsive to local conditions and produces outcomes in alignment with the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) Department’s goals and objectives.

This market assessment references both data sources focused on deed-restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data provided by OHCS is specific to the affordable multifamily sector, i.e. multifamily new construction and rehabilitation projects funded by OHCS. All other data sources reference the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing. These other data sources include Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), International Code Council (ICC), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Pacific Power, Portland General Electric (PGE), and the U.S. Census. We note the data source and the market sector (i.e. affordable-only or broader multifamily market) in the introduction to each major section in this document and include a full list of references in the appendix.

TRC concludes the following key program design considerations from this assessment:

Geographic Distribution: Within OHCS’ multifamily inventory, 75% of buildings are located in 10 out of the 36 counties in Oregon. The program outreach will focus on counties along the I-5 corridor but will seek to also serve buildings in the broader geographic areas to align with OHCS’ goal of serving the whole state.

Demographics: Family housing makes up 58% of OHCS’ multifamily inventory and elderly housing makes up 20%. Across the state, the program design will focus on serving the family and elderly populations and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most.

Multifamily Housing Stock: 67% of buildings in OHCS’ multifamily inventory are pre-1990, prior to building codes being enacted. Additionally, the program will have the biggest impact targeting low-rise and mid-rise buildings, which make up 90% of the multifamily buildings stock.

Low-Income Funding Sources: Leveraged Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Equity makes up 45% of total funding for OHCS’ multifamily projects (new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and reconstruction). OHCS funding sources constitute 16% of the total funding for multifamily projects. The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other low-income funding sources the Multifamily Energy Program can leverage.

Low-Income Developers: TRC identified a list of 40 affordable multifamily developers and owners who have most often participated in OHCS programs. Of these 40, approximately 27 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. TRC proposes to engage the 40 most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage.

Complementary Programs: In addition to incentives from OHCS, affordable multifamily developers and owners have access to funding through a number of financing and energy efficiency programs. TRC will incorporate a financing review into the project intake process to ensure that projects leverage all available funds and increase their scope of work when possible, especially multifamily prescriptive and direct install incentives offered by the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO).

New Construction Market: Per Census 2010 data, 77% of existing residential buildings in Oregon are single-family and 23% are multifamily. Per National Association of Home Builders data on 2016 building permits, 56% of new construction buildings are single-family and 44% are multifamily. This indicates a strong shift in the Oregon residential market towards the construction of multifamily buildings. The



program should leverage this increased new construction activity especially in the following metro areas: Portland, Salem, Bend, and Eugene/Springfield.

Multifamily Building Characteristics: This section of the market assessment was based on a report written by Ecotope for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) titled “Residential Building Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Energy Use” (September 2013). Our analysis only focuses on the key building components that will have the biggest impact on the program design. Wherever possible, the program should leverage existing incentive opportunities for these buildings components offered by Energy Trust of Oregon, and the Multifamily Energy Program should instead focus its efforts on unique energy challenges not incentivized by other complementary programs.

Building Envelope: For walls, the program will advocate for non-cavity insulation, such as Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS), to reduce thermal bridging in new construction applications and also in retrofit when there are major wall improvements already happening.

HVAC Systems: The program will focus on the replacement of in-unit electric baseboard systems, which make up 80% of primary heating systems. We will advocate replacing electric baseboard systems with efficient ductless heat pumps. The program should leverage current incentive offerings from Energy Trust of Oregon for ductless heat pumps.

Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Systems: The program should prioritize the replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems, which exist in 90% of units. The program should address DHW systems upgrades holistically to include not only the replacement of inefficient water heaters, but also consider hot water pipe insulation, tank insulation, and recirculation pump controls for central systems.

Lighting: Incandescent lamps make up more than 60% of in-unit lamps. The program should address in-unit tenant lighting improvements and develop a mechanism to ensure tenants replace incandescent lights with more efficient lighting. This can be especially advantageous for low-income tenants who are direct metered and pay for their electricity usage.



2. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION1

The intent of this section is to map the geographic distribution of the housing stock to ensure equity in providing program services as well as document whether the geographic distribution lines up with major Oregon population centers.

Key Conclusions

Based on OHCS multifamily inventory2, 30% is located in Multnomah County – equivalent to 564 buildings or 26,439 dwelling units. Figures 1 and 2 show the distribution of multifamily units from both Census 2010 data and OHCS inventory. Both datasets display a similar distribution of multifamily volume across the state. Of OHCS’s multifamily inventory, 80% of units are located in 10 out of the 36 total counties in Oregon. These 10 counties have 50 or more total buildings and approximately 1,000 or more units.

Comparing Figures 1 and 2 shows affordable multifamily trends reflected in Figure 2 are in line with overall multifamily trends, which include market-rate housing, reflected in Figure 1. A few exceptions are Umatilla County, where the affordable multifamily volume is higher than overall multifamily volume reflected in Census data. Conversely, Polk and Benton have a slightly lower volume of affordable multifamily buildings compared to the overall multifamily volume.

Program Design Considerations:

The program outreach will focus on counties along the I-5 corridor with the highest concentration of multifamily units, but will seek to serve buildings in the broader geographic areas to align with OHCS’ goal of serving the whole state.

As depicted in the Figures 1 and 2, to reach the rural eastern counties with the highest concentration of buildings, the program outreach will focus of the following counties: Umatilla, Union, and Malheur. The program will achieved this through targeted outreach through the trade ally network and announcements through Housing Authority (HA) networks. In addition, the program can consider offering bonus incentives for projects in these rural areas to stimulate participation from HVAC and insulation contractors and installers not based locally.

As shown in Figure 3, Portland General Electric (PGE) serves the largest concentration of low-income multifamily dwelling units with approximately 20,000 units, and PGE also contributes 50% of the incentive budget. Pacific Power (PAC) contributes the remaining 50% of the incentive budget and serves 15,000 low-income multifamily units. Therefore, the program may need to limit participation in PGE dominant areas to ensure the majority of the remaining 50% of the incentive funding serves PAC customers.

1 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing.

2 In this assessment, the OHCS’ “multifamily inventory” analyzed was limited to buildings with five (5) or more units that have been historically funded by OHCS between 2002 and 2016



Figure 1: County Map of All Multifamily Units per Census 20103

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017)

3 Note: The county boundaries for PGE and PAC do not reflect the utility service territory boundaries. The purpose of the county boundaries is to indicate which counties PGE and PAC serve. PGE and PAC may not serve the entire county.

Figure 2: County Map of OHCS Multifamily Inventory (5+ Units) as of

May 2016

(OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx, 2017)



Figure 3: Estimated Low-income Multifamily Meters in PGE & PAC Service Territory

(OHCS, PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment, 2015)



3. DEMOGRAPHICS4

The intent of this section is to identify demographics considerations that are critical to program success including income and residential population types.

Resident Income

Key Conclusions

Based on Census 2010 data, 16% of the total population in Oregon are living in poverty (as defined by the Census)5 – equivalent to more than 600,000 people. As noted in Figure 4, the statewide head of household median income is $48,803 and the family median income is $56,119. In the more recent 2015 American Community Survey, the poverty decreased slightly to 15% and median incomes have increased by 10-17%.


The program will align income eligibility restrictions based on OHCS guidelines, where tenants in at least 50% of units are at, or below, 60% AMI.

The program will explore the opportunity to support multifamily properties that are not currently in the OHCS portfolio, including those that are not deed-restricted affordable housing. This could be done by setting a limit to the monthly rent based on county income data, unit size, and monthly utility allowance assumptions, as is done currently in California’s Low Income Weatherization Program. The outcome would be access to funding and technical support through the program if a developer/owner is willing to maintain rent affordability for a minimum number of years (such as 10 years).

