SR 09-10-2019 7B
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the
Environment
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance adopting Local Amendments
to the 2019 Energy and Green Building Codes and adoption of a Resolution
that provides findings of local climatic, geological, and topographical
conditions as required by the Health and Safety Code
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached resolution that provides findings of local climatic, geological,
topographical, and environmental conditions as required to adopt Santa Monica
local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California
Green Building Standards Code;
2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that adopts the 2019 California
Energy Code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and Santa Monica
local amendments; and
3. Direct the City Manager to file the adopted resolution and ordinance with the
California Energy Commission following the second reading of the ordinance at
least 30 days before the effective date of the Codes.
Executive Summary
California’s State Building Code Standards are comprehensively updated every three
years, with adjustments annually. Local jurisdictions have limited authority to adopt
stricter standards based on specific conditions. As a leader in sustainability, the City
continues to seek solutions that will help meet its goals of reducing communitywide
carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon
neutrality (zero carbon dioxide emissions) by 2050 or sooner. One recommended action
the City could take is to adopt carbon neutral construction code s for new commercial,
mixed-use and multi-family properties, as outlined in the Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan recently adopted by the City Council. This would increase energy efficiency and
the use of renewable energy in new buildings, which would prevent the proliferation of
carbon emissions.
2 of 11
Staff proposes amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California
Green Building Standards Code that reach beyond the state’s requirements to help the
City meet its sustainability policy goals, subject to State approval.
Starting January 1, 2020, new buildings will have two design pathways for complying
with the California Energy Code: all-electric design and mixed-fuel design. As the City’s
electricity supply has transitioned to mostly renewable energy sources, all-electric
buildings and equipment would emit near zero carbon dioxide emissions.
As an incentive to design all-electric buildings, Santa Monica’s proposed ordinance
(Attachment A) would require a higher level of energy efficiency for mixed-fuel buildings.
All-electric buildings are not subject to higher levels of energy e fficiency and may be
built to the State’s baseline efficiency requirements.
Also starting January 1, 2020, the California Energy Code will require solar photovoltaic
systems on all new single-family and low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or
less). Santa Monica’s proposed ordinance maintains the existing solar photovoltaic
requirement for all new non-residential, high-rise residential, hotel and motel buildings.
The ordinance also proposes a new solar photovoltaic requirement for all major
additions.
City staff leveraged feasibility and cost-effectiveness studies, legal analysis, and model
municipal code language, to develop the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) and a
proposed resolution making required findings of justifying local climatic, geol ogical,
topographical, and environmental conditions (Attachment B).
If Council adopts the proposed ordinance and resolution, staff would submit a filing of
Santa Monica’s energy amendments and a cost-effectiveness study to the California
Energy Commission. The California Energy Commission would hold a public hearing to
discuss and potentially approve Santa Monica’s energy amendments to the 2019
California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. If
3 of 11
approved by the California Energy Commission, the ordinance would be presented to
Council for a third reading in order to become effective by January 1, 2020.
Background
The California Building Standards Code (Title 24) consists of 13 parts that apply to the
design, construction, and alteration of public and private buildings and equipment. The
proposed ordinance provides local amendments to Title 24 Part 6, the California Energy
Code (CEC), and Title 24 Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code.
To achieve carbon neutrality, net increases in carbon emissions from new construction
and development must be mitigated by efficient design, construction, and use of on-site
renewable energy systems. As the City’s sources of electricity become cleaner from the
increased use of renewable energy, natural gas remains the largest source of emissions
in buildings.
Promoting or requiring all-electric construction and avoiding new demand for fossil fuel
natural gas are necessary steps to achieve the City’s goal of an 80 percent reduction
below 1990 levels in communitywide carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality
by 2050 or sooner.
The City’s current Energy Reach Code, commonly referred to as a Zero-Net Energy
(ZNE) Code (Attachment C), requires all new low-rise residential buildings to use 15
percent less energy than a standard design building and install enough solar panels to
offset the expected annual energy needs. Documentation is required to show that the
building’s proposed design has an Energy Design Rating (EDR) of zero.
The EDR score is only applied to low-rise residential projects and is the primary metric
used by the CEC to show compliance with the Energy Code. Using energy modeling
software, project teams are able to compare their “Proposed Design EDR” with a code-
compliant “Standard Design EDR”. The Standard Design EDR can be thought of as an
energy budget and the Proposed Design EDR must be under budget to comply. Over
time, the CEC has reduced the energy budget and lowered the EDR in order to spur
4 of 11
energy efficiency. A score of 100 represents a home compliant with the 2006 building
code, a score in the low 40s is typical of a home compliant with 2016 code, a score in
the low 20s is compliant with 2019 code, and a score of zero represents a ZNE home.
The City’s current Energy Reach Code also applies to high-rise residential,
hotels/motels, and all other non-residential construction. The Energy Reach Code
requires these building types to be designed to use 10 percent less energy than a
standard design building and install a solar photovoltaic system with a rating of 2 watts
per square foot of the building footprint.
Since the Energy Reach Code went into effect in May 2017, 105 single-family
residences and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects have been submitted for plan
check. To date, the City issued 72 permits and completed final inspection for 10
projects.
Past Council Actions
Discussion
Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, the California Building Standards Code
(CBSC) applies to new buildings throughout the State of California. Every three years,
the CBSC is updated to include the latest trends in design and construction to ensure
safety and performance in buildings. The 2019 CBSC, including Title 24 Part 6, which
governs building energy performance, and Title 24 Part 11, which governs green
building standards, was published on July 1, 2019, and will become effective on
January 1, 2020. For the first time, the 2019 CBSC will require solar on all low-rise
residential buildings and offer two energy performance pathways for buildings: mixed
fuel (using both electricity and natural gas) and all-electric construction.
10/25/16 (Attachment C) Ordinance Adopting the 2016 California Energy Code and
Local Amendments
5 of 11
Cities and counties may make amendments to the CBSC that meet the following
conditions:
• Must be based on local climatic, geological, and topographical, conditions (for
purposes of the Green Building Standards Code, such conditions include local
environmental conditions);
• Must be cost-effective;
• Cannot pre-empt federal appliance efficiency standards; and
• Cannot be less restrictive than the State requirements.
Upon receiving the draft State energy codes for review, Office of Sustainability and the
Environment staff participated in the California Codes and Standards Reach Codes
Program, which is a collaboration between utilities, energy engineers, design
professionals, stakeholders in the building industry, and staff from other local
jurisdictions throughout the state. The program provided technical support to local
governments considering local ordinances to support meeting local and/or statewide
energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program provided resources such as
cost-effectiveness studies (Attachments D, E, F, and G), model language, sample
findings, and other supporting documentation.
Staff hosted three local stakeholder workshops at Santa Monica libraries to review the
cost-effectiveness studies developed by the program, explore reach code concepts, and
present model code language. The workshop participants included architects, energy
modelers, designers, builders, developers, and other local stakeholders.
The City also participated in a Zero-Emission Buildings Reach Code Task Force, a
project of the Building Decarbonization Coalition in partnership with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and several California cities and counties.
This Task Force provided staff with strategies for building electrification policy and reach
code development support.
6 of 11
The California Energy Commission updated the calculations used to determine a low-
rise residential building EDR. The resulting EDR metric and cost-effectiveness studies
for single-family and low-rise multi-family buildings concluded that achieving an EDR of
zero was not cost-effective for mixed-fuel design; therefore, the proposed reach code
for mixed-fuel single-family and low-rise multi-family buildings requires an EDR of 10 or
less.
Proposed Energy Code Amendments
Similar to the 2019 CBSC, new buildings in Santa Monica would have two design
pathways for complying with the Energy Code: all-electric design and mixed-fuel design.
However, as an incentive to design all-electric buildings, a higher level of energy
efficiency would be required for mixed-fuel buildings. All-electric buildings would not be
subject to higher levels of energy efficiency and may be built to the State’s standard
design requirements. All-electric buildings powered by a combination of on-site solar
and 100 percent Green Power from the Clean Power Alliance are effectively Zero-
Emission Buildings.
The proposed requirements, summarized in the table below, would be applicable to all
new buildings in Santa Monica.
7 of 11
For new single-family, duplex, and multi-family residential buildings up to three stories:
• All-Electric Building: shall be designed to code established by the 2019 CEC.
• Mixed-Fuel Building: shall be designed to CalGreen Tier 1 established by the
2019 CEC. CalGreen Tier 1 buildings have additional integrated efficiency and
on-site renewable energy sufficient to achieve a Total Energy Design Rating of
10 or less.
For new multi-family buildings, four stories and greater, and new hotels and motels:
• All new buildings shall have a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum rating of
2 watts per square foot of the building’s footprint.
• All-Electric Building: shall be designed to code established by the 2019 CEC.
• Mixed-Fuel Building: shall be designed to be 5 percent more efficient than the
code established by the 2019 CEC. (The change from the current Energy Reach
Code, which requires these buildings to be 10 percent more efficient is the result
of the cost-effectiveness study.)
For all other new non-residential buildings:
• All new buildings shall have a solar photovoltaic system with a minimum rating of
2 watts per square foot of the building’s footprint.
• All-Electric Building: shall be designed to code established by the 2019 CEC.
• Mixed-Fuel Building: shall be designed to be 10 percent more efficient than the
code established by the 2019 CEC.
For all new buildings, the Certificate of Compliance described in Section 10-103 of the
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be prepared and signed by a
Certified Energy Analyst (CEA) as the Documentation Author. A CEA is a person who is
certified by the California Association of Building Energy Consultants. The CEA
certification program was developed by the Statewide Codes and Standards Program
and the California Association of Building Energy Consultants. CEAs are individuals
who have demonstrated their mastery of the California Building Energy Efficiency
8 of 11
Standards (Title 24, Part 6). CEAs understand broader energy efficiency issues and are
committed to providing quality service and conducting business in an ethical fashion.
CEAs also commit to ongoing educational requirements, attending advanced industry
training that puts them on the cutting edge.
Proposed Green Building Standards Code Amendments
Staff recommends amending the solar requirements found in Municipal Code sections
8.106.055 (4.201.4 and 4.201.5) and 8.106.080 (5.201.4) to require major additions to
install a prescriptive amount of solar photovoltaics. Major additions include a story
addition or a cumulative addition of 50 percent of the existing floor area.
