Relocatable classrooms may come with a variety of optional features, like cars. A school district can buy the “basic model” or it can pay for options. Many of the optional features do not affect energy efficiency and are not significant from the perspective of energy code compliance. Examples include floor finishes (various grades of carpet or tiles), casework, and ceiling and wall finishes. Other optional features do affect energy performance such as window construction, insulation, lighting systems, lighting controls, HVAC ductwork, HVAC equipment, and HVAC controls.

When a manufacturer offers a relocatable classroom model with a variety of options, it is necessary to identify those options that affect energy performance and to show that the model complies with any combination of the optional features. Most of the time, optional energy features are upgrades that clearly improve performance. If the basic model complies with the Standards, then adding any or all of the optional features would improve performance. The following are examples of optional features that are clear upgrades in terms of energy performance:

1. HVAC equipment that has both a higher SEER and higher EER than the equipment in the basic model.
2. Lighting systems that result in less power than the basic model.
3. Lighting controls, such as occupant sensors, that are recognized by the standards and for which power adjustment factors in Table 140.6-A are published in Section 140.6.
4. Windows that have both a lower SHGC and lower U-factor (limited to relocatables that do not take credit for daylighting).
5. Wall, roof or floor construction options that result in a lower U-factor than the basic model.

For energy code compliance purposes, it is necessary to show that every variation of the relocatable classroom that is offered to customers will comply with the Standards. There are two approaches for achieving this, as defined below:

1. Basic Model Plus Energy Upgrades Approach. The simplest approach is to show that the basic model complies with the Standards and that all of the options that are offered to customers are clear energy upgrades that would only improve performance. As long as each and every measure in the basic model is met or exceeded by the energy upgrades, the relocatable classroom will comply with the Standards.
   While clear upgrades are obvious in most cases, the following are some examples of options that are not energy upgrades, for which additional analysis would be needed to show compliance that every combination of options comply.
   1. HVAC equipment that has a higher SEER, but a lower EER.
   2. Windows that lower SHGC but increase U-factor, or vice versa.
   3. Insulation options that reduce the U-factor for say walls, but increase it for the roof.
   4. Any other combination of measures that results in the performance of anyone measure being reduced in comparison to a complying basic model.
2. Modeling of Every Combination Approach. A more complex whole building performance approach is required when a model is available with options which in combination may or may not comply. In this case every combination of options shall be modeled, and the specific combinations that comply shall be determined and only those combinations shall be allowed. This approach, while possible, requires considerably more effort on the part of the relocatable manufacturer and its energy consultant. It also places a greater burden on DSA when they issue the over-the-counter building permit for the PC design that only allows specific combinations of energy options. DSA would have to examine the specific optional features that are proposed with the over-the-counter application and make sure that the proposed combination of measures achieves compliance.
   The manufacturer or its energy consultant would need to prepare a table or chart that shows all of the acceptable combinations that achieve compliance. This chart could be quite complex, depending on the number of optional features that are offered.
   Table NA4-5 is intended to illustrate the complexity that could be involved in modeling of every combination of energy features. It shows a list of typical optional features that would affect energy performance. In this example, there are two possible for each of the eight options, e.g. the feature is either there or not (in an actual case there could be a different number of options and a different number of states for any option). In the example any one of the features could be combined with any of the others. The number of possible combinations in this example is two (the number of states) to the eighth power (the number of measures that have two states). The number of possible options is then 2⁸ or 256. This is the number of combinations that would need to be modeled in order to determine which combination of optional features achieves compliance.