Oregon Demographics Census 2010 American Community Survey 2015

Total Population 3,900,342 3,952,077

Total Poverty6 Count 638,816 607,029

Poverty Rate 16% 15%

Head of Household Median Income $48,803 $54,148

Family Median Income $56,119 $66,287

Figure 4: Oregon Demographics


4 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing.

5 The term “poverty” is used here to align with Census data, but we will use the term “low-income” for program purposes.

6The 2010 U.S. Census used the following income thresholds nationwide to determine poverty statistics: Single-adult household: $11,139; Two-adult household: $14,218; Two adult & two children household: $22,113

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh10.xls



Resident Population Types

Key Conclusions

As noted in Figure 5, family and elderly housing are the two largest population types served by OHCS. Family housing makes up 58% of OHCS’ multifamily inventory and elderly housing make up 20%.

As shown in Figure 6, in Multnomah county, where the highest concentration of affordable multifamily units are located, family and elderly populations make up 70% of the current OHCS’ multifamily inventory. However, supportive housing, including those that house residents with physical disability, developmental disabilities, chronic mental Illness, alcohol/drug rehab, and the homeless, collectively account for up to 28% of the total population (each of these supportive housing subcategories have over 2,000 units each statewide).


Across the state, the program design will focus on serving the family and elderly populations and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most. For example, for family housing, focus on plug load reduction. For elderly housing, address temperature set points for heating, cooling, and water heating that optimize efficiency while also maintaining comfort.

In Multnomah County, the program will look into the other population types listed above and reach out to developers targeting these population types to assess their needs.

Population Type # of Units

Family 46,552

Elderly 15,666

Physical Disability 3,514

Developmental Disability 2,770

Chronic Mental Illness 2,383

Alcohol/Drug Rehab 2,381

Homeless 2,276

Assisted Living 1,736

Farmworker 1,666

Domestic Violence 337

Ex/Released Offender 269

HIV/AIDS 71

Congregate Care 70

TOTAL 79,691

Figure 5: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Inventory as of May 2016

(OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx 2017)



Figure 6: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Properties in Top 6 Counties




4. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK7

Multifamily vs. Single-family Distribution

The intent of this section is to outline the distribution of multifamily family versus single-family buildings across the state and identify regions with more prevalence of multifamily buildings.

Key Conclusions

As noted in Figure 7, on the existing buildings side, multifamily units comprise 23% of the housing units statewide, compared to single-family units which make up 77% of the statewide residential building stock. However, in new construction, multifamily units make up a larger proportion of the residential building stock than the existing building sector (44%), compared to 56% for single-family.


As previously noted, the program will have the biggest impact targeting counties with the highest total volume of multifamily units (Multnomah, Washington, Lane, Clackamas, Marion, and Jackson). However, as shown in Figure 8, consideration should also be made to counties that are not in the previously mentioned top counties, yet have a higher concentration of multifamily units compared to single-family homes, such as Benton, Polk, and Clatsop.

Figure 7: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) (National Association of Home Builders 2017)

7 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census and Ecotope, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily



Figure 8: Housing Stock Makeup


Vintage

The intent of this section is to understand the vintage of the housing stock to inform measure packages that are most cost effective for Multifamily Energy Program participants to pursue.

Key Conclusions

Within OCHS’ multifamily inventory, 67% of multifamily buildings are pre-1990 and 33% are post-1990 (when Oregon enacted its first energy code). Figure 9 details the vintage distribution of multifamily units across counties per Census 2010. As detailed in Figure 10, nearly 80% of all multifamily buildings statewide were built prior to 1990, relatively evenly split between three vintage groupings: 23% between 1981-1990, 28% between 1971-1980, and 23% between 1955-1970.


Most retrofit projects that will participate in the program were built before 1990, prior to building enactment of energy codes8. The “Building Characteristics” section explores in more detail the implications of these pre-code buildings on program design and measure offerings.

8 “1981–1990. Oregon and Washington had enforced energy codes by the end of this timeframe” (Ecotope 2013)



A program objective will be to focus on below-code buildings and help them make building improvements to reach and exceed current code.

Figure 9: Residential Housing Stock Vintage by County


Figure 10: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings by Building Size and Vintage

(Ecotope 2013)



Building Size

The intent of this section is to understand the building size of the housing stock to inform program measure offerings.

Key Conclusions

As depicted in Figure 11, 65% of all multifamily buildings are low-rise (1-3 stories), 35% are mid-rise (4-6 stories), and 9% are high-rise (7+ stories).

Within OHCS’ existing buildings inventory, multifamily buildings with 5 to 19 units make up 44% of the total buildings but only 10% of total units. Buildings with 20-99 units make up 50% of total buildings and 59% of total units. Buildings with 100-500+ units make up 7% of total buildings and 30% of total units.


As shown in Figure 11, the program will have the biggest impact targeting low-rise and mid-rise buildings, which make up 90% of the multifamily building stock.

While focusing on low- and mid-rise buildings, the program will have the biggest impact targeting buildings with 20-199 units per building, as noted in Figure 12. This building size group has a balanced number of buildings and units, and targeting this group will reach the most number of buildings and units.

Figure 11: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings & Units by Number of Stories

(Ecotope 2013)



Figure 12: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size


Fuel Types

The intent of this section is to understand the fuel types of the housing stock to inform measure offerings. Additionally, understanding fuel types will identify potential outside financing to leverage.

Key Conclusions

As Figure 13 notes, electricity heats 87% of multifamily buildings, while non-electric sources (mostly natural gas) heat the remaining 13%.


The program will focus on retrofitting electric heating systems. Please refer to the “Heating Systems” section for more details on the most common electric heating systems found in existing multifamily buildings.



Figure 13: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type

(Ecotope 2013)

Figure 14: Top 6 Counties Residential Housing Heating Fuel Breakdown




5. UTILITY SERVICES AREAS & RATES9

The intent of this section is to identify utility service to understand participation potential. Research on utility rates will also help determine appropriate incentive amounts.

Key Conclusions

As shown in Figure 15, Portland General Electric (PGE) and Pacific Power (PAC) serve nearly 25,00010 low-income eligible multifamily units, which are located in the following counties: Multnomah, Washington, Marion, Clackamas, and Jackson.

Since utilities often consider multifamily buildings both residential and commercial from a utility metering perspective, in-unit energy usage likely falls under the residential rate class and common areas/master-metered central systems under the nonresidential rate class. As shown in Figure 16, the utility rates for PGE and PAC fall in nearly the same range from $0.10 - $0.12 per kWh for both small nonresidential and residential rate classes. The base charge ranges from $9.50 - $10.50 for residential customers, and $16.00 - $17.35 for small nonresidential customers.


The program will contact PGE and PAC in the counties with the most low-income eligible multifamily units to identify opportunities to collaborate on offering incentives (through sources such as the Energy Trust).

Depending on the metering configuration of a building (master-metered, sub-metered, and direct-metered), a building could fall under a combination of residential and nonresidential rates. The program will work with potential program participants to understand the complexities of these rate structures to better inform the program incentive structure and utility cost savings opportunities.

9 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, refer to the broader small commercial and residential sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing

10 Note that this estimate is based on county-wide unit data and therefore overestimates the total number of units eligible to be served by PGE and PAC (as utility service territory boundaries do not run along county lines)



Figure 15: Low-income Eligible Multifamily Units in PGE & PAC Service Area

(OHCS, PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment 2015)

UTILITY SMALL NONRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

Effective Rate

$ / kWH

Base Charge

Effective Rate

$ / kWH

Base Charge

Portland General Electric

(PGE) $0.1111 $16.00 $0.1212 $10.50

Pacific Power

(PAC) $0.1013 $17.35 $0.1214 $9.50

Figure 16: PGE & PAC Utility Rates

(Portland General Electric 2016) (Pacific Power 2017)

11 For PGE “Small Nonresidential Rate” the following assumptions were made: basic charge of $16.00 for single phase service; transmission charge of $0.00204/kWh; distribution charge of $0.03914/kWh; energy charge of $0.06478/kWh for standard service.