Major additions to one- and two-family dwellings shall install a solar photovoltaic system
with a minimum total wattage of 1.5 times the square footage of the addition. All major
additions to multi-family and non-residential buildings are required to install a solar
photovoltaic system with a minimum total wattage of 2 times the square footage of the
addition’s footprint.
Consistent with Santa Monica’s leadership in energy efficiency and emissions
reductions, staff recommends updating the pool heating requirements in Section
8.106.055 (4.201.3) and 8.106.080 (5.201.3) to specify, for new pool construction, if the
pool is to be heated, an electric heat pump and/or solar thermal system shall be used.
Electric heat-pump water heaters are effective in Santa Monica’s mild climate and whe n
operated during the electric utility’s off -peak periods save 50 percent or more in energy
costs compared to gas heaters.
Boards and Commissions
Public hearings were held on September 3, 2019 and August 14, 2019 with,
respectively, the Task Force on the Environment and Santa Monica’s Building and Fire-
Life Safety Commission to discuss each of the proposed local amendments.
On August 14, 2019, the Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission unanimously
approved recommending that the Council adopt the propos ed local amendments to the
9 of 11
2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. The
Commission also recommends Council consider an update to zoning codes such that
"New construction shall not obstruct solar access on neighboring p roperties between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to solar panels previously installed per the requirements
of the Santa Monica Energy Code."
On September 3, 2019, the Task Force on the Environment unanimously approved a
motion to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed local amendments to the
2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code.
Next Steps
The 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code,
together with local amendments and required findings to support those local
amendments, are presented for Council adoption. The resolution (Attachment B) sets
forth findings regarding local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental
conditions that are required to support the adoption of the local code amendments. The
ordinance (Attachment A) amends the 2019 California Energy Code and the 2019
California Green Building Standards Code.
The proposed amendments and findings and the cost-effective studies must be
submitted to the California Energy Commission (CEC) following Council’s second
reading by September 30, in order to be effective in coordination with the January 1,
2020 effective date of the 2019 CBSC.
The CEC would then approve the amendments during a business meeting, fo llowing 60
days of public comment. Once approved, staff would return to Council with a CEC -
approved resolution and ordinance for ratification. If Santa Monica’s amendments are
scheduled after September 30, then the local energy amendments would become
effective after January 1, 2020. This would cause logistical challenges as the building
industry prepares to comply with the new changes in 2020 and local amendments follow
thereafter.
10 of 11
Therefore, staff recommends that Council pass the resolution (Attachment B) and
approve the ordinance amending the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California
Green Building Standards Code (Attachment A) so that staff may bring the final
resolution and ordinance back to Council following approval by the California Energy
Commission in time for the local amendments to take effect as of January 1, 2020.
Public notification of the effective date of the building code would be published on the
City’s website, and informational notices would be available at City Hall’s Permit
Counter. All local amendments approved by the City Council would also be published
on the City’s website in advance of the effective date of the code amendments. Staff will
engage local industry associations and professionals to ensure awareness of and
compliance with the new requirements.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required
in the future.
Prepared By: Drew Lowell, Sustainability Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Ordinance Energy and Green Building Code 8.5.19
B. Resolution Energy and Green Building Code 8.5.19
C. 2017 Energy Reach Code
D. 2019 NonRes NC Cost-effectiveness Report FINAL
E. 2019 Res NC Cost-Effectivenss Report FINAL
F. 2019 SM Low Rise Res-PV-Additions-Final
G. 2019 SM Pool Heating-Final
11 of 11
H. Written Comments
I. PowerPoint Presentation
1
City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER_______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADOPTING THE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE AND 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE ANDTHE SANTA MONICA LOCAL AMENDMENTS
TO SUCH CODES TO REQUIRE HIGHER ENERGY PERFORMANCE FOR NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the California State Building Standards Commission approved and
published the 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2019,
and such code will be effective 180 days thereafter, which is January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 California Building Standards Code includes the 2019
California Energy Code and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5
provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards
contained in the California Building Standards Code based upon express findings that
such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 101.7.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code, local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions include
local environmental conditions as established by the City; and
2
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a resolution making express findings, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 179 58.7, and 18941.5, that
the local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, topographic, and environmental conditions; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, the local
amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code establish requirements to increase energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy, including in particular solar energy, which will reduce demands for
local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution
to greenhouse gases; and
WHEREAS, cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide
Investor Owned Utilities Codes and Standards Program in conjunction with consultants
and cities (collectively known as the “Reach Code Team”), demonstrate that the local
amendments are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy
than is permitted by the 2019 California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019
California Green Building Standards Code were the subject of three public stakeholder
workshops conducted on April 24, May 16, and June 11, 2019, at which attendees
included architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, and residents;
and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, the City’s Building and Fire Life Safety
Commission met and unanimously determined to recommend that the City Council
3
adopt a resolution making necessary local finding s and adopt local amendments to the
2019 California Building Standards Code, including the 2019 California Energy Code
and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2019, the City’s Task Force on the Environment
met and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve this ordinance
adopting local findings and local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and
2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, once adopted by the City Council, the local amendments to the 2019
California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code will, in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) and Section 10-106 of
the 2019 California Administrative Code (Title 24, Part 1), be submitted to the California
Energy Commission for approval, following which approval the local amendments will
be returned to the City Council for final adoption ;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Purpose
It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to adopt the 2019 California Energy
Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title
24, Part 11), along with local modifications and changes that provide local, cost-
effective standards for new residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings
that exceed the minimum standards of the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019
4
California Green Building Standards Code to achieve energy savings, reduce local
pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
SECTION 2. Chapter 8.36 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.36 Energy Code
8.36.010 Adoption.
That certain document entitled “20162019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards—Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings” which adopts Part
6 of Title 24 and Part 1, Chapter 10 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as
published by the California Building Standards Commis sion and the California Energy
Commission, is hereby adopted as the Energy Code of the City of Santa Monica.
8.36.012 Local Amendments
Notwithstanding any provisions of the 2019 California Energy Code , 2019
California Green Building Standards Code, or other codes adopted by any Chapter in
Article VIII of the Municipal Code to the contrary, the local amendments to the Energy
Code set forth in this Chapter shall apply.
8.36.015 Additional Definitions
In addition to definitions set forth in Section 100.1(b) of the 2019 California
Energy Code, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) All-Electric Building or All-Electric Design. A building or building
design that uses a permanent supply of electricity as the source of energy for space
5
heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes
drying appliances, and has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed in the building .
(b) Certified Energy Analyst. A person who is certified by the California
Association of Building Energy Consultants (CABEC) as a Certified Energy Analyst
(CEA) and is in good standing with CABEC as of the date of submission of a Certificate
of Compliance as required under Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code. A
CEA in good standing is listed in the CABEC CEA Roster as “Active -Current.”
(c) Mixed-Fuel Building or Mixed-Fuel Design. A building or building
design that uses natural gas or propane as fuel for space heating, water heating
(including pools and spas), cooking appliances or clothes drying appliances , or is
plumbed for such equipment.
8.36.020 Energy Efficiency and Solar Photovoltaic Requirements – Low -rise
Residential Buildings
(a) All-Electric Buildings. All new all-electric low-rise residential buildings
shall be designed to code established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(b) Mixed-Fuel Buildings. All new mixed-fuel low-rise residential buildings
shall meet all requirements for mixed -fuel designs as specified for CalGreen Tier 1
under the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix
A4 Residential Voluntary Measures Division A4.203 –Performance Approach for Newly
Constructed Buildings.
(c) Solar Photovoltaic Requirement. All new low-rise residential buildings
shall have a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements
as specified in Joint Appendix JA11 to the 2019 California Energy Code, with annual
6
electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage as
determined by Equation 150.1-C of the 2019 California Energy Code, using the CFA
and Dwelling Adjustment Factors for Climate Zone 6 from Table 150.1-C of the 2019
California Energy Code, as follows:
EQUATION 150.1-C ANNUAL PHOTOVOLTAIC ELECTRICAL OUTPUT:
kW PV = (CFA x 0.594)/1000 +(Ndwell x 1.23)
WHERE:
kW PV = kWdc size of the PV system
CFA = Conditioned floor area
Ndwell = Number of dwelling units
(d) Certified Energy Analyst Requirement. For all new low-rise residential
buildings, the Certificate of Compliance described in Section 10-103 of the 2019
California Energy Code shall be prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst
(CEA) as the Documentation Author.
All new low-rise residential buildings shall be designed to use fifteen percent less
energy than the allowed energy budget established by the 2016 California Energy
Code, and achieve an energy design rating of zero.
7
8.36.030 Energy Efficiency and Solar Photovoltaic Requirements – High-rise
Residential, Non-residential, and Hotels and Motels Buildings
(a) All-Electric Buildings. All new all-electric high-rise residential, non-
residential, and hotel and motel buildings shall be designed to code established by the
2019 California Energy Code.
(b) Mixed-Fuel Buildings.
(i) All new mixed-fuel non-residential buildings shall be
designed to use ten percent less energy than the allowed energy budget
established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(ii) All new mixed-fuel high-rise residential and hotel and motel
buildings shall be designed to use five percent less energy than the allowed
energy budget established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(c) Solar Photovoltaic Requirement. The minimum solar photovoltaic
system required for all new high-rise residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel
buildings is 2 watts per square foot of the building footprint.
(d) Certified Energy Analyst Requirement. For all new high-rise residential,
non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings, the Certificate of Compliance described
in Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code shall be prepared and signed by
a Certified Energy Analyst as the Documentation Author.
(e) Exemptions. The Building Official may, at their discretion, waive or
reduce the requirements set forth in this Section 8.36.030 for buildings that are
uninhabitable and consist solely of unconditioned space.
8
All new high-rise residential buildings, non-residential buildings, hotels and
motels shall be designed to use ten percent less energy than the allowed energy budget
established by the 2016 California Energy Code.
SECTION 3. Chapter 8.106 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.106 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
8.106.010 Adoption.
That certain document entitled “California Green Building Standards Code, 2016
2019 Edition,” as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is hereby
adopted as the Green Building Standards Code of the City of Santa Monica.
