roovie

Code Compliance

ASHRAE 90.1 Performance Path — automated

Appendix G baseline generation, proposed design simulation, and compliance documentation. The methodology behind LEED, IECC, ENERGY STAR, and every code that references 90.1.

80–85%hour reduction$10K–$25Ksaved per building5 of 8steps automated

The Bottleneck

The most labor-intensive compliance path in the industry

Performance path compliance requires two complete building energy models — a code-minimum baseline and the proposed design — both simulated for 8,760 hours. The baseline model must follow hundreds of Appendix G rules for system selection, envelope defaults, and schedules. Getting the baseline wrong means the compliance submission fails review.

Without Roovie

Build baseline model15–25 hrs
Build proposed model20–30 hrs
Run simulations5–10 hrs
Calculate % improvement3–5 hrs
Prepare compliance report16–24 hrs
Submit + respond to AHJ5–15 hrs

66–113 hours

$12.5K–$29K in specialist fees

vs

With Roovie

Auto-generate baselineseconds
Address → proposed modelminutes
Cloud simulationconcurrent
% improvementautomatic
Auto-generated reportincluded
Structured submissionfewer cycles

Days, not months

Subscription-based, no per-building fees

Baseline model errors are the #1 cause of ASHRAE 90.1 compliance failures. Roovie eliminates them.

The Full Workflow

The Appendix G process — 8 steps, 5 automated

Every performance path project follows the same 8 steps. Roovie fully automates 5 of them — the 5 that consume the most hours and introduce the most errors.

1
Step 1

Determine Applicable Edition

Identify which edition of ASHRAE 90.1 has been adopted by the jurisdiction. Edition determines envelope tables, baseline system rules, and LPD values.

Traditional:1–2 hrs
Roovie:
2
Step 2

Choose Compliance Path

Select performance path over prescriptive path. Strategic decision based on project design, budget, and certification goals.

Traditional:1–2 hrs
Roovie:
3
Step 3

Build Baseline Model

High error risk

Construct the Appendix G code-minimum baseline: HVAC system type per Table G3.1.1, envelope defaults by climate zone, LPD from Table 9.5.1, schedules per Appendix G.

Traditional:15–25 hrs$3K–$7K
Roovie:Auto-generated per Appendix G rules15–25 hrs saved
4
Step 4

Build Proposed Model

Medium risk

Translate the architectural and mechanical design into a simulation-ready energy model. Geometry, envelope assemblies, HVAC systems, and schedules.

Traditional:20–30 hrs$4K–$8K
Roovie:Generated from address + building parameters15–25 hrs saved
5
Step 5

Run Annual Simulation

Medium risk

Execute 8,760-hour annual simulations for both baseline and proposed models. Validate unmet hours and convergence.

Traditional:5–10 hrs$1K–$3K
Roovie:Concurrent cloud simulation — minutes4–9 hrs saved
6
Step 6

Calculate % Improvement

Compare baseline and proposed energy costs by end use. Calculate the percentage improvement that determines compliance or LEED point thresholds.

Traditional:3–5 hrs$500–$1K
Roovie:Automatic cost comparison and calculation2–4 hrs saved
7
Step 7

Prepare Compliance Report

Medium risk

Assemble the compliance submission: input/output tables, energy cost summaries, unmet hours report, narrative sections formatted for the authority having jurisdiction.

Traditional:16–24 hrs$3K–$6K
Roovie:Auto-generated from simulation data14–22 hrs saved
8
Step 8

Submit to AHJ

File the compliance package with the authority having jurisdiction. Respond to reviewer comments and re-run simulations if required.

Traditional:5–15 hrs$1K–$4K
Roovie:Consistent methodology reduces review cycles3–10 hrs saved

Traditional

66–113 specialist hours

$12.5K–$29K per building

4–8 weeks timeline

Baseline errors: industry #1 failure mode

With Roovie

9–22 hours remaining

Subscription-based — no per-building fees

Days — not weeks

Baseline errors: eliminated

Where Projects Fail

The step where projects fail

Baseline model errors are the #1 cause of ASHRAE 90.1 compliance failures and GBCI/AHJ review rejections. Step 3 — building the Appendix G baseline — requires selecting the correct HVAC system type, applying the right envelope defaults for the climate zone and 90.1 edition, enforcing the window-to-wall ratio cap, and matching schedules. Getting any of these wrong invalidates the entire submission.

Wrong HVAC System Type

What goes wrong

Table G3.1.1 assigns baseline HVAC by building area, fuel type, and use. A 180,000 SF mixed-use building needs different systems for residential vs. commercial portions. Engineers often apply the dominant system type to the whole building or miscalculate the area threshold.