12 For PGE “Residential Rate” the following assumptions were made: basic charge of $10.50; transmission charge of $0.00237/kWh; distribution charge of $0.04035/kWh; energy charge of $0.07572/kWh for standard service over 1,000 kWh.

13 For PAC “Small Nonresidential Rate” the following assumptions were made: Schedule 23 basic charge of $17.35 for 1 phase; combined effective rate of $0.10017/kWh for first 3,000 kWh.

14 For PAC “Residential Rate” the following assumptions were made: Schedule 4 basic charge of $9.50; combined effective rate of $0.12062/kWh for service over 1,000 kWh.



6. LOW-INCOME MARKET SEGMENTS

Funding Sources

The intent of this section is to understand market segments by funding type to tailor messages that speak their language, address specific pain points, and motivate participation.

Key Conclusions

Figures 17 and 18 shows Leveraged LIHTC Equity makes up 45% of total funding for OHCS’ multifamily projects (new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and reconstruction). OHCS funding sources constitute 16% of the total funding for multifamily projects.


The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other low-income funding sources the Multifamily Energy Program can leverage within OHCS and at the state and federal level.

Figure 17: Cumulative Funding Source Breakdown of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects from 2002 - 2016

(OHCS, OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx 2017)



Funding Type Funding Source Amount % of Total

Funding

Leveraged LIHTC Equity

Leveraged Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program Equity $1,223,414,560

Total Leveraged LIHTC Equity $1,223,414,560 50%

State Loan OHCS Bond Financing or Conduit Loan $776,971,001

Total State Issued Short and Long Term Loans $776,971,001 32%

OHCS Gap Funding HUD Home Investment Partnership Grant Program $133,705,499

OHCS Gap Funding OTHER OHCS Funding (defunct) $73,561,217

OHCS Gap Funding Oregon Housing Development Grant Program (Trust Fund) $66,608,988

OHCS Gap Funding General Housing Account Program $48,994,839

OHCS Gap Funding Housing Preservation Fund $44,126,385

OHCS Gap Funding LIFT Q-Bonds $38,920,376

OHCS Gap Funding Multifamily Energy Program - Weatherization Funds (PGE, PPL) (Grant or Loan) $17,416,116

OHCS Gap Funding HELP (FAF) Grant Program $5,459,000

OHCS Gap Funding Mental Health Housing Fund $3,170,370

OHCS Gap Funding Farmworker Housing Development Account $688,803

Total OHCS Gap Funding (Grants & Loans) $432,651,593 18%

FUNDING GRAND TOTAL $2,433,037,154

Figure 18: Funding Summary of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects




Developers

The intent of this section is to identify developer candidates for stakeholder engagement, future Multifamily Energy Program incentives, and to inform territory-wide funding distribution strategy.

Key Conclusions

By analyzing a list of previous OHCS funding recipients, TRC identified a list of 40 affordable multifamily developers and owners who have most often participated in OHCS programs. To create this list of developer candidates, TRC reviewed a database of previous OHCS funding recipients, some of which have also participated in Multifamily Energy Program. In addition, TRC also reviewed member directories of Oregon affordable housing organizations.

Of these 40, approximately 27 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. From 2002 to 2016, approximately 385 multifamily developers and owners have received funding from OHCS. Of these, approximately 70 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. Of the 23 housing authorities that have participated in OHCS programs, 9 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives.


TRC proposes to engage the 40 most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage. To collect a comprehensive picture of barriers and benefits for participating in Multifamily Energy Program, TRC will also survey both Multifamily Energy Program participants and non-participants. This list, which includes developers in both urban and hard-to-reach areas, should ensure that TRC collects perspectives from diverse audiences, each with their own priorities. The survey will include multiple choice questions such as the following:

Have you participated in Multifamily Energy Program before? Why? Why Not?

The Multifamily Energy Program is considering decreasing per-project incentive caps in order to increase the overall number of projects that can participate. How would this policy impact you?

Beyond financial incentives, what kind of support would you expect to receive from Multifamily Energy Program?

What other funding sources do you typically leverage for your projects?

Are you considering applying to Multifamily Energy Program during the next funding cycle?

There is significant opportunity to increase participation from housing authorities and small to mid-sized developers and owners.

On the new construction side, there is an opportunity to engage developers not currently in the affordable space. OHCS is currently developing on an initiative working with Regional Solutions on workforce housing developments (at or lower than 60% of average median income or AMI), especially in rural communities. The program could fund new construction projects if the housing, once complete, is marketed to low- or moderate-income residents. The program would therefore engage some developers who are not currently active in OHCS’ portfolio.



Company Multifamily Energy Program Participant

Company Multifamily Energy Program Participant

ACCESS N Lennar N

Bienestar N Linn County Affordable Housing N

BRIDGE Housing Corp. Y Lovelace Development LLC N

Caritas Community Housing Corp. Y Luckenbill-Drayton & Associates Y

Chrisman Development & Management

Y NeighborWorks Umpqua Y

Columbia Cascade Housing Corp. N Northwest Housing Alternatives Y

Community And Shelter Assistance Corp.

N Northwest Oregon Housing Authority N

Community Partners for Affordable Housing Inc.

Y Northwest Real Estate Capital Corp. Y

Cook Development Corp. N Options for Southern Oregon N

GSL Properties N Oregon Mennonite Residential Services

Y

Guardian Affordable Housing Development LLC

Y PNC Multifamily Capital Y

Home Forward Y Polk CDC Y

Housing & Community Services Agency of Lane County

Y REACH Community Development Inc. Y

Housing Authority of Jackson County Y Rose Community Development Corp. Y

Housing Authority of Marion County Y Shangri-La Corp. N

Housing Authority of Portland N Shelter Resources Y

Housing Authority of Salem Y St Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County

Y

Housing Works Y Step Forward Activities Inc. Y

Human Solutions Inc. Y Telos Development Y

Innovative Housing Y Willamette Neighborhood Housing Services

Y

Figure 19: Forty Most Active Affordable Multifamily Developers and Owners in Oregon




Complementary Programs

The intent of this section is to identify existing and complementary programs and leveraging opportunities, including municipal, utility, green, renewable, and energy efficiency programs.

Key Conclusions

In addition to incentives from OHCS, affordable multifamily developers and owners have access to funding through a number of financing and energy efficiency programs. Complimentary certification programs typically include a verification requirement from registered trade allies, resulting in more reliable savings.


TRC will incorporate a financing review into the project intake process to ensure that projects leverage all available funds and increase their scope of work when possible, especially multifamily prescriptive and direct install incentives offered by the Energy Trust of Oregon.

In developing trade ally guidelines, TRC will consider certification program verification processes to increase consistency across programs, when possible.