8.106.020 Local Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code.
Notwithstanding any provisions of the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code, 2019 California Energy CodeCalifornia Building Code, California Residential
Code, California Building Standards Code, or other codes adopted by any Chapter in
Article VIII of the Municipal Code to the contrary, the following local amendments shall
apply.
8.106.050 Additional Definitions.
Amend Section 202 of the California Green Building Standards Code to include
the following:
In addition to definitions set forth in Section 202 of the 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code, the following definitions shall apply:
9
(a) Major Addition. The addition to any building of either (1) an additional
story or (2) additional floor area equal to or greater than fifty percent of the building’s
existing floor area prior to the addition.
(b) Sustainability. Consideration of present development and construction
impacts on the community, the economy, and the environment without compromising
the needs of the future.
(c) Unshaded Area. Area(s) where light emittance from the sun is
unobstructed by fixed objects during the majority of daylight hours between March 21st
and September 21st.
8.106.053 Green Building.
Section 301.1.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is
amended to read as follows:
Amend Section 301.1.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code to read
as follows:
301.1.1 Additions and Alterations . With the exception of Sections
4.201.4 and 4.201.5, which apply only to major additions to one-, two-,
and multi-family dwellings (three stories or less), the mandatory provisions
of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions or alterations of existing
residential buildings. The requirements shall apply only to and/or within
the specific area of the addition or alteration.
10
8.106.055 Residential Solar and Pool Heating Requirements.
Amend Section 4.201 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code to
read as follows:
Section 4.201 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended
to read as follows:
4.201.3 Solar Pool Heating.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, renewable
energy an electric heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall
be used for such heating. provided that, if a solar thermal system is used:
(i) The surface area of the solar collectors used to generate
such renewable energy for such heating is equal to or
greater than seventy percent (70%) of the surface area of
the pool; or
(ii) Renewable Solar energy produced provides at least sixty
percent (60%) of the total energy necessary for heating
purpose.
(b) Electrical resistance heaters that are not powered directly by
renewable energy sources shall not be used to heat pool water.
(c) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by
the minimum extent necessary, in situations where installation of solar
water heating is technically infeasible due to lack of unshaded area to
install solar collectors, lack of adequate roof space, water pumping energy
11
use exceeding half of the energy derivable from the renewable energy
system, or other similar conditions.
4.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to One- and Two-Family Dwellings Solar Photovoltaic
Installations.
(a) All new major additions to one- and two-family dwellings are
required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required
installation of the PV system installed must have shall be implemented
using one of the following methods: (i) Install an on-site solar PV system
with a minimum total wattage 1.5 times the square footage of the addition.
dwelling(1.5 watts per square foot);
(ii) Install a solar PV system or other renewable energy
system that will offset 75%-100% of the Time Dependent Valuation
(TDV) energy budget;
(iii) Demonstrate that the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)
energy budget is reduced by the same wattage required by (a)(i).
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by
the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy
from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and
feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than
1,200 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied
PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements.
12
(c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is a
conflict between compliance with Section 4.201.3 through use of a solar
thermal system and compliance with this Section.
4.201.5 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to Multi-Family Dwellings (3 stories or less) Solar
Photovoltaic Installations.
(a) All new major additions to multi-family dwellings are required
to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation
of the PV system shall be implemented by installing a solar PV system
with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the building
footprint of the addition (2.0 watts per square foot).
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced,
by the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy
from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and
feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than
1,200 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied
PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements.
(c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is
a conflict between compliance with Section 4.201.3 through use of a solar
thermal system and compliance with this Section.
13
8.106.070 Flashing Details.
Section 4.407.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is
amended to read as follows:
Amend Section 4.407.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code to read
as follows:
4.407.1 Flashing Details. Provide flashing details on the building plans
which comply with accepted industry standards or manufacturer’s
instructions. Details are shown on the house plans at all of the following
locations:
1. Around windows and doors.
2. Roof valleys.
3. Deck connections to the structure.
4. Roof-to-wall intersections.
5. Chimneys to roof intersections.
6. Drip caps above windows and doors with architectural
projections.
7. Other locations as identified by the Building Officer.
8.106.080 Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, Hotels and Motels Solar and
Pool Heating Requirements.
Section 5.201 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended
to read as follows:
Amend Section 5.201 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code to
read as follows:
14
5.201.3 Solar Pool Heating – Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential,
and Hotels and Motels Buildings Solar Photovoltaic Installation.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, renewable
energy an electric heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall
be used for such heating. provided that, if a solar thermal system is used:
(i) The surface area of the solar collectors used to generate
such renewable energy for such heating is equal to or
greater than seventy percent (70%) of the surface area of
the pool; or
(ii) Renewable Solar energy produced provides at least sixty
percent (60%) of the total energy necessary for heating
purpose.
(b) Electrical resistance heaters that are not powered directly by
renewable energy sources shall not be used to heat pool water.
(c) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by
the minimum extent necessary, in situations where installation of solar
water heating is technically infeasible due to lack of unshaded area to
install solar collectors, lack of adequate roof space, water pumping energy
use exceeding half of the energy derivable from the renewable energy
system, or other similar conditions.
15
5.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, and Hotels and
Motels Buildings Solar Photovoltaic Installations.
(a) All new major additions to non-residential, high-rise residential,
and hotel, and motel buildings are required to install a solar electric
photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation of the PV system
installed must have shall be implemented by installing a solar PV system
with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the building
footprint of the addition (2.0 watts per square foot).
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by
the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy
from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of av ailable and
feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than
1,200 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied
PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements.
(c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is a
conflict between compliance with Section 5.201.3 through use of a solar
thermal system and compliance with this Section.
8.106.100 Electric Vehicle Charging.
Electric vehicle charging for new residential and hotel and motel buildings is
governed by Sections 4.106.4 through 4.106.4.3.6 of the Green Building Standa rds
Code. Electric vehicle charging for new non-residential buildings is governed by
Sections 5.106.5.3 through 5.106.5.3.5 of the Green Building Standards Code.
16
(a) Multi-Family Dwellings. For new electrical services in multi-family
dwellings, the following shall apply:
(1) The total load calculations shall include a load for future electrical
vehicle charging. This load shall be calculated at ten kilowatts per five percent of
the parking spaces provided.
(2) The minimum rating of the main service panel and the ampacity of
the service entrance conductors shall be based on the total calculated load and
the requirements of Chapter 2 of the California Electrical Code.
(3) A separate multi-meter distribution section shall be provided for
electrical vehicle charging only. The minimum number of meters in this multi-
meter section shall be based on five percent of the parking spaces provided. The
minimum rating of this multi-meter distribution section shall be calculated at ten
kilowatts per five percent of the parking spaces provided.
Each meter shall have a space for a two -pole 208/240 volt circuit breaker where
the space is identified as “Electric Vehicle Charging” or “Future Electric Vehicle
Charging,” as applicable. This distribution panel section shall be permanently and
conspicuously marked “Electric Vehicle Charging Only.”
(4) If the continuous rating of Level 2 and/or Level 3 electric vehicle
service equipment is known at the time of installation then these ratings shall be
applied to the load calculations in subsection (a), but in no case shall less than
ten kilowatts per five percent of the parking spaces be provided.
17
(5) Where the calculated number of parking spaces results in a fraction
of one-half or greater, the calculated number shall be rounded to the next higher
whole number.
(b) Buildings of Mixed-Use Occupancies. For new electrical services in
buildings of mixed-use occupancies, the following shall apply:
(1) The requirements in subsection (a) shall be applicable to the
residential portion of the building. The residential distribution system shall supply
the charging source for electric vehicles.
(c) Non-Residential Buildings. For new electrical services in non-residential
buildings, the following shall apply:
(1) The total load calculations shall include a load for future electric
vehicle charging. This load shall be a calculated at 10 kilowatts per five percent
of the parking spaces provided.
The minimum load for future electrical vehicle charging shall not be less
than 10 kilowatts; however, if the continuous rating of Level 2 and/or Level 3
electric vehicle service equipment is known at the time of installation then these
ratings shall be applied to the load calculations, but in no cases less than 10
kilowatts per five percent of the parking spaces provided.
The minimum rating of the main service panel and the ampacity of the
service entrance conductors shall be based on the total calculated load and the
requirements of Chapter 2 of the California Electrical Code.
(2) The electrical distribution system shall include spaces for two-pole,
208/240 volt circuit breakers for future electric vehicle charging. The minimum
18
number of circuit breaker spaces shall be equal to five percent of the provided
parking spaces. These circuit spaces shall be dedicated and identified as “Future
Electric Vehicle Charging.”
(3) For new non-residential buildings, five percent of the parking spaces
provided shall be dedicated to electric vehicles. Each parking space shall have a
raceway installed from the service or distribution pan el and stubbed-up at the
midline of each parking space. The minimum size of the raceway shall be one -
inch nominal.
Where the parking accommodations include more than one floor or level,
the parking spaces dedicated to electric vehicles, to the extent pract icable, shall
be provided at the first floor or level of parking access.
(4) Where the calculated number of five percent of the parking spaces
provided results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the calculated number shall be
rounded to the next higher whole number.
(d) Exceptions. The requirements of this Section shall not apply under the
following conditions:
(1) New electrical service is installed in a building where there is no
attached or dedicated parking facility;
(2) New electrical service is not associated with a building or structure;
(3) Compliance is technically infeasible due to the distance between a
dedicated parking facility and the structure containing residential occupancies, or
similar conditions.
