There’s long been an assumption in commercial HVAC design that better indoor air quality and energy efficiency are competing goals. However, designers today are increasingly being asked to deliver both. The framework to achieve this has existed in ASHRAE 62.1’s Indoor Air Quality Procedure. compliance pathway for decades, but most projects still default to the Ventilation Rate Procedure without ever running the IAQP comparison.

Under the IAQP pathway, designers model common indoor contaminants and demonstrate that IAQ targets will be met through a combination of ventilation, filtration and air cleaning. Instead of relying on prescriptive outdoor airflow rates, the design is evaluated based on its ability to maintain acceptable contaminant levels.

VRP as a default has made sense. IAQP has traditionally been harder to calculate and, until recently, the tools to support it haven’t existed. However, the landscape around ventilation compliance is shifting. Building owners and their occupants want verifiable IAQ, legislative policies are starting to attach incentives to it, and companies are creating tools that will make IAQP more practical for everyday use in HVAC design.

Growing IAQ pressure

Designers are hearing about IAQ from every direction. Building owners today often pursue WELL, LEED and Fitwel certifications, where IAQ is a scored metric. Architects are also considering incentives, such as 179D, which reward the use of energy-efficient systems in commercial buildings. Meanwhile, research from organizations such as the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the EPA has increasingly linked IAQ to occupant health, cognitive performance and productivity.

As building occupants become more aware of these impacts, they are also growing more concerned about the air they breathe at work. In fact, Fellowes’ 2025 International Day of Clean Air Survey found that nearly half of younger workers say they’d consider leaving their employer over poor IAQ compared to just 18% of baby boomers.

At the federal level, two bills signal that policy is headed in the same direction:

The Airborne Act proposes tax incentives tied to ASHRAE 62.1 and 241 compliance, and explicitly references IAQP. It’s been introduced in the House twice before (2022 and 2024), but the latest version, introduced in 2026, broadens the bill’s scope with the addition of ASHRAE 241, which sets strict infection-control requirements. Because Standard 241’s targets can be met through filtration and air cleaning rather than outdoor air alone, IAQP can provide a practical pathway for achieving compliance, with the potential added benefit of lower energy and operating costs. 

Meanwhile, the Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act, first introduced in 2024, would establish a nationwide IAQ assessment program for schools and childcare facilities. If passed, it would direct the EPA to develop voluntary building certifications tied to indoor air health standards. 

Both bills have broad industry support from a range of organizations, including ASHRAE and SMACNA, among others. Neither has become law yet, but together they reflect a policy environment that is paying closer attention to IAQ across building types. Projects designed with IAQP today would be well positioned for current and future incentive programs if and when these proposals advance.

Compliance pathway comparison

Most designers are aware of IAQP but few have run it on a live project. Those who do, often uncover meaningful differences in system sizing, energy consumption and first costs compared to VRP. 

Commercial buildings move large volumes of air through their ventilation systems each day, resulting in energy waste, peak demand charges and the introduction of outdoor pollutants. Conversely, by reducing outdoor air intake and controlling contaminants through air filtration, IAQP helps to reduce conditioning loads and fan runtime.

On many projects, this means smaller air handling units can be specified, with notable cost advantages. Energy consumption may be reduced and, over the life of the equipment, system strain can also be lessened. Comparing both pathways early in the design process allows engineers to identify potential capital cost and energy savings before equipment selections are locked in.

That conversation rarely happens today but could easily become a building owner or developer expectation, especially as new incentive programs and legislation begin tying financial benefits to IAQ and energy performance.

IAQP sets contaminant concentration targets, but doesn’t dictate the technology used to meet them. AQM systems are a natural fit within an IAQP design. They integrate purification units with certified filtration, continuously monitor IAQ, and automatically respond as conditions change. When occupancy spikes or a contaminant source emerges in a specific zone, integrated air purifiers activate. When levels return to target levels, they stand down.

The monitoring data feeds directly to the building management system (BMS), giving facility teams — and building occupants themselves, when public IAQ dashboards are used — visibility into real-time air quality. That visibility provides the ongoing verification IAQP requires. 

While filtration and air cleaning are part of the compliance equation from day one under IAQP, under VRP they are generally supplemental. AQM systems can contribute in either pathway, giving engineers flexibility and added confidence that air quality targets are being met. 

Tools catch up

A big part of why IAQP gets passed over is the calculation burden. Calculating IAQP and VRP on the same project can take time and inputs many design teams simply don’t have, especially when deadlines are tight and VRP is easy to document.

That’s starting to change as new design tools come online. Fellowes has partnered with the HVAC design platform HVAKR to develop an innovative, cloud-based tool that allows designers to run and compare IAQP and VRP side-by-side and see how each approach affects system sizing, energy use and ROI early in the design process. The goal is to make the comparison between the two pathways easier to run so designers can show building owners what each option looks like before mechanical systems are locked in. 

IAQP is not a replacement for VRP. It’s an alternative pathway within the same standard, and a project can use both approaches. Different zones within the same building may call for different strategies, but designers should consider comparing the two on every commercial project. With new tools making that comparison easier, side-by-side evaluation could soon become standard practice.

Whether or not current policy proposals become law, market and policy signals are clear: demand for better IAQ, higher energy efficiency and accountability for both is growing. Designers who are fluent in both pathways and can articulate the trade-offs to building owners and developers will have an edge as these expectations continue to rise.

Tanner Wozniak is HVAC channel sales manager at Fellowes Air Quality Management, where he works with engineers, contractors and HVAC reps to determine optimal air quality solutions for commercial buildings. For more information, visit fellowes.com/air.