Impact

Swings the % improvement by 5–15%. Can make a compliant building appear non-compliant.

Roovie fix

System type selected automatically from building area, fuel type, and use type. Rule applied exactly as written.

Wrong Envelope Defaults by Climate Zone

What goes wrong

Baseline envelope values vary by climate zone AND by 90.1 edition. An engineer in CZ 4A using the 2016 edition must use the 2016 Table 5.5 for CZ 4A — not the 2019 table, not the 2016 table for CZ 5A. Edition and climate zone mix-ups are common across multi-jurisdiction firms.

Impact

Wrong envelope defaults shift baseline energy consumption, changing the compliance result.

Roovie fix

Climate zone determined automatically from building address. Envelope defaults looked up programmatically from the correct edition’s table.

Window-to-Wall Ratio Cap Not Applied

What goes wrong

If proposed WWR exceeds 40%, the baseline must be modeled at 40%. Many engineers model the baseline with the proposed building’s actual WWR (often 50%+ for curtain wall), creating a baseline with too much window area.

Impact

Adds 3–8% to apparent % improvement — building looks more efficient than it is.

Roovie fix

WWR calculated automatically from geometry. If >40%, baseline modeled at 40%.

Schedule Mismatches

What goes wrong

Baseline and proposed must use identical schedules unless the proposed design includes schedule-based ECMs. Using different schedules between models is a common error.

Impact

Unequal comparison between baseline and proposed invalidates the analysis.

Roovie fix

Both models assigned Appendix G schedules from the same validated library. Any differences are intentional and documented.

Every rule. Every edition. Every climate zone. Applied automatically from a single ASHRAE 140-2020 validated rule set.

What Changes

Automate the baseline. Focus on the design.

Baseline Model
Manual: Engineer manually applies Appendix G rules — system types, envelope defaults, schedules. 15–25 hours.
Roovie: Auto-generated from building parameters and climate zone. Every rule applied automatically.
Proposed Model
Manual: CAD-to-simulation translation. Manual geometry entry. Assembly specifications keyed in by hand.
Roovie: Generated from address or imported directly from Revit (.rvt). Geometry, envelope, systems populated automatically.
Simulation
Manual: Desktop software. Sequential batch runs. One building queued behind another.
Roovie: Cloud-based. Baseline + proposed run concurrently. Results in minutes.
Compliance Report
Manual: Written by hand. 16–24 hours per building. Input tables, output tables, narrative sections.
Roovie: Auto-generated from simulation data. Formatted for AHJ submission.

Coverage

One methodology. Seven programs.

ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G is the simulation methodology behind most energy codes and green building programs in the United States. One validated engine covers all of them.

How it uses Appendix G

This IS the standard. Full Appendix G compliance requires baseline + proposed simulation and compliance reporting.

What Roovie delivers

Full Appendix G compliance package — automatic baseline generation, proposed model, concurrent simulation, and AHJ-ready documentation.

How it uses Appendix G

IECC defers to ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G for the simulation methodology. Same rules, same baseline requirements.

What Roovie delivers

Same workflow — one model satisfies both ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC. No additional modeling work.

How it uses Appendix G

EA Prerequisite requires Appendix G simulation showing ≥5% improvement. EA Optimize awards up to 18 points for additional improvement through iterative scenario testing.

What Roovie delivers

Full prerequisite simulation + iterative ECM scenario testing. Maximize point capture by testing dozens of scenarios in minutes instead of days.

How it uses Appendix G

Uses Appendix G methodology + EPA Target Finder scoring to determine if the building qualifies for ENERGY STAR certification.

What Roovie delivers

Simulation output feeds directly into Target Finder scoring. Same Appendix G methodology supports the energy model requirement.

How it uses Appendix G

Green Globes accepts ASHRAE 90.1 performance rating methodology for energy performance assessment.

What Roovie delivers

Same Appendix G simulation path — no additional modeling methodology required.

How it uses Appendix G

Requires design-phase whole-building energy simulation for net-zero energy verification. Any validated simulation tool accepted.

What Roovie delivers

Design-phase simulation + renewable sizing analysis. ASHRAE 140-2020 validated engine meets the tool requirements.

How it uses Appendix G

Thermal comfort credits require zone-level temperature and humidity data from energy simulation to verify ASHRAE Standard 55 compliance.

What Roovie delivers

Zone-level simulation outputs map directly to ASHRAE 55 documentation requirements.

Every simulation runs on the same ASHRAE 140-2020 validated physics engine. One platform. Seven compliance paths.

Automate your next compliance project