19
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby decla res that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or uncon stitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective January 1, 2020. Building permit applications submitted on or after the
effective date of this Ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set
forth herein.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
1
City Council Meeting: September 10, 2019 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL,
TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 17958.7 AND 18941.5
WHEREAS, the California State Building Standards Commission approved and
published the 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2019 ,
and such code will be effective 180 days thereafter, which is January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 California Building Standards Code includes the 2019
California Energy Code and the 2019 California Green Buildings Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7, and 18941.5
provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards
contained in the California Building Standards Code based upon express findings that
such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 101.7.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code, local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions include
local environmental conditions as established by the City; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 20, 2016, the State of California enacted
Senate Bill (SB) 32, which added Health and Safety Code Section 38566 to require
2
greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later
than December 31, 2030; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in accordance with the United States’ original commitment to the Paris
Climate Accord; and
WHEREAS, consistent with its May 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
(“CAAP”), the City of Santa Monica is committed to establish ing requirements to
increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, including in particular solar
energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional
pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases; an d
WHEREAS, based upon the findings contained in this Resolution, the City
Council will be adopting an ordinance making local amendments to the 2019 California
Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code that are reasonably
necessary based upon local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental
conditions; and
WHEREAS, cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide
Investor Owned Utilities Codes and Standards Program in conjunction with consultants
and cities (collectively known as the “Reach Code Team”), demonstrate that the local
amendments are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy
than is permitted by the 2019 California Energy Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Monica does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings regarding local
climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions related to the local
3
amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code described in Section 2 below:
(a) Santa Monica is situated in Southern California, which has extreme arid
conditions and periods of severe drought. (Climatic and Environmental)
(b) The Master Environmental Assessment (“MEA”) adopted in April 1996,
shows that Santa Monica’s climate is primarily influenced by the Pacific Ocean and is
characterized by infrequent rainfall and winds. The winds originate from the west during
the day and from the north and northeast during the night. Further, intermittent Santa
Ana winds conditions occur from Septembe r to March allowing conditions that create
the potential for high velocity winds with high temperatures. In addition, the region is
within a climate system capable of producing major wind, fire, and rain -related
disasters, including but not limited to those caused by the Santa Ana winds and El Nino
(or La Nina) subtropical-like weather. (Climatic and Environmental)
(c) The greater Los Angeles region, including Santa Monica, is a densely
populated area having buildings constructed within a region where env ironmental
resources are scarce due to varying and occasional immoderate temperatures and
weather conditions. This local condition also challenges the demand and need for
energy resources from the local utilities. (Climatic and Environmental)
(d) Intermittent, immoderate climatic conditions due to wind, fog, rain,
heatwave and humidity cause a higher demand for energy resources and greater needs
(i) for energy conservation through the construction of building systems and equipment
usage and (ii) to supplement building electrical systems with renewable energy sources.
(Climatic and Environmental)
4
(e) Where climatic conditions in Santa Monica create demands for higher
usage of energy and natural resources, measures that allow conservation and
efficiencies in construction will promote practices to achieve these goals. (Climatic and
Environmental)
(f) As set forth in the CAAP, as a result of climate change, extreme heat
events in California and the Los Angeles region are becoming more frequent, more
intense, and longer lasting, with the trend expected to continue as climate change
worsens. Extreme heat can exacerbate heat-related illnesses and deaths, particularly
among vulnerable populations such as the homeless, elderly, infants, and individuals
with chronic illnesses, while also affecting communities indirectly through energy
disruption and spikes in energy prices, impacting affordability. (Climatic and
Environmental)
(g) As also set forth in the CAAP, climate change is likely to alter rainfall
patterns, increasing the variability in the already wide swings in precipitation from year
to year, with even wider fluctuations between wet years and dry years, and increased
duration and severity of droughts. As a result, the City of Santa Monica is likely to be
subject to more severe weather events, including droughts as well as more intense
storms that increase the risks of wildfire, erosion, overland local flooding and landslides.
(Climatic and Environmental)
(h) As noted in the December 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan Update
(“SWMP”), Santa Monica currently receives approximately 70-75% of its water from
ground water sources beneath the City. As noted in the Safet y Element of Santa
Monica’s General Plan, adopted in January 1995, subsidence, as well as saltwater
5
intrusion has occurred along coastal areas to the south of the City, though, to date, no
subsidence or saltwater intrusion has been reported within the City. (Geological and
Environmental)
(i) As noted in the SWMP, climate change is expected to test the City’s ability
to sustainably manage its water resources. In particular, if current projections of climate
change caused sea level rise are proven to be accurate, saltwater intrusion may be
expected to change the quality of the shallow groundwater zones immediately adjacent
to the coast and those low-lying areas where wave run-up would likely be higher.
Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions could
result in exacerbated rises in sea level, increasing the risk posed by saltwater intrusions
to shallow groundwater along the coast and potentially posing a risk of saltwater
intrusion that would affect even the more inland wel lfields from which the city draws the
majority of its groundwater. (Climatic and Environmental)
(j) As noted in the CAAP, if current projections of climate change caused sea
level rises are proven to be accurate, miles of transportation and public and private
utilities infrastructure, beaches, homes, and businesses bear some risk from sea level
rise and coastal flooding. Failure to address and significantly reduce GHG emissions
could result in exacerbated rises in sea level that could put even more San ta Monica
homes, businesses, and public facilities at risk from sea level rise and coastal flooding .
(Climatic and Environmental)
(k) As noted in the CAAP, in February 2019, the Clean Power Alliance of
Southern California started serving Santa Monica re sidents with electricity sourced from
a higher content of renewable energy sources, with the result that as of May 2019 Santa
6
Monica residents and businesses receive a default 100% renewable electricity.
(Climatic and Environmental)
(l) The local amendments to promote all-electric construction and require
increased efficiency for mixed-fuel construction will increase energy efficiency and the
use of renewable energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources,
reduce regional pollution, promote a lower contribution to GHG emissions, and increase
resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and Environmental)
(m) The local amendments requiring Certificates of Compliance to be
prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst will provide greater certainty that
representations regarding building compliance with energy and green building
standards are accurate, and in doing so will increase energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce
regional pollution, promote a lower contribution to GHG emissions, and increase
resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and Environmental)
(n) The local amendments requiring solar thermal or electric heat pump pool
heating systems will increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy,
including in particular solar energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and
resources, reduce regional pollution, promote a lower contribution to GHG emissions,
and increase resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and Environmental)
(o) The local amendments requiring solar photovoltaic installations for major
additions will increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, including in
particular solar energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources,
7
reduce regional pollution, promote a lower contribution to GHG emissions , and increase
resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and Environmental)
(p) The greater Los Angeles region, including Santa Monica, is a densely
populated area having buildings and structures constructed over and near a vast array
of fault systems capable of producing major earthquakes, including but not limited to the
1994 Northridge Earthquake. (Geological and Environmental)
(q) Existing lots in the City of Santa Monica may be located on hilly terrain
with slopes that create grading, drainage, foundation, infrastructure, utility and
emergency access challenges. (Topographical)
(r) The Safety Element of Santa Monica’s General Plan, adopted in January
1995, shows that Santa Monica is an area at high risk of seismic activity due to, among
other fault systems, the Santa Monica, Newport-Inglewood, and San Andreas fault
systems, the close proximity of which increases the likelihood of seismic disturbances of
substantial magnitude. As the Safety Element notes, one risk posed by seismic
disturbances is to natural gas pipelines that extend through areas of high liquefaction
potential, cross active or potentially active faults, or traverse areas that may settle
differentially during an earthquake. (Geological and Environmental)
(s) The local amendments to promote all-electric construction and require
increased efficiency for mixed-fuel construction will reduce the potential for gas leaks,
explosions, and fires, and so limit or reduce property damages during a seismic event.
(Geological and Environmental)
8
SECTION 2. The City Council expressly finds that the following modifications
and changes to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code are reasonably necessary because of the local geological, climatic,
topographical, and/or environmental conditions, and that the local conditions detailed in
Section 1 above apply to the following modifications and changes to the 2019 California
Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, as follows:
No. Municipal
Code
Section(s)
Amendment Summary Justification
from
Section 1 of
this
Resolution
Local
Conditions
1 8.36.015 &
8.36.020
If pursuing a mixed-fuel pathway,
all new low-rise residential
buildings shall meet all the
requirements for mixed-fuel
designs as specified for
CalGreen Tier 1 under 2019
California Green Building
Standards Code, Title 24, Part
11, Appendix A4 Residential
Voluntary Measures Division
A4.203 –Performance Approach
for Newly Constructed Buildings.
For all new low-rise residential
buildings, the Certificate of
Compliance described in Section
10-103 of the California Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
shall be prepared and signed by
a Certified Energy Analyst (CEA)
as the Documentation Author.
(a) through
(m), (p)
through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
2 8.36.015 &
8.36.030
If pursuing a mixed-fuel pathway,
all new non-residential buildings
shall be designed to use ten
percent less energy than the
allowed energy budget
established by the
2019 California Energy Code.
(a) through
(m),
(p) through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
9
No. Municipal
Code
Section(s)
Amendment Summary Justification
from
Section 1 of
this
Resolution
Local
Conditions
If pursuing a mixed-fuel pathway,
all new high-rise residential
buildings, hotels, and motels
shall be designed to use five
percent less energy than the
allowed energy budget
established by the
2019 California Energy Code.
For all new non-residential, high-
rise residential, hotels and motel
buildings, the Certificate of
Compliance described in Section
10-103 of the California Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
shall be prepared and signed by
a Certified Energy Analyst as the
Documentation Author.
3 8.36.030(c) The minimum solar photovoltaic
system required for all new high-
rise residential, non-residential,
and hotel and motel buildings is 2
watts per square foot of the
building footprint.
(a) through
(k), (o)
through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Env ironmental
4 8.106.055
(adding
4.201.3)
For new pool construction (low-
rise residential), if the pool is to
be heated, an electric heat pump
water heater or a solar thermal
system shall be used.
(a) through
(k), (n),
(p) through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
5 8.106.080
(adding
5.201.3)
For new pool construction (non-
residential, high-rise residential,
hotels and motels), if the pool is
to be heated, an electric heat
pump water heater or a solar
thermal system shall be used.
(a) through
(k), (n),
(p) through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
6 8.106.055
(adding
4.201.4)
All major additions to one and
two-family dwellings are required
to install a solar electric
photovoltaic (PV) system 1.5
(a) through
(k), (o)
through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
10
No. Municipal
Code
Section(s)
Amendment Summary Justification
from
Section 1 of
this
Resolution
Local
Conditions
watts per square foot of the
addition.
7 8.106.055
(adding
4.201.5)
All major additions to multi-family
dwellings are required to install a
solar electric photovoltaic (PV)
system with a minimum total
wattage 2.0 times the square
footage of the footprint of the
addition.
