1 / 1
The Emu Boost report compares the project's code-built baseline against three increasingly efficient envelope-and-glazing packages: Good, Better, and Best. Lower is better.
| Scenario | Heating Demand | vs Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 11.91 | — |
| Good | 4.43 | −63% |
| Better | 3.10 | −74% |
| Best | 1.50 | −87% |
| Scenario | Cooling Demand |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 2.11 |
| Good | 1.98 |
| Better | 2.10 |
| Best | 2.34 |
| Scenario | Heating Load |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 26.5 |
| Good | 10.8 |
| Better | 9.1 |
| Best | 7.9 |
| Scenario | Cooling Load |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 10.1 |
| Good | 7.5 |
| Better | 7.2 |
| Best | 7.2 |
| Scenario | Total Site Energy | vs Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 7,110 | — |
| Good | 3,220 | −55% |
| Better | 2,590 | −64% |
| Best | 2,290 | −68% |
| Scenario | Per Person Vent. Rate |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 12.0 |
| Good | 19.0 |
| Better | 19.0 |
| Best | 19.0 |
Compared to the project's code-built baseline, each metric below shows how much performance the Best scenario unlocks.
Building geometry, climate and modeling conditions used in the PHPP run for the Encanto Passive House.
| Project name | Encanto Passive House |
| City | Palo Alto, CA |
| Building type | Single-family residence (new construction) |
| Energy model | PHPP (validated to ASHRAE Standard 140) |
| Modeling firm | Emu Passive — Denver, CO |
| Report | EBH008 Boost Report v3.0 — March 26, 2025 |
| Modeled scenarios | Baseline · Good · Better · Best |
| Target standard | PHI Passive House (Classic / Low Energy Building) |
| Active cooling included in model | Yes (with ERV summer-bypass for night cooling) |
| Form factor target | 2.5 – 3.5 (single-family ideal range) |