Organization Program Name Program Type Sector

CAPO Community Action Partnership of Oregon Energy Efficiency Rehab

City of Ashland City of Ashland Housing Trust Fund Financing New/Rehab

DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Certification New

EPA ENERGY STAR for Existing Multifamily Buildings Certification Rehab

EPA ENERGY STAR Certified Multifamily High Rise Certification New

EPA ENERGY STAR Certified New Homes Certification New

Earth Advantage Earth Advantage Certification New/Rehab

Energy Trust Multifamily Prescriptive Program Energy Efficiency Rehab

Energy Trust Multifamily Direct Install Program Energy Efficiency Rehab

Energy Trust Multifamily Custom Incentives Program Energy Efficiency Rehab

Enterprise Enterprise Green Communities Certification New/Rehab

Mpower Oregon MPower Financing Rehab

NOAH Network for Oregon Affordable Housing Financing New/Rehab

PHIUS / Passive House Institute

PHIUS+ / PHI Certification New/Rehab

Portland Housing Bureau

Portland Housing Bureau Awards Financing New/Rehab

Property Fit CPACE Loan Program Financing New/Rehab

USGBC LEED for Homes and Multifamily Midrise Certification New

USGBC LEED Existing Buildings Certification Rehab

Figure 20: Complimentary Programs by Program Type and Sector



7. NEW CONSTRUCTION MARKET INDICATORS15

The intent of this section is to understand the new construction economy and building permit activity to help inform the level and type of program investment for new construction.

Key Conclusions

As depicted in Figure 21, per Census 2010 data, 77% of existing residential units in Oregon are single-family and 23% are multifamily. Per National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) data on 2016 building permits, 56% of new construction residential units are single-family and 44% are multifamily. This indicates a strong shift in the Oregon residential market towards the construction of new multifamily units.

As shown in Figure 22, per NAHB data, the metro areas with the most multifamily new construction activity projected in 2017 are Portland (7,644 units), Salem (510 units), Bend (473 units), and Eugene/Springfield (454 units).


The program should leverage the shift in multifamily new construction activity and reach out to affordable housing developers to assess how the program could support their upcoming developments in an effort that promotes energy efficiency.

The program will focus its new construction outreach in the following metro areas: Portland, Salem, and Bend, which are located in PGE and PAC service territory.

Figure 21: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) (National Association of Home Builders 2017)

15 This section only includes data sources that address the broader multifamily market, including both affordable and market-rate housing.



Figure 22: NC Building Permits per Units by Oregon Metro Areas

(National Association of Home Builders 2017) (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis 2017)



8. CLIMATE ZONES16

The intent of this section is to identify climate zones to help inform heating and cooling measures and magnitude of savings.

Key Conclusions

There are two IECC 2012 climate zones that exist in the state of Oregon, 4C and 5B. The Northwest Regional Technical Forum has three separate heating and cooling zones. Heating and cooling zone numbers may not always match for each county. Figures 23-25 maps these climate zones.

Oregon is a heating dominated climate, independent of which climate zone scheme is referenced. While still heating dominated, coastal Oregon (IECC zone 4C) has relatively moderate temperatures year round. However, the marine climate brings considerable and persistent moisture throughout the winter. In contrast, inland Oregon (IECC climate zone 5B) is both dryer and colder.

These climate zone differences impact the construction assemblies used, insulation requirements, the balance between energy end uses, and, ultimately, the energy efficiency measures that hold the most value to a multifamily developer or owner. For instance, building envelope and air sealing improvements have higher value to energy bills and comfort in Bend than in Portland. Likewise, domestic hot water improvements may be more cost effective in the coastal cities where water heating makes up a greater percentage of the total energy use in the building.

There is also a program-operations impact of the wet winters, as rain can be the cause of unexpected and persistent construction delays.


Depending on the program offering, the appropriate climate zone methodology should be selected. This may depend on what complementary programs the Multifamily Energy Program chooses to align with and what climate zone methodology they adopt, which is typically the Regional Technical Forum’s method.

The regional climate will inform the measures recommended by the program to participants. For example, the program will promote domestic hot water in coastal cities, whereas the program will promote envelope sealing in inland cities.




Figure 23: Northwest Regional Technical Forum’s Heating Zones

(Bonneville Power Administration 2011)

Figure 24: Northwest Regional Technical Forum’s Cooling Zone

(Bonneville Power Administration 2011)



Figure 25: County Map of IECC 2012 Climate Zones

(International Code Council 2011)



9. MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS17

The intent of this section is to identify specific multifamily building characteristics, such as envelope, HVAC, domestic hot water, lighting, appliances, to determine which energy efficiency measures the program should focus. This section only summarizes unique building characteristics that we have prioritized as targeted program design opportunities. For a full breakdown of multifamily building characteristics, refer to Appendix A.

Building Envelope


Construction Type: Figure 26 shows that wood framing accounts for more than 97% of multifamily buildings. For new construction buildings, trainings on advanced framing techniques and panelized wall assemblies, such as exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS), could advance the market.

Figure 26: Distribution of Structural System Types by Buildings Size

(Ecotope 2013)




Windows: As shown in Figure 27, although 80% of the multifamily buildings were built before 1990, nearly 60% of the windows use Low-E coatings and most of those use modern vinyl frames. Windows are typically not a cost-effective improvement on an energy savings basis alone. When addressing windows, the program should prioritize the replacement of single pane windows in electric-heated buildings. The program design should aim to incentivize windows installed as part of a whole-building improvement and balance the overall payback with measures that have a higher return on investment. When window replacements are specified in a retrofit for non-energy reasons – such as aesthetics, operability, or age replacement – the program will support more energy efficient choices. In these cases, incremental costs and payback calculations of energy upgraded window replacements should be factored based on the delta between standard windows and the upgraded product.

Figure 27: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type

(Ecotope 2013)



Wall Insulation: As shown in Figure 28, 90% of buildings have some level of wall insulation ranging from R-8 to R20. In retrofit scenarios, adding wall insulation is a difficult endeavor. In cases where significant wall alterations are specified for non-energy purposes – such as siding or rain-screen replacement, structural improvements, or drywall replacement – then insulation improvements should be a priority measure due to expected useful life of insulation and the opportunity present with exposed walls. The data in Ecotope’s Multifamily Report for NEEA did not address the insulation location (ex: cavity insulation vs. exterior insulation). However, the program will advocate for non-cavity insulation, such as EIFS, to reduce thermal bridging in new construction applications and when there is opportunity in retrofit projects afforded by major wall changes/construction happening already. Panelized wall assemblies would be particularly advantageous in inland locations where it is colder or in buildings when electric heating is the primary heating source.

Figure 28: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type

(Ecotope 2013)



Ceiling Insulation: Based on Figure 29, 65% of all multifamily attics are insulated above R-16. Opportunities to provide additional roof insulation in multifamily buildings beyond the current prevalence of R-16 still exist and the program will support additional roof insulation. In retrofits, additional insulation for roof decks is a difficult endeavor. However, adding attic insulation is a simpler installation, if the space is available, with spray foam and blown cellulose insulation. Since most of the existing multifamily family stock is low rise, the ceiling-to-wall area ratio is higher. As a result, adding roof insulation in low-rise buildings can yield higher energy savings, especially in vaulted and attic ceilings. When adding additional roof insulation in retrofit projects, special consideration should be made to the attic venting type to prevent moisture issues that could occur in coastal regions of the state.

Figure 29: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type

(Ecotope 2013)



Floor Insulation: Based on Figure 30, 55% of all buildings have little to no floor insulation. Updating floor insulation in retrofits is not cost effective and will be a difficult endeavor for the program to address in existing buildings, especially in slab-on grade conditions. For framed floors in conditioned space that exist over uninsulated, unconditioned space (ex. crawlspaces or basements), opportunities to insulate the framed floor to mitigate the heat loss from conditioned space to uninsulated below-grade spaces should be explored. This should be considered on a case-by-case basis through on-site building audits.