(a) through
(k), (o)
through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical,
Environmental
8 8.106.080
(adding
5.201.4)
All major additions to non-
residential, high-rise residential,
and hotel and motel buildings are
required to install a solar electric
photovoltaic (PV) system with a
minimum total wattage 2.0 times
the square footage of the
footprint of the addition.
(a) through
(k), (o)
through (s)
Climatic,
Geological,
Topographical
Environmental
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Nonresidential New Construction
Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
Prepared for:
Christopher Kuch
Codes and Standards Program
Southern California Edison Company
Prepared by:
TRC
EnergySoft
Last Modified: July 15, 2019
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and funded by the California
utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2019,Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document
may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method,
product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any
privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1
2 Methodology and Assumptions ...............................................................................................................3
2.1 Building Prototypes ..........................................................................................................................3
2.2 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................5
3 Measure Description and Cost .................................................................................................................7
3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures .............................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Envelope...................................................................................................................................1
3.1.2 HVAC and SWH.........................................................................................................................1
3.1.3 Lighting .....................................................................................................................................2
3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures ......................................................................................6
3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics...................................................................................................................6
3.2.2 Battery Storage ........................................................................................................................8
3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages ...........................................................................................9
3.3 All Electric Measures ........................................................................................................................9
3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating .........................................................................................................9
3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts ...........................................................................................................13
3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances ..........................................................................................15
3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................15
4 Results ....................................................................................................................................................16
4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results –Medium Office..................................................................................17
4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results –Medium Retail ..................................................................................26
4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results –Small Hotel .......................................................................................34
4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results –PV-only and PV+Battery ...................................................................43
5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations .............................................................................48
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................48
5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations .......................................................................................51
6 Appendices.............................................................................................................................................53
6.1 Map of California Climate Zones ....................................................................................................53
6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures..........................................................................................................54
6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis ..............................................................................54
6.4 Utility Rate Schedules ....................................................................................................................55
6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures ...............................................................................................56
6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline ....................................................................58
6.7 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details ..................................................62
6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results –Medium Office..........................................................................62
6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results –Medium Retail ..........................................................................72
6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results –Small Hotel ...............................................................................81
6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored ..............................................................................90
List of Figures
Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview .......................................................................................2
Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary .................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone .......................................................................................6
Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures -Specification and Cost........................................................................3
Figure 5. Medium Office –Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array ...................................................6
Figure 6. Medium Retail –Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array ....................................................7
Figure 7. Small Hotel –Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array ...........................................................7
Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs ......................................................................................................8
Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary.....................................................10
Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs ..............................................................................................11
Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs ..............................................................................................12
Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs ....................................................................13
Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design ..........................................14
Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes .............................................15
Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions ........................................................................................15
Figure 16. Package Summary .........................................................................................................................16
Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE .........................................19
Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B............................20
Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C –Mixed-Fuel + HE .........................................21
Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 –All-Electric Federal Code Minimum .............22
Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A –All-Electric + EE ..........................................23
Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B –All-Electric + EE + PV +B ............................24
Figure 23.Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C –All-Electric + HE ..........................................25
Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE ..........................................27
Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ............................28
Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C –Mixed-Fuel + HE..........................................29
Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 –All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ..............30
Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A –All-Electric + EE ...........................................31
Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B .............................32
Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C –All-Electric + HE ..........................................33
Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE ...............................................36
Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B .................................37
Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C –Mixed-Fuel + HE ...............................................38
Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 –All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ...................39
Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A –All-Electric + EE ................................................40
Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B ..................................41
Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C –All-Electric + HE ................................................42
Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office -PV and Battery ...............................................................45
Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail -PV and Battery ................................................................46
Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel -PV and Battery .....................................................................47
Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness ....................................49
Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness.....................................50
Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness ..........................................51
Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones...................................................................................................53
Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function ............................................54
Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone –Detailed View ..................................................55
Figure 47. Medium Office –Mixed Fuel Baseline ..........................................................................................56
Figure 48. Medium Retail –Mixed Fuel Baseline...........................................................................................57
Figure 49. Small Hotel –Mixed Fuel Baseline ................................................................................................58
Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline –Package 2 All-Electric Federal Code
Minimum........................................................................................................................................................59
Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline –Package 3A (All-Electric + EE)........60
Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline –Package 3B (All-Electric + EE + PV)60
Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline –Package 3C (All Electric + HE)........61
Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office -Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV .....................................................64
Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .........................65
Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV ................................................66
Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ...................67
Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office–All-Electric + 3kW PV ......................................................68
Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ..........................69
Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –All-Electric + 135kW PV .................................................70
Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office –All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ....................71
Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV.....................................................73
Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ..........................74
Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV ................................................75
Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery...................76
Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –All-Electric + 3kW PV .....................................................77
Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery...........................78
Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –All-Electric + 110kW PV .................................................79
Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail –All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ....................80
Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV ..........................................................82
Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ...............................83
Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel -Mixed Fuel +80kW PV ..........................................................84
Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ...........................85
Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –All-Electric + 3kW PV ...........................................................86
Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ................................87
Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –All-Electric + 80kW PV .........................................................88
Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel –All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ............................89
Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored .............................................................................90
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019)is maintained and
updated every three years by two state agencies:the California Energy Commission (the Energy
Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local
jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed
the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2
and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that
the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming
more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the
Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.This
report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes
and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team.
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state
requirements for design in newly-constructed nonresidential buildings.Buildings specifically examined
include medium office, medium retail, and small hotels. Measures include energy efficiency, solar
photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage. In addition, the report includes a comparison between a baseline
mixed-fuel design and all-electric design for each occupancy type.
The Reach Code team analyzed the following seven packages as compared to 2019 code compliant mixed-
fuel design baseline:
Package 1A –Mixed-Fuel + Energy Efficiency (EE):Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency
measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.
Package 1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + Battery (B): Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and
batteries.
Package 1C –Mixed-fuel + High Efficiency (HE): Baseline code-minimum building with high
efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. The intent of this package is to assess the
standalone contribution that high efficiency appliances would make toward achieving high
performance thresholds.
Package 2 –All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code
minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery.
Package 3A –All-Electric + EE: Package 2 all-electric design with energy efficiency measures and
federal minimum appliance efficiencies.
Package 3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.
Package 3C –All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering
federal preemption.
Figure 1 summarizes the baseline and measure packages. Please refer to Section 3 for more details on the
measure descriptions.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview
Measure
Category
Report
Section
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Baseline 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B 3C
Fed Code
Minimum
Efficiency
EE EE+PV
+ B HE
Fed Code
Minimum
Efficiency
EE EE+PV
+ B HE
Energy
Efficiency
Measures
3.1 X X X X
Solar PV +
Battery 3.2 X X
All-Electric
Measures 3.3 X X X X
Preemptive
Appliance
Measures
3.4 X X
The team separately developed cost effectiveness results for PV-only and PV+Battery packages,excluding
any efficiency measures.For these packages, the PV is modeled as a “minimal”size of 3 kW and a larger
size based on the available roof area and electric load of the building. PV sizes are combined with two
sizes of battery storage for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings to form eight different package
combinations as outlined below:
Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only
Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
Mixed-Fuel + PV Only:PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity
consumption, whichever is smaller
Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery:PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the
annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller,along with 50 kWh battery
All-Electric +3 kW PV Only
All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
All-Electric + PV Only:PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity
consumption, whichever is smaller
All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery:PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the
annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller,along with 50 kWh battery.
Each of the eight packages are evaluated against a baseline model designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6
requirements. The Standards baseline for all occupancies in this report is a mixed-fuel design.
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that
are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating,
cooling, and water heating equipment.1 Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting
1 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and
evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment.However, because high
efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance,
this study provides an analysis of high efficiency appliances for informational purposes. While federal
preemption would limit a reach code, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures
to achieve the performance requirements, including higher efficiency appliances that are federally
regulated.
2 Methodology and Assumptions
With input from several stakeholders, the Reach Codes team selected three building types—medium
office, medium retail,and small hotel—to represent a predominant segment of nonresidential new
construction in the state.
This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation of energy (TDV)based approaches to
evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the energy savings
associated with energy efficiency measures, as well as quantifying the costs associated with the measures.
The main difference between the methodologies is the valuation of energy and thus the cost savings of
reduced or avoided energy use.TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time
dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing
energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon
emissions. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher
value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.2
The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using EnergyPro 8.0 software for 2019 Title 24 code
compliance analysis, which uses CBECC-Com 2019.1.0 for the calculation engine. The baseline prototype
models in all climate zones have been designed to have compliance margins as close as possible to 0 to
reflect a prescriptively-built building.3
2.1 Building Prototypes
The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2019 Title 24
requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of efficiency measures. These prototypes
have historically been used by the California Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements.
The Reach Code Team performed analysis on a medium office, a medium retail, and a small hotel
prototype.
Water heating includes both service water heating (SWH) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot
water for hotels. In this report, water heating or SWH is used to refer to both.The Standard Design HVAC
and SWH systems are based on the system maps included in the 2019 Nonresidential Alternate
2 Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building
Energy Efficiency Standards.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-
07-09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents
3 EnergySoft and TRC were able to develop most baseline prototypes to achieve a compliance margin of less than +/-1 percent
except for few models that were at +/-6 percent. This indicates these prototypes are not exactly prescriptive according to
compliance software calculations. To calculate incremental impacts, TRC conservatively compared the package results to that of
the proposed design of baseline prototypes (not the standard design).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
Calculation Method Reference Manual.4 The Standard Design is the baseline for all nonresidential projects
and assumes a mixed-fuel design using natural gas as the space heating source in all cases. Baseline HVAC
and SWH system characteristics are described below and in Figure 2:
The baseline medium office HVAC design package includes two gas hot water boilers, three
packaged rooftop units (one for each floor), and variable air volume (VAV) terminal boxes with
hot water reheat coils. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater
with a 30-gallon storage tank.
The baseline medium retail HVAC design includes five single zone packaged rooftop units (variable
flow and constant flow depending on the zone)with gas furnaces for heating. The SWH design
includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank.
The small hotel has two baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one
for the guest rooms.
The nonresidential HVAC design includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop
units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design include a
small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank.
The residential HVAC design includes one single zone air conditioner (AC)unit with gas
furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas water
heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.
Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary
Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
Conditioned Floor Area 53,628 24,691 42,552
Number of Stories 3 1 4
Number of Guest Rooms 0 0 78
Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11
Baseline HVAC System
Packaged DX VAV with gas
furnaces + VAV terminal
units with hot water reheat.
Central gas hot water
boilers
Single zone packaged
DX units with gas
furnaces
Nonresidential: Packaged DX VAV
with hot water coil + VAV
terminal units with hot water
reheat. Central gas hot water
boilers.
Residential:Single zone DX AC
unit with gas furnaces
Baseline Water Heating
System
30-gallon electric resistance
water heater
30-gallon electric
resistance water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon electric
resistance water heater
Residential: Central gas water
heater with recirculation loop
4 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual For the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available
at:https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
2.2 Cost Effectiveness
The Reach Code Team analyzed the cost effectiveness of the packages by applying them to building
prototypes (as applicable) using the life cycle cost methodology, which is approved and used by the
Energy Commission to establish cost effective building energy standards (Title 24, Part 6).5
Per Energy Commission’s methodology, the Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs of the
energy efficiency measure packages and compared them to the energy cost savings over the measure life
of 15 years. Incremental costs represent the equipment,installation, replacements, and maintenance
costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements. The
energy savings benefits are estimated using both TDV of energy and typical utility rates for each building
type:
Time Dependent Valuation: TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the
Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings,and it considers the cost of
electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. Simulation
outputs are translated to TDV savings benefits using 2019 TDV multipliers and 15-year discounted
costs for the nonresidential measure packages.
Utility bill impacts (On-bill): Utility energy costs are estimated by applying appropriate IOU rates
to estimated annual electricity and natural gas consumption.The energy bill savings are
calculated as the difference in utility costs between the baseline and proposed package over a 15-
year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost escalation.
In coordination with the IOU rate team, and rate experts at a few electric publicly owned utilities (POUs),
the Reach Code Team used the current nonresidential utility rates publicly available at the time of analysis
to analyze the cost effectiveness for each proposed package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Figure 3,
were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype, and the most prevalent rate in each
territory. For some prototypes there are multiple options for rates because of the varying load profiles of
mixed-fuel buildings versus all-electric buildings.Tariffs were integrated in EnergyPro software to be
applied to the hourly electricity and gas outputs. The Reach Code Team did not attempt to compare or
test a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness.
The currently available and applicable time-of–use (TOU) nonresidential rates are applied to both the
base and proposed cases with PV systems.6 Any annual electricity production in excess of annual
electricity consumption is credited at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for
that utility. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.4 Utility Rate
Schedules.Note that most utility time-of-use rates will be updated in the near future, which can affect
cost effectiveness results. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)will introduce new rates
for new service connections in late 2019, and existing accounts will be automatically rolled over to new
rates in November 2020.
5 Architectural Energy Corporation (January 2011) Life-Cycle Cost Methodology. California Energy Commission. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/2011-01-
14_LCC_Methodology_2013.pdf
6 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate
structure. As of March 2016, all new PG&E net energy metering (NEM) customers are enrolled in a time-of-use rate.
(http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tou/index.page?).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone
Climate
Zones
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use)Natural
Gas
IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E A-1/A-10 G-NR1
5 PG&E / Southern California Gas Company A-1/A-10 G-10 (GN-
10)
6,8-10,14,15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS-
2/TOU-GS-3
G-10 (GN-
10)
7,10,14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDG&E)
A-1/A-10 GN-3
Electric POUs
4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU)E-2 n/a
12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD)
GS n/a
6,7,8,16 Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP)
A-2 (B)n/a
The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs through interviews with contractors and California
distributors and review of online sources,such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor
markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance costs were not included because there is no assumed
maintenance on the envelope measures.For HVAC and SWH measures the study assumes there are no
additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline.
Replacement costs for inverters were included for PV systems, but the useful life all other equipment
exceeds the study period.
The Reach Code Team compared the energy benefits with incremental measure cost data to determine
cost effectiveness for each measure package. The calculation is performed for a duration of 15 years for
all nonresidential prototypes with a 3 percent discount rate and fuel escalation rates based on the most
recent General Rate Case filings and historical escalation rates.7 Cost effectiveness is presented using net
present value and benefit-to-cost ratio metrics.
Net Present Value (NPV): The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs)
as the cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is
considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative
energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the
measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings).
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (B/C):Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all
costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C
greater than 1.0.A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent
to the incremental cost of that measure.
7 2019 TDV Methodology Report, California Energy Commission, Docket number: 16-BSTD-06
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=216062
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
There are several special circumstances to consider when reviewing these results:
Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. However,
some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either
energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). Typically,
utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’while incremental construction costs are treated
as ‘costs.’In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative,
the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are
the ‘cost.’
In cases where a measure package is cost effective immediately (i.e., there are upfront cost
savings and lifetime energy cost savings), cost effectiveness is represented by “>1”.
The B/C ratios sometimes appear very high even though the cost numbers are not very high (for
example, an upfront cost of $1 but on-bill savings of $200 over 30 years would equate to a B/C
ratio of 200). NPV is also displayed to clarify these potentially confusing conclusions –in the
example, the NPV would be equal to a modest $199.
3 Measure Description and Cost
Using the 2019 Title 24 code baseline as the starting point, The Reach Code Team identified potential
measure packages to determine the projected energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. The
Reach Code Team developed an initial measure list based on experience with designers and contractors
along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance and preferences of many measures, as well as
their incremental costs.
The measures are categorized into energy efficiency, solar PV and battery, all-electric, and preempted
high efficiency measures in subsections below.
3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures
This section describes all the energy efficiency measures considered for this analysis to develop a non-
preempted, cost-effective efficiency measure package.The Reach Code Team assessed the cost-
effectiveness of measures for all climate zones individually and found that the packages did not need to
vary by climate zone, with the exception of a solar heat gain coefficient measure in hotels, as described in
more detail below. The measures were developed based on reviews of proposed 2022 Title 24 codes and
standards enhancement measures, as well as ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 189.1 Standards.Please refer to
Appendix Section 6.86.7 for a list of efficiency measures that were considered but not implemented.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
1 2019-07-15
Figure 4 provides a summary of the cost of each measure and the applicability of each measure to the
prototype buildings.
3.1.1 Envelope
Modify Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)fenestration
Office and Retail -All Climate Zones: reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25
to 0.22
Hotel
Climate zones 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16: Increase the SHGC for all nonresidential spaces from the
prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.45 in both common and guest room spaces.
Climate zones 4, and 6-15: Reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to
0.22, only for common spaces.
In all cases, the fenestration visible transmittance and U-factor remain at prescriptive values.
Fenestration as a function of orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of
orientation.East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average
amount of north-facing and south-facing windows.
3.1.2 HVAC and SWH
Drain water heat recovery (DWHR): Add shower drain heat recovery in hotel guest rooms. DWHR
captures waste heat from a shower drain line and uses it to preheat hot water. Note that this
measure cannot currently be modeled on hotel/motel spaces, and the Reach Code Team
integrated estimated savings outside of modeling software based on SWH savings in residential
scenarios.Please see Appendix Section 6.3 for details on energy savings analysis.
VAV box minimum flow: Reduce VAV box minimum airflows from the current T24 prescriptive
requirement of 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow to the T24 zone ventilation minimums.
Economizers on small capacity systems: Require economizers and staged fan control in units with
cooling c 3 , which matches the requirement in the 2018
International Green Construction Code and adopts ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1.
This measure reduces the T24 prescriptive threshold on air handling units that are required to
have economizers, which is > 54,000 Btu/hr.
Solar thermal hot water:For all-electric hotel only, add solar thermal water heating to supply the
following portions of the water heating load, measured in solar savings fraction (SSF):
20 percent SSF in CZs 2, 3, and 5-9
25 percent in CZ4
35 percent SSF in CZs 1 and 10-16.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
2 2019-07-15
3.1.3 Lighting
Interior lighting reduced lighting power density (LPD):Reduce LPD by 15 percent for Medium
Office,10 percent for Medium Retail and by 10 percent for the nonresidential areas of the Small
Hotel.
Institutional tuning:Limit the maximum output or maximum power draw of lighting to 85 percent
of full light output or full power draw.
Daylight dimming plus off:Turn daylight-controlled lights completely off when the daylight
available in the daylit zone is greater than 150 percent of the illuminance received from the
general lighting system at full power.There is no associated cost with this measure, as the 2019
T24 Standards already require multilevel lighting and daylight sensors in primary and secondary
daylit spaces. This measure is simply a revised control strategy and does not increase the number
of sensors required or labor to install and program a sensor.
Occupant sensing in open plan offices:In an open plan office area greater than 250 ft2, control
lighting based on occupant sensing controls.Two workstations per occupancy sensor.
Details on the applicability and impact of each measure by building type and by space function can be
found in Appendices 6.2.The appendix also includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by
building type and by space function.
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 4 . E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y M e a s u r e s - S p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d C o s t
M e a s u r e
B a s e l i n e T 2 4 R e q u i r e m e n t
M e a s u r e A p p l i c a b i l i t y
1 A , 1 B , 3 A , 3 C
I n c r e m e n t a l
C o s t
S o u r c e s & N o t e s
M e d
O f f i c e
M e d
R e t a i l
S m a l l H o t e l
G u e s t
r o o m s
C o m m
S p a c e s
E n v e l o p e
M o d i f y S H G C F e n e s t r a t i o n
S H G C o f 0 .2 5
$1 .6 0
/f t 2
w i n d o w
f o r S H G C
d e c r e a s e s , $0 /f t 2
f o r S H G C i n c r e a s e s
C o s t s f r o m o n e m a n u f a c t u r e r .
F e n e s t r a t i o n a s a F u n c t i o n
o f O r i e n t a t i o n
L i m i t o n t o t a l w i n d o w a r e a a n d
w e s t -f a c i n g w i n d o w a r e a a s a
f u n c t i o n o f w a l l a r e a .
$0
N o a d d i t i o n a l c o s t a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e m e a s u r e w h i c h i s a
d e s i g n
c o n s i d e r a t i o n n o t a n
e q u i p m e n t c o s t .