Figure 30: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type

(Ecotope 2013)



HVAC Systems


Heating: As shown in Figure 31, 80% of primary heating systems are electric resistance baseboards. The program will focus on the replacement of in-unit electric baseboard system and will advocate replacing electric baseboard system with efficient ductless heat pumps. The program should take into consideration current incentive offerings from Energy Trust of Oregon for ductless heat pumps.

Figure 31: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size

(Ecotope 2013)



Cooling: Figure 32 indicates that 63% of all buildings have no in-unit cooling systems, and almost 70% of buildings have no cooling in common areas. With such low levels of cooling in the building stock, identifying if a program participant has cooling will be paramount to avoid an unnecessary programmatic effort. Where cooling does exist in buildings, the program will focus on equipment efficiencies and cooling distribution system improvements such as duct sealing and duct location. The program will consider opportunities for cooling improvements on a case-by-case basis through on-site building audits. The building stock assessment does not indicate the prevalence of window air conditioners. However, it is not uncommon nationally for such units to be installed by tenants of non-cooling buildings. Window units are known to be both poorly operated and inefficient. The program will advocate for removal of window units when present, or tenant operational education when removal is not elected by the tenant. As noted in the heating section, the program recommendation of replacing electric baseboard heating systems with efficient ductless heat pumps systems can also provide cooling benefits with no additional costs and diminish instances of tenant installation of inefficient window air conditioning units.

Figure 32: Distribution of In-Unit & Common Area Cooling System

(Ecotope 2013)



Ventilation: As Figure 33 shows, 98% of all multifamily buildings do not have a central ventilation system. Within high-rise buildings, 25% have no central ventilation. Ventilation should not be an area of focus for the program. In cases of ventilation improvement due to health and safety issues, the program should encourage the installation of a ventilation system with efficient motors. The program should coordinate with local community action agencies when addressing these types of indoor air quality improvements. In new construction projects, the program should explore energy recovery ventilators and should encourage demand response ventilation systems for systems such as dryer and garage exhaust.

Figure 33: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System

(Ecotope 2013)



Domestic Hot Water Systems


As shown in Figure 34, 90% of units use individual in-unit systems. In the case of high-rise buildings, central systems become more common. Figure 34 indicates 75% of central DHW systems are fueled by gas. 95% of in-unit DHW systems are fueled by electricity.

Since the program can only incentivize electric savings, replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems should be a priority.

Cost-effective DHW intervention strategies should be based on the program’s history and best-practices from other multifamily programs. Some likely high-value measures are:

Electric resistance DHW replacement (central and in-unit)

Heat pump water heaters from NEEA’s Advanced Water Heater Specification list of tested, cold-climate tuned products

Hot water pipe wrap (for central systems)

Recirculation pump control systems (for central systems)

Hot water storage tank insulation wrap

Figure 34: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size

(Ecotope 2013)

http://neea.org/advancedwaterheaterspec



Figure 35: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use

(Ecotope 2013)

Lighting


Common Area Lighting: Figure 36 shows that more than 80% of common area lamps are compact fluorescent lamps or linear fluorescent lamps. The data available did not indicate if installed compact fluorescent lamps are T12, T8 or T5. The program should consider this in more detail, and if there is high volume of T12s, the program should consider replacing them wholesale or leverage current lighting incentives offered from Energy Trust of Oregon. The program should consider advocating for installation of only LED fixtures. Additionally, Figure 37 indicates that 90% of common area lighting have no common area lighting controls. The program should prioritize common area lighting controls, which would be a cost-effective improvement that could yield high savings, especially in buildings with larger footprints that have more corridor space with lighting used 24 hours a day.



Figure 36: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size

(Ecotope 2013)

Figure 37: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types

(Ecotope 2013)



Exterior Lighting: As shown in Figure 38, about 80% of exterior lamps are compact fluorescent lamps or linear fluorescent. Figures 39 shows 70% of exterior lighting have some form of lighting control either through photosensors, motion sensors, or timer controls. Given the efficacy of the exterior lighting stock, lamp replacement and improvements are unlikely to be a primary program target (some cases may vary), but, when considered, the program should advocate for LED fixtures. Instead, exterior lighting controls hold the higher potential for energy savings, and the program can target properties that do not have controls through outreach.

Figure 38: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size

(Ecotope 2013)


(Ecotope 2013)



In-Unit Lighting: Figure 40 shows incandescent lamps make up more than 60% of the in-unit lamps. The program should address in-unit tenant lighting improvements and develop a mechanism to ensure tenants replace incandescent lights with more efficient lighting, like LED fixtures. Tenant education and owner support is a key factor for the adoption of efficient in-unit lighting. For low-income tenants that pay for their electricity use, this could have a significant impact on monthly electricity costs.

Figure 40: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types

(Ecotope 2013)



Miscellaneous Equipment & Appliances


Thermostats: As noted in Figure 41, only 48% of tenants report programming their thermostats with a heating setback and only 25% report setting up a cooling setback. The program should consider providing tenant education for programming thermostats and recommended thermostat set points and setbacks. In the low-income multifamily sector, for tenants that pay for heating and cooling costs, this could have a significant impact on monthly utility costs. Special consideration for these thermostat settings should be made depending on the population type, like the elderly, who typically require higher set points.

In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior

Heating Thermostat Set Point 67.4°

Tenants Reporting a Heating Setback 48.0%

Average Size of Heating Setback 7.9

Cooling Thermostat Set Point 70.9°

Tenants Reporting a Cooling Thermostat Setup 24.8%

Figure 41: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior

(Ecotope 2013)



In-Unit Appliances: As noted in Figure 42 more than 65% of all in-unit refrigerators are post-2000. This is likely due to the natural replacement of refrigerators by landlords in the multifamily sector with tenant turnover. For in-unit appliances, the program should consider providing better owner education on selecting efficient appliances and providing resources on complementary programs offered through the Energy Trust of Oregon or other groups that provide in-unit appliance incentives.

Figure 42: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage

(Ecotope 2013)



10. CONCLUSIONS

This market assessment provides a reliable foundation for use in the design of the low-income Multifamily Energy Program. As OHCS and TRC move forward with the next steps in the program design, the following key design considerations should be explored for program success:

Reach the Whole State: Focus on counties along the I-5 corridor, where there is the highest volume of low-income multifamily buildings, but also disseminate program information to the rural eastern counties of the state that are traditionally underserved.

Serve the Family and Elderly Population Groups: Concentrate on serving the family and elderly populations, which make up the majority of Oregon’s low-income multifamily inventory, and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most.

Leverage Other Funding Sources: The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other low-income funding sources Multifamily Energy Program can leverage in addition to incentives from OHCS.

Engage Low-income Developers: Engage the most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage and reach out to active developers and owners that have not participated in previous OHCS energy efficiency programs.

Leverage the Multifamily New Construction Shift: Given the strong shift in the Oregon market towards the construction of multifamily buildings over single-family homes, the program should leverage this increased activity especially in Portland, Salem, and Bend metro areas.

Develop Program Offerings that Bring Existing Building to and Beyond Code: More than three-quarters of all multifamily buildings statewide were built prior to 1990 before Oregon enacted its first stringent energy code. The program should focus on below-code buildings to help them make building improvements to reach and exceed current code. Notable building components with opportunity for improvement include:

Replacement of in-unit electric baseboard system with efficient ductless heat pumps.

Prioritize the replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems.

Address lighting fixture replacements in-unit and lighting controls in common area and exterior locations.



11. REFERENCES

Bonneville Power Administration. (2011, March 16). Retrieved from NW Council's Heating/Cooling zone maps: https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Sectors/Residential/Documents/PNWHeatingandCoolingClimateZoneAssignmentsbyCounty.pdf

Ecotope. (2013). Residential Builidng Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Eneergy Use. NEEA.

International Code Council. (2011). 2012 International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, ILL: International Code Council.

National Association of Home Builders. (2017, February 28). NAHB Builidng Permits by State and Metro Area. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from http://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/construction-statistics/state-and-local/building-permits-states-and-msas.aspx

OHCS. (2015, April). PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment.

OHCS. (2017, April). OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx.

OHCS. (2017, April). OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx.

Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. (2017). Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast.

Pacific Power. (2017, February 1). 2017 Price Summary. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from https://www.pacificpower.net/content/dam/pacific_power/doc/About_Us/Rates_Regulation/Oregon/Approved_Tariffs/Oregon_Price_Summary.pdf

Portland General Electric. (2016, November 15). Rate Schedules: Residential Service & Small Nonresidential Standard Service. Retrieved 15 May, 2017, from https://www.portlandgeneral.com/our-company/regulatory-documents/tariff

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017, April). Compiled Tables_Census data.xlsx.



12. APPENDIX A: MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS

This appendix includes a full set of figures and analysis of multifamily building characteristics for all building components.

Note: All data in this Building Characteristics section of the market assessment was derived from a report written by Ecotope for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) titled “Residential Building Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Energy Use” (September 2013). This NEEA assessment assessed four states located within the NEEA service area: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The data in the NEEA report was not separated for Oregon state, and instead reflects the regional Northwest characteristics of multifamily buildings. Since 97% of the buildings sampled in the NEEA study reflect Oregon and Washington, we find the application of the building characteristics are relevant and reflective for the purposes of this Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment for use by Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS).

Construction Type

Figure 43: Distribution of Structural System Types by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Windows

Figure 44: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Walls

Figure 45: Distribution of Wall Area by Building Size and Wall Type

(Ecotope, 2013)

Figure 46: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Ceilings

Figure 47: Distribution of Ceiling Area by Building Size and Ceiling Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 48: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Floors

Figure 49: Distribution of Floor Area by Building Size and Floor Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 50: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Heating Systems

Figure 51: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 52: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 53: Distribution of Secondary Heating System by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Cooling Systems - Common Area

Figure 54: Distribution of Common Area Cooling Systems

(Ecotope, 2013)

Cooling Systems - In-Unit

Figure 55: Distribution of Units with In-Unit Cooling Systems by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 56: Distribution of In-Unit Cooling Systems

(Ecotope, 2013)

Ventilation Systems

Figure 57: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System

(Ecotope, 2013)



Domestic Hot Water Systems

Figure 58: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 59: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use

(Ecotope, 2013)

Figure 60: Distribution of In-Unit Water Heater Types

(Ecotope, 2013)



Lighting - Common Area

Figure 61: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)


(Ecotope, 2013)



Lighting - Exterior

Figure 63: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamps Type and Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)

Figure 64: Distribution of Exterior Lighting Control Types

(Ecotope, 2013)



Lighting - In-Unit

Figure 65: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types

(Ecotope, 2013)

In-Unit Lighting Characteristics

Fixtures per Unit 13.9

Lamps per Unit 23.2

CFLs per Unit 6.3

Halogen per Unit 0.9

Incandescent per Unit 13.9

Linear Fluorescent per Unit 1.7

Other Lamps per Unit 0.4

Figure 66: In-Unit Lighting Characteristics

(Ecotope, 2013)



Common Area Laundry

Figure 67: Distribution of Building Laundry by Building Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 68: Distribution of Common Area Dryers by Dryer Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)

Elevators

Figure 69: Percentage of Buildings with Elevators by Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)



Pools

Figure 70: Percentage of Buildings with Pools by Pool Type & Building Size

(Ecotope, 2013)

Thermostats

In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior

Heating Thermostat Set Point 67.4°

Tenants Reporting a Heating Setback 48.0%

Average Size of Heating Setback 7.9

Cooling Thermostat Set Point 70.9°

Tenants Reporting a Cooling Thermostat Setup 24.8%

Figure 71: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior

(Ecotope, 2013)



In-Unit Appliances

Figure 72: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)

Figure 73: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Washers by Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)



Figure 74: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Dryers by Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)

Figure 75: Distribution of In-Unit Dishwashers by Vintage

(Ecotope, 2013)



13. APPENDIX B: TABLES

This appendix includes data table backup for some of the key figures used in the main body of the market assessment.

Figure 76: OHCS Multifamily Inventory vs. Total Multifamily Units as of Census 2010

(OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx 2017) (OHCS, Compiled Tables_Census data.xlsx 2017)

County MF Units in OHCS

Inventory

Total MF Units

(Census 2010)

% of MF Units Served by OHCS

MULTNOMAH 26,439 120,827 22%

WASHINGTON 8,248 65,047 13%

LANE 5,255 34,496 15%

CLACKAMAS 4,069 31,390 13%

MARION 3,723 28,220 13%

JACKSON 3,435 15,869 22%

DESCHUTES 1,854 10,420 18%

UMATILLA 1,531 4,925 31%

DOUGLAS 1,527 5,214 29%

YAMHILL 1,295 6,006 22%

LINN 1,285 8,095 16%

LINCOLN 1,035 4,455 23%

JOSEPHINE 829 4,035 21%

POLK 758 6,416 12%

WASCO 689 1,790 39%

COOS 684 3,629 19%

HOOD RIVER 614 1,425 43%

MALHEUR 599 1,647 36%

COLUMBIA 588 2,244 26%

CLATSOP 563 4,678 12%

UNION 562 1,880 30%

KLAMATH 506 3,347 15%

BENTON 488 10,304 5%

TILLAMOOK 421 1,297 32%

CURRY 367 1,537 24%



County MF Units in OHCS

Inventory

Total MF Units

(Census 2010)

% of MF Units Served by OHCS

JEFFERSON 305 1,024 30%

MORROW 293 444 66%

CROOK 219 930 24%

BAKER 170 964 18%

WALLOWA 161 466 35%

HARNEY 123 356 35%

GRANT 102 260 39%

LAKE 49 241 20%

GILLIAM 35 59 59%

WHEELER 19 21 92%

SHERMAN 12 50 24%

68,852 384,011 18%



Figure 77: Population Demographics by County

(OHCS, Compiled Tables_Census data.xlsx 2017)