H V A C
a n d S H W
D r a i n W a t e r H e a t R e c o v e r y
N o h e a t r e c o v e r y r e q u i r e d
$8 4 1
/u n i t
A s s u m e 1 h e a t r e c o v e r y u n i t
f o r e v e r y 3 g u e s t r o o m s . C o s t s
f r o m t h r e e m a n u f a c t u r e r s .
V A V B o x M i n i m u m F l o w
2 0 p e r c e n t o f m a x i m u m
(d e s i g n ) a i r f l o w
$0
N o a d d i t i o n a l c o s t a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e m e a s u r e w h i c h i s a
d e s i g n c o n s i d e r a t i o n n o t a n
e q u i p m e n t c o s t .
E c o n o m i z e r s o n S m a l l
C a p a c i t y S y s t e m s
E c o n o m i z e r s r e q u i r e d f o r u n i t s
> 5 4 ,0 0 0 B t u /h r
$2 ,8 5 7 /u n i t
C o s t s f r o m o n e m a n u f a c t u r e r ’s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d o n e
m e c h a n i c a l c o n t r a c t o r .
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
M e a s u r e
B a s e l i n e T 2 4 R e q u i r e m e n t
M e a s u r e A p p l i c a b i l i t y
1 A , 1 B , 3 A , 3 C
I n c r e m e n t a l
C o s t
S o u r c e s & N o t e s
M e d
O f f i c e
M e d
R e t a i l
S m a l l H o t e l
G u e s t
r o o m s
C o m m
S p a c e s
S o l a r T h e r m a l H o t W a t e r
F o r c e n t r a l h e a t p u m p w a t e r
h e a t e r s , t h e r e i s n o p r e s c r i p t i v e
b a s e l i n e r e q u i r e m e n t .
(e l e c t r i c
o n l y )
$3 3 /t h e r m -y r
I n s t a l l e d c o s t s r e p o r t e d i n t h e
C a l i f o r n i a S o l a r I n i t i a t i v e
T h e r m a l P r o g r a m D a t a b a s e ,
2 0 1 5 -p r e s e n t .
8
C o s t s i n c l u d e
t a n k a n d w e r e o n l y a v a i l a b l e
f o r g a s b a c k u p s y s t e m s . C o s t s
a r e r e d u c e d b y 1 9 p e r c e n t p e r
f e d e r a l i n c o m e t a x c r e d i t
a v e r a g e t h r o u g h 2 0 2 2 .
L i g h t i n g
I n t e r i o r L i g h t i n g R e d u c e d
L P D
P e r A r e a C a t e g o r y M e t h o d ,
v a r i e s b y P r i m a r y F u n c t i o n
A r e a . O f f i c e a r e a 0 .6 0 –
0 .7 0
W /f t 2
d e p e n d i n g o n a r e a o f
s p a c e . H o t e l f u n c t i o n a r e a 0 .8 5
W /f t 2 . R e t a i l M e r c h a n d i s e S a l e s
1 .0 0 W /f t 2
$0
I n d u s t r y r e p o r t o n L E D p r i c i n g
a n a l y s i s s h o w s t h a t c o s t s a r e
n o t c o r r e l a t e d w i t h e f f i c a c y .
9
8
h t t p ://w w w .c s i t h e r m a l s t a t s .o r g /d o w n l o a d .h t m l
9
h t t p ://c a l m a c .o r g /p u b l i c a t i o n s /L E D _P r i c i n g _A n a l y s i s _R e p o r t _-_R e v i s e d _1 .1 9 .2 0 1 8 _F i n a l .p d f
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
M e a s u r e
B a s e l i n e T 2 4 R e q u i r e m e n t
M e a s u r e A p p l i c a b i l i t y
1 A , 1 B , 3 A , 3 C
I n c r e m e n t a l
C o s t
S o u r c e s & N o t e s
M e d
O f f i c e
M e d
R e t a i l
S m a l l H o t e l
G u e s t
r o o m s
C o m m
S p a c e s
I n s t i t u t i o n a l T u n i n g
N o
r e q u i r e m e n t , b u t
P o w e r
A d j u s t m e n t F a c t o r (P A F )
c r e d i t
o f 0 .1 0 a v a i l a b l e f o r l u m i n a i r e s
i n n o n -d a y l i t a r e a s a n d 0 .0 5 f o r
l u m i n a i r e s i n d a y l i t a r e a s
1 0
$0 .0 6 /f t 2
I n d u s t r y r e p o r t o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l
t u n i n g 1 1
D a y l i g h t D i m m i n g P l u s O f f
N o r e q u i r e m e n t , b u t P A F c r e d i t
o f 0 .1 0
a v a i l a b l e .
$0
G i v e n t h e a m o u n t o f l i g h t i n g
c o n t r o l s a l r e a d y r e q u i r e d , t h i s
m e a s u r e i s n o a d d i t i o n a l c o s t .
O c c u p a n t S e n s i n g i n O p e n
P l a n O f f i c e s
N o r e q u i r e m e n t , b u t P A F c r e d i t
o f
0 .3 0
a v a i l a b l e .
$1 8 9
/s e n s o r ; $7 4
/p o w e r e d r e l a y ;
$1 0 8
/s e c o n d a r y
r e l a y
2 w o r k s t a t i o n s p e r s e n s o r ;
1 f i x t u r e p e r w o r k s t a t i o n ;
4 w o r k s t a t i o n s p e r m a s t e r
r e l a y ;
1 2 0 f t 2 /w o r k s t a t i o n i n o p e n
o f f i c e a r e a , w h i c h i s 5 3 % o f
t o t a l f l o o r a r e a o f t h e m e d i u m
o f f i c e
1 0
P o w e r A d j u s t m e n t F a c t o r s a l l o w d e s i g n e r s t o t r a d e o f f i n c r e a s e d l i g h t i n g p o w e r d e n s i t i e s f o r m o r e e f f i c i e n t d e s i g n s . I n t h i s s t u d y , P A F -r e l a t e d m e a s u r e s
a s s u m e t h a t t h e m o r e e f f i c i e n t d e s i g n i s i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h o u t a t r a d e o f f f o r i n c r e a s e d l i g h t i n g p o w e r d e n s i t y .
1 1
h t t p s ://s l i p s t r e a m i n c .o r g /s i t e s /d e f a u l t /f i l e s /2 0 1 8 -1 2 /t a s k -t u n i n g -r e p o r t -m n d o c -2 0 1 5 .p d f
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
6 2019-07-15
3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures
This section describes the PV and battery measures considered for this analysis. The Reach Code Team
estimated the required PV sizes for each building prototype for the efficiency measure packages and the
stand alone PV and battery options.
3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics
2019 Title 24 requires nonresidential buildings to reserve at least 15 percent of the roof area as a “solar
zone,” but does not include any requirements or compliance credits for the installation of photovoltaic
systems. The Reach Code Team analyzed a range of PV system sizes to determine cost effectiveness. To
determine upper end of potential PV system size, the Reach Code Team assumed a PV generation capacity
of either
15 W/ft2 covering 50 percent of the roof area, or
Enough to nearly offset the annual energy consumption.
The medium office and small hotel prototypes had small roof areas compared to their annual electricity
demand, thus the PV system capacity at 50 percent of the roof area was less than the estimated annual
usage. The medium office and small hotel had a 135 kW and 80 kW array, respectively.The medium retail
building has a substantially large roof area that would accommodate a PV array that generates more than
the annual electricity load of the building. The PV array for the medium retail building was sized at 110 kW
to not exceed the annual electricity consumption of the building when accounting for the minimum
annual energy demand across climate zones with efficiency packages.
The modeling software for nonresidential buildings does not allow auto-sizing of PV based on a desired
percent offset of electricity use. Moreover, the PV size is also constrained by the availability of roof area.
Hence, a common size of PV is modeled for all the packages including all electric design. Figure 5 through
Figure 7 below demonstrate the percent of electricity offset by PV for both mixed fuel and all electric
buildings over their respective federal minimum design package.
Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Medium Office -Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed-Fuel All-Electric
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
7 2019-07-15
Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array
Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array
The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs,and
annual maintenance costs. A summary of the medium office costs and sources is given in Figure 8.
Upfront solar PV system costs are reduced by the federal income tax credit (ITC), approximately 19
percent due to a phased reduction in the credit through the year 2022.12
12 The federal credit drops to 26% in 2020, and 22% in 2021 before dropping permanently to 10% for commercial projects and 0%
for residential projects in 2022. More information on federal Investment Tax Credits available at:
https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-investment-tax-credit-itc
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Medium Retail -Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed fuel All electric
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Climate Zone
Small Hotel -Percent kWh Offset by PV
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
8 2019-07-15
Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs
Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.)Source
Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)Q1 2016 13
Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report 14
Maintenance Costs $0.02 / Wdc $2,700 1
PV energy output is built into CBECC-Com and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long
term performance degradation estimates.15
3.2.2 Battery Storage
This measure includes installation of batteries to allow energy generated through PV to be stored and
used later, providing additional energy cost benefits. This report does not focus on optimizing battery
sizes or controls for each prototype and climate zone, though the Reach Code Team ran test simulations
to assess the impact of battery sizes on TDV savings and found diminishing returns as the battery size
increased.
The team set battery control to the Time of Use Control (TOU) method, which assumes batteries are
charged anytime PV generation is greater than the building load but discharges to the electric grid
beginning during the highest priced hours of the day (the “First Hour of the Summer Peak”).Because
there is no default hour available in CBECC-Com, the team applied the default hour available in CBECC-Res
to start discharging (hour 19 in CZs 2,4,and 8-15, and hour 20 in other CZs). This control option is most
reflective of the current products on the market. While this control strategy is being used in the analysis,
there would be no mandate on the control strategy used in practice.