County Total

Population Poverty Count

Poverty Rate

Population Median

Age

Head of Household

Median Income

Family Median Income

Multnomah 757,370 137,391 18% 37 $58,138 $73,895

Washington 547,451 64,022 12% 37 $67,118 $76,781

Clackamas 384,697 37,218 10% 42 $45,953 $57,531

Lane 354,764 70,817 20% 41 $68,461 $80,944

Marion 320,448 59,272 18% 37 $49,666 $56,608

Jackson 206,583 36,325 18% 43 $44,260 $52,854

Deschutes 163,141 24,318 15% 44 $52,722 $61,775

Linn 118,270 22,801 19% 40 $49,607 $71,483

Douglas 107,156 20,807 19% 47 $44,625 $52,506

Yamhill 100,486 15,851 16% 38 $49,737 $59,994

Benton 86,034 18,380 21% 36 $54,744 $61,729

Josephine 83,021 16,144 19% 49 $41,357 $49,835

Umatilla 76,645 12,381 16% 37 $48,141 $58,321

Polk 76,464 12,727 17% 37 $47,850 $59,149

Klamath 65,985 12,068 18% 42 $43,554 $54,392

Coos 62,678 11,071 18% 47 $38,891 $48,072

Columbia 49,325 6,413 13% 43 $40,356 $51,598

Lincoln 46,138 7,801 17% 50 $40,827 $49,527

Clatsop 37,236 5,749 15% 44 $55,193 $64,162

Malheur 30,740 7,839 26% 37 $43,623 $54,063

Union 25,736 4,700 18% 40 $45,287 $56,846

Wasco 25,387 4,196 17% 43 $37,167 $46,849

Tillamook 25,334 4,327 17% 49 $41,373 $50,737

Hood River 22,620 3,493 15% 39 $57,461 $63,978

Curry 22,341 3,406 15% 54 $43,514 $51,390

Jefferson 21,830 4,383 20% 39 $47,568 $49,676

Crook 20,798 4,291 21% 48 $39,716 $49,916

Baker 16,049 2,849 18% 49 $36,046 $47,746



County Total

Population Poverty Count

Poverty Rate

Population Median

Age

Head of Household

Median Income

Family Median Income

Morrow 11,217 2,157 19% 39 $41,069 $51,514

Lake 7,854 1,316 17% 49 $48,036 $54,913

Grant 7,325 1,114 15% 51 $35,714 $39,730

Harney 7,253 1,508 21% 47 $36,274 $47,500

Wallowa 6,893 944 14% 51 $33,608 $43,230

Gilliam 1,926 150 8% 50 $46,490 $59,500

Sherman 1,790 344 19% 49 $39,960 $62,109

Wheeler 1,357 243 18% 55 $34,808 $49,417

STATE TOTAL 3,900,342 638,816 16% - -

STATE AVERAGE - - - 44 $48,803 $56,119



Figure 78: Residential Housing Type Makeup per County


County

Total Multi-family Units

% of Multi-family Units

Total Single-family Units

% of Single-family Units

Total Manu-

factured Units

% of Manu-

factured Units

Total Housing

Units

Multnomah 120,827 37% 198,909 61% 7,216 2% 326,952

Washington 65,047 30% 144,049 67% 6,043 3% 215,140

Lane 34,496 22% 107,876 69% 14,443 9% 156,815

Clackamas 31,390 20% 116,078 73% 11,201 7% 158,669

Marion 28,220 23% 83,260 68% 10,226 8% 121,706

Jackson 15,869 17% 63,106 69% 12,333 14% 91,308

Deschutes 10,420 13% 63,451 78% 7,073 9% 80,945

Benton 10,304 28% 23,819 65% 2,577 7% 36,701

Linn 8,095 17% 35,070 72% 5,823 12% 48,988

Polk 6,416 21% 21,769 72% 2,260 7% 30,445

Yamhill 6,006 16% 27,560 74% 3,726 10% 37,292

Douglas 5,214 11% 34,318 70% 9,386 19% 48,918

Umatilla 4,925 17% 20,388 69% 4,354 15% 29,667

Clatsop 4,678 22% 15,566 72% 1,449 7% 21,693

Lincoln 4,455 15% 20,308 66% 5,893 19% 30,656

Josephine 4,035 11% 27,919 73% 6,061 16% 38,015

Coos 3,629 12% 22,207 73% 4,675 15% 30,511

Klamath 3,347 10% 23,700 72% 5,765 18% 32,812

Columbia 2,244 11% 15,549 75% 2,885 14% 20,678

Union 1,880 16% 7,933 69% 1,682 15% 11,495

Wasco 1,790 16% 7,668 67% 1,942 17% 11,399

Malheur 1,647 14% 7,950 68% 2,056 18% 11,654

Curry 1,537 12% 7,847 62% 3,235 26% 12,618

Hood River 1,425 15% 6,994 74% 971 10% 9,390

Tillamook 1,297 7% 14,070 76% 3,052 17% 18,419

Jefferson 1,024 10% 6,616 67% 2,164 22% 9,804

Baker 964 11% 6,482 73% 1,386 16% 8,832

Crook 930 9% 7,159 70% 2,171 21% 10,259

Wallowa 466 11% 2,922 72% 698 17% 4,086



County

Total Multi-family Units

% of Multi-family Units

Total Single-family Units

% of Single-family Units

Total Manu-

factured Units

% of Manu-

factured Units

Total Housing

Units

Morrow 444 10% 2,778 63% 1,219 27% 4,442

Harney 356 9% 2,477 65% 984 26% 3,817

Grant 260 6% 3,129 72% 932 22% 4,321

Lake 241 5% 2,743 62% 1,434 32% 4,418

Gilliam 59 5% 875 77% 200 18% 1,135

Sherman 50 6% 618 69% 231 26% 899

Wheeler 21 2% 702 77% 192 21% 915

STATE TOTAL 384,011 23% 1,153,867 68% 147,936 9% 1,685,814

Figure 79: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size


Property Size

(# of Units) # of

Properties % of

Properties Total # of

Units % of Units

5 to 9 501 26% 3,060 4%

10 to 19 330 17% 4,449 6%

20 to 39 470 25% 13,169 19%

40 to 59 283 15% 13,369 19%

60 to 99 186 10% 13,815 20%

100 to 199 96 5% 12,769 19%

200 to 299 25 1% 5,855 9%

300 to 499 3 0% 1,047 2%

500 + 2 0% 1,319 2%

STATE TOTAL 1,896 - 68,852 -



Figure 80: Residential Housing Stock Vintage


County Total Pre-1990 Units

% of Pre-1990 Units

Total Post-1990 Units

% of Post-1990 Units

Total # of Units

Multnomah 249,860 76% 77,092 24% 326,952

Washington 120,642 56% 94,498 44% 215,140

Lane 111,137 71% 45,678 29% 156,815

Clackamas 101,563 64% 57,106 36% 158,669

Marion 82,481 68% 39,225 32% 121,706

Jackson 55,787 61% 35,521 39% 91,308

Deschutes 34,212 42% 46,733 58% 80,945

Benton 24,872 68% 11,829 32% 36,701

Linn 33,428 68% 15,560 32% 48,988

Polk 17,540 58% 12,905 42% 30,445

Yamhill 21,613 58% 15,679 42% 37,292

Douglas 35,055 72% 13,863 28% 48,918

Umatilla 22,626 76% 7,041 24% 29,667

Clatsop 15,300 71% 6,393 29% 21,693

Lincoln 20,786 68% 9,870 32% 30,656

Josephine 24,841 65% 13,174 35% 38,015

Coos 23,679 78% 6,832 22% 30,511

Klamath 24,254 74% 8,558 26% 32,812

Columbia 13,067 63% 7,611 37% 20,678

Union 9,086 79% 2,409 21% 11,495

Wasco 8,490 74% 2,909 26% 11,399

Malheur 9,337 80% 2,317 20% 11,654

Curry 8,476 67% 4,142 33% 12,618

Hood River 6,387 68% 3,003 32% 9,390

Tillamook 11,692 63% 6,727 37% 18,419

Jefferson 5,138 52% 4,666 48% 9,804

Baker 6,888 78% 1,944 22% 8,832

Crook 5,283 51% 4,976 49% 10,259

Wallowa 3,031 74% 1,055 26% 4,086

Morrow 2,816 63% 1,626 37% 4,442



County Total Pre-1990 Units

% of Pre-1990 Units

Total Post-1990 Units

% of Post-1990 Units

Total # of Units

Harney 2,928 77% 889 23% 3,817

Grant 3,364 78% 957 22% 4,321

Lake 3,231 73% 1,187 27% 4,418

Gilliam 888 78% 247 22% 1,135

Sherman 721 80% 178 20% 899

Wheeler 722 79% 193 21% 915

STATE TOTAL 1,121,221 67% 564,593 33% 1,685,814



Figure 81: Residential Housing Stock Heating Fuel Type by County


County % Electricity

Heating

% Non-Electricity Heating

Multnomah 59% 41%

Washington 68% 32%

Lane 79% 21%

Clackamas 65% 35%

Marion 67% 33%

Jackson 62% 38%

Deschutes 58% 42%

Benton 69% 31%

Linn 63% 37%

Polk 73% 27%

Yamhill 74% 26%

Douglas 62% 38%

Umatilla 62% 38%

Clatsop 49% 51%

Lincoln 69% 31%

Josephine 52% 48%

Coos 73% 27%

Klamath 41% 59%

Columbia 63% 37%

Union 43% 57%

Wasco 82% 18%

Malheur 60% 40%

Curry 85% 15%

Hood River 68% 32%

Tillamook 84% 16%

Jefferson 63% 37%

Baker 43% 57%

Crook 59% 41%

Wallowa 56% 45%



County % Electricity

Heating

% Non-Electricity Heating

Morrow 69% 31%

Harney 57% 43%

Grant 33% 67%

Lake 38% 62%

Gilliam 53% 47%

Sherman 71% 29%

Wheeler 28% 72%

STATE AVERAGE 61% 39%



Figure 82: PGE & PacifiCorp Low-income Eligible Units

(OHCS, PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment 2015)

County PGE

Residential Meters

PacifiCorp Residential

Meters

Poverty Rate

Low-income Eligible

PGE & PAC Household

s18

Low-income

PGE & PAC Multi-Family Units19

Primary Heat

Electric20 Pre-198021

Multnomah 267,359 69,153 17.8% 59,899 10,183 8,248 4,371

Washington 222,892 11.4% 25,410 4,320 3,499 1,854

Marion 107,969 10,342 18.6% 22,006 3,741 3,030 1,606

Clackamas 160,755 9.8% 15,754 2,678 2,169 1,150

Jackson 78,735 17.2% 13,542 2,302 1,865 988

Linn 42,246 17.8% 7,520 1,278 1,035 549

Josephine 36,224 20.2% 7,317 1,244 1,008 534

Deschutes 48,785 14.5% 7,074 1,203 974 516

Douglas 36,533 18.7% 6,832 1,161 941 499

Benton 29,299 22.5% 6,592 1,121 908 481

Klamath 28,753 18.9% 5,434 924 748 397

Coos 21,828 17.8% 3,885 661 535 284

Yamhill 25,498 14.6% 3,723 633 513 272

Clatsop 20,149 16.5% 3,325 565 458 243

Umatilla 14,361 16.5% 2,370 403 326 173

Lincoln 10,218 16.0% 1,635 278 225 119

Jefferson 7,943 19.8% 1,573 267 217 115

Lane 6,734 20.0% 1,347 229 185 98

Crook 6,851 19.5% 1,336 227 184 97

Hood River 6,054 11.6% 702 119 97 51

Wallowa 3,929 13.4% 526 90 72 38

Polk 3,167 12,376 16.5% 2,565 436 353 187

18Low-income eligible households estimated based on poverty rate.

19 Assume 17% of residential meters are multifamily.

20 Assume 81% of multifamily meters are electric heated.

21 Assume 53% of multifamily meters are pre-1980.



County PGE

Residential Meters

PacifiCorp Residential

Meters

Poverty Rate

Low-income Eligible

PGE & PAC Household

s18

Low-income

PGE & PAC Multi-Family Units19

Primary Heat

Electric20 Pre-198021

Lake 1,790 20.1% 360 61 50 26

Sherman 659 22.1% 146 25 20 11

Wasco 570 18.2% 104 18 14 8

Gilliam 372 11.8% 44 7 6 3

Tillamook 91 16.0% 15 2 2 1

Columbia 54 13.6% 7 1 1 1

Morrow 21 18.0% 4 1 1 0

TOTAL 787,694 494,016 16.9% 201,045 34,178 27,684 14,672



Figure 83: NC Buildings Permits Statewide and by Metro Areas

(National Association of Home Builders 2017)

Location

YTD Feb

2017 Actual

YTD Feb

2016 Actual

YTD % Change Actual

YEAR 2016

Actual

YEAR 2017

Forecast22

2016 % of All Resid. Actual

2017 % of All Resid.

Forecast

MULTIFAMILY

OR - STATEWIDE 1,121 909 23% 8,369 9,309 44% 49%

Albany OR 0 0 0% 10 10 3% 3%

Bend OR 2 8 -75% 457 473 21% 21%

Corvallis OR 0 0 0% 42 44 33% 34%

Eugene-Springfield OR 0 15 -100% 438 454 41% 42%

Grants Pass OR * ND ND ND ND ND - -

Medford OR 12 11 9% 168 174 23% 24%

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton OR-WA

1,462 731 100% 7,379 7,644 50% 52%

Salem OR 28 129 -78% 492 510 52% 54%

SINGLE-FAMILY

OR - STATEWIDE 1,458 1,592 -8% 10,600 11,791 56% 56%

Albany OR 55 45 22% 293 311 97% 98%

Bend OR 235 269 -13% 1,761 1,867 79% 80%

Corvallis OR 14 14 0% 85 90 67% 68%

Eugene-Springfield OR 99 87 14% 636 674 59% 60%


Medford OR 62 68 -9% 550 583 77% 77%


1,093 1,158 -6% 7,344 7,786 50% 50%

Salem OR 55 53 4% 452 479 48% 48%

TOTAL – ALL RESIDENTIAL

OR - STATEWIDE 2,579 2,501 3% 18,969 21,100 - -

Albany OR 55 45 22% 303 318 - -

Bend OR 237 277 -14% 2,218 2,328 - -

Corvallis OR 14 14 0% 127 133 - -

22 Forecast based on Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast(Oregon Office of Economic Analysis 2017)



Location

YTD Feb

2017 Actual

YTD Feb

2016 Actual

YTD % Change Actual

YEAR 2016

Actual

YEAR 2017

Forecast22

2016 % of All Resid. Actual

2017 % of All Resid.

Forecast

Eugene-Springfield OR 99 102 -3% 1,074 1,127 - -


Medford OR 74 79 -6% 718 753 - -


2,555 1,889 35% 14,723 15,450 - -

Salem OR 83 182 -54% 944 991 - -

Figure 84: Climate Zones by County

(International Code Council 2011) (Bonneville Power Administration 2011)

County IECC 2012 Climate Zones

NW Council's Heating Zones

NW Council's Cooling Zones

BAKER 5B 2 1

BENTON 4C 1 1

CLACKAMAS 4C 1 2

CLATSOP 4C 1 1

COLUMBIA 4C 1 1

COOS 4C 1 1

CROOK 5B 2 1

CURRY 4C 1 1

DESCHUTES 5B 2 1

DOUGLAS 4C 1 2

GILLIAM 5B 1 2

GRANT 5B 2 2

HARNEY 5B 3 1

HOOD RIVER 5B 1 1

JACKSON 4C 1 3

JEFFERSON 5B 2 1

JOSEPHINE 4C 1 3

KLAMATH 5B 2 2

LAKE 5B 2 1

LANE 4C 1 1



County IECC 2012 Climate Zones

NW Council's Heating Zones

NW Council's Cooling Zones

LINCOLN 4C 1 1

LINN 4C 1 1

MALHEUR 5B 1 3

MARION 4C 1 1

MORROW 5B 1 2

MULTNOMAH 4C 1 2

POLK 4C 1 1

SHERMAN 5B 2 2

TILLAMOOK 4C 1 1

UMATILLA 5B 1 3

UNION 5B 2 2

WALLOWA 5B 3 1

WASCO 5B 1 3

WASHINGTON 4C 1 1

WHEELER 5B 2 1

YAMHILL 4C 1 1

Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment...2017/07/12 · Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment 2 | TRC...

Documents

Transcript of Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment...2017/07/12 · Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment 2 | TRC...