The current simulation software has approximations of how performance characteristics change with
environmental conditions, charge/discharge rates, and degradation with age and use. More information is
on the software battery control capabilities and associated qualification requirements are available in the
Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual and the 2019 Reference Appendices for the
2019 Title 24 Standards.16,17
The Reach Code Team used costs of $558 kWh based on a 2018 IOU Codes and Standards Program report,
assuming a replacement is necessary in year 15.18 Batteries are also eligible for the ITC if they are installed
at the same time as the renewable generation source and at least 75 percent of the energy used to charge
13 Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf
14 Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366
15 More information available at: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/downloads/pvwattsv5.pdf
16 Battery controls are discussed in Sections 2.1.5.4 and Appendix D of the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference
Manual, available here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf
17 Qualification Requirements for Battery Storage Systems are available in JA12 of the 2019 Reference Appendices:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-021-CMF.pdf
18 Available at: http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
9 2019-07-15
the battery comes from a renewable source.Thus, the Reach Code Team also applied a 19 percent cost
reduction to battery costs.
3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages
The Reach Code Team analyzed solar PV and battery storage only, without other efficiency measures in
both mixed-fuel and all-electric building designs. Two different sizes of solar PV and battery storage were
analyzed.
Small PV Size: 3 kW, assumed to be the minimal PV system considered for installation in a
nonresidential building.
Large PV Size: PV capacity equal to 15 W/ft2 over 50 percent of the roof area, or sized to nearly
offset annual electricity consumption, as described in Section 3.2.1.
Small Battery Size:5 kWh, assumed to be the minimal battery system considered for installation
in a nonresidential building, and representative of smaller products currently available on the
market.
Large Battery Size:50 kWh, assumed to be a substantially large size for a nonresidential setting.
Generally, the reach code team found diminishing on-bill and TDV benefits as the battery size
increased.
As described in Section 1 and Section 4.4, each PV size was run as a standalone measure. When packaged
with a battery measure, the small PV size was paired with the small battery size, and the large PV size was
paired with the large battery size.
3.3 All Electric Measures
The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs
associated with changing the baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment. This
includes heat pump space heating, electric resistance reheat coils, electric water heater with storage tank,
heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that
would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction. The Reach Code Team selected electric systems
that would be installed instead of gas-fueled systems in each prototype.
3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating
The nonresidential standards use a mixed-fuel baseline for the Standard Design systems. In most
nonresidential occupancies, the baseline is natural gas space heating. Hotel/motels and high-rise
residential occupancies also assume natural gas baseline water heating systems for the guest rooms and
dwelling units. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving these end-uses is replaced with electric
equipment, as described in Figure 9.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
10 2019-07-15
Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary.
Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
HVAC
System
Baseline
Packaged DX + VAV
with HW reheat.
Central gas boilers.
Single zone
packaged DX with
gas furnaces
NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with
HW reheat. Central gas boilers.
Res:Single zone DX AC unit with
gas furnaces
Proposed All-
Electric
Packaged DX + VAV
with electric
resistance reheat.
Single zone
packaged heat
pumps
NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with
electric resistance reheat
Res: Single zone heat pumps
Water
Heating
System
Baseline Electric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance
with storage
NonRes: Electric resistance
storage
Res: Central gas storage with
recirculation
Proposed All-
Electric
Electric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance
with storage
NonRes: Electric resistance
storage
Res: Individual heat pumps
The Reach Code Team received cost data for baseline mixed-fuel equipment as well as electric equipment
from an experienced mechanical contractor in the San Francisco Bay Area. The total construction cost
includes equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems),
and contractor overhead.
3.3.1.1 Medium Office
The baseline HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units, and VAV hot
water reheat boxes. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-
gallon storage tank.
For the medium office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential all-
electric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume
and temperature systems. After seeking feedback from the design community, the Reach Code Team
determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system, given the software modeling constraints is a
VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box
(PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat would further improve efficiency due to reducing
ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in
compliance software.
Note that the actual natural gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than
the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent
research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use.19
19 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and
Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
11 2019-07-15
If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated
distribution loss) may be higher.
The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no
associated incremental costs.
Cost data for medium office designs are presented in Figure 10.The all-electric HVAC system presents
cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and
associated hot water piping distribution.CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher
because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other climate zones.
Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs
Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost
for All-Electric
CZ01 $1,202,538 $1,106,432 $(96,106)
CZ02 $1,261,531 $1,178,983 $(82,548)
CZ03 $1,205,172 $1,113,989 $(91,183)
CZ04 $1,283,300 $1,205,434 $(77,865)
CZ05 $1,207,345 $1,113,989 $(93,356)
CZ06 $1,216,377 $1,131,371 $(85,006)
CZ07 $1,227,932 $1,148,754 $(79,178)
CZ08 $1,250,564 $1,172,937 $(77,626)
CZ09 $1,268,320 $1,196,365 $(71,955)
CZ10 $1,313,580 $1,256,825 $(56,755)
CZ11 $1,294,145 $1,221,305 $(72,840)
CZ12 $1,274,317 $1,197,121 $(77,196)
CZ13 $1,292,884 $1,221,305 $(71,579)
CZ14 $1,286,245 $1,212,236 $(74,009)
CZ15 $1,357,023 $1,311,994 $(45,029)
CZ16 $1,295,766 $1,222,817 $(72,949)
3.3.1.2 Medium Retail
The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan
have variable air
volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW
electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank.
For the medium retail all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps
instead of the packaged ACs.The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water
heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs.
Cost data for medium retail designs are presented in Figure 11.Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems
are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
12 2019-07-15
Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs
Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost
for All-Electric
CZ01 $328,312 $333,291 $4,978
CZ02 $373,139 $373,702 $563
CZ03 $322,849 $326,764 $3,915
CZ04 $329,900 $335,031 $5,131
CZ05 $359,888 $362,408 $2,520
CZ06 $335,728 $341,992 $6,265
CZ07 $345,544 $349,808 $4,265
CZ08 $368,687 $369,792 $1,104
CZ09 $415,155 $411,069 $(4,087)
CZ10 $345,993 $346,748 $755
CZ11 $418,721 $414,546 $(4,175)
CZ12 $405,110 $400,632 $(4,477)
CZ13 $376,003 $375,872 $(131)
CZ14 $405,381 $406,752 $1,371
CZ15 $429,123 $427,606 $(1,517)
CZ16 $401,892 $404,147 $2,256
3.3.1.3 Small Hotel
The small hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one
for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged
rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small
electric water heater with storage tank. The residential HVAC design includes one single zone AC unit with
gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water
heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.
For the small hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to
be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system to remain a
small electric resistance water heater.
For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the analysis used a single zone (packaged terminal) heat
pump and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. Central heat pump water heating
with recirculation serving guest rooms cannot yet be modeled in CBECC-Com, and energy impacts were
modeled by simulating individual heat pump water heaters in each guest room. The reach code team
believes this is a conservative assumption, since individual heat pump water heaters will have much
higher tank standby losses. The Reach Code Team attained costs for central heat pump water heating
installation including storage tanks and controls and used these costs in the study.
Cost data for small hotel designs are presented in Figure 12.The all-electric design presents substantial
cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential
spaces, as well as the lower cost of packaged terminal heat pumps serving the residential spaces
compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
13 2019-07-15
Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs
Climate Zone Mixed Fuel
Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost
for All-Electric
CZ01 $2,337,531 $1,057,178 $(1,280,353)
CZ02 $2,328,121 $1,046,795 $(1,281,326)
CZ03 $2,294,053 $1,010,455 $(1,283,598)
CZ04 $2,302,108 $1,018,675 $(1,283,433)
CZ05 $2,298,700 $1,015,214 $(1,283,486)
CZ06 $2,295,380 $1,011,753 $(1,283,627)
CZ07 $2,308,004 $1,026,029 $(1,281,975)
CZ08 $2,333,662 $1,053,717 $(1,279,946)
CZ09 $2,312,099 $1,030,355 $(1,281,744)
CZ10 $2,354,093 $1,075,348 $(1,278,745)
CZ11 $2,347,980 $1,068,426 $(1,279,554)
CZ12 $2,328,654 $1,047,660 $(1,280,994)
CZ13 $2,348,225 $1,068,858 $(1,279,367)
CZ14 $2,345,988 $1,066,263 $(1,279,725)
CZ15 $2,357,086 $1,079,241 $(1,277,845)
CZ16 $2,304,094 $1,019,973 $(1,284,121)
3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts
Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent
natural gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat.
Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas
appliances.This includes:
Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small
hotel.
Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel.
3.3.2.1 Electrical Panel Sizing and Wiring
This section details the additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric measures. In an
all-electric new construction scenario, heat pumps replace packaged DX units which are paired with either
a gas furnace or a hot water coil (supplied by a gas boiler). The electrical requirements of the replacement
heat pump would be the same as the packaged DX unit it replaces, as the electrical requirements would
be driven by the cooling capacity, which would remain the same between the two units.
VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils that are replaced with electric resistance reheat coils
require additional electrical infrastructure. In the case of electric resistance coils, the Reach Code Team
assumed that on average, a VAV terminal unit serves around 900 ft2 of conditioned space and has a
heating capacity of 5 kW (15 kBtu/hr/ft2). The incremental electrical infrastructure costs were determined
based on RS Means. Calculations for the medium office shown in Figure 13 include the cost to add
electrical panels as well as the cost to add electrical lines to each VAV terminal unit electric resistance coil
in the medium office prototype. Additionally, the Reach Code Team subtracted the electrical
infrastructure costs associated with hot water pumps required in the mixed fuel baseline, which are not
required in the all-electric measures.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
14 2019-07-15
The Reach Code Team calculated costs to increase electrical capacity for heat pump water heaters in the
small hotel similarly.
Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design
A -No. VAV Boxes 60
B -VAV box heating capacity (watts)4,748
C -No. hot water pumps 2
D -Hot water pump power (watts)398
E -Voltage 208
F (AxB -CxD)/E Panel ampacity required 1,366
G F/400 Number of 400-amp panels required 4
H -Cost per 400-amp panel $3,100
I GxH Total panel cost $12,400
J -Total electrical line length required (ft) 4,320
K -Cost per linear foot of electrical line $3.62
L JxK Total electrical line cost $15,402
I + L Total electrical infrastructure incremental cost $27,802
3.3.2.2 Natural Gas
This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction scenario natural gas would not be supplied
to the site. Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a
service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building,and monthly
connection charges by the utility.
The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a
service line (branch connection)from the natural gas main to the building meter. In the medium office
prototype, natural gas piping is routed to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed that the boiler is on
the first floor, and that 30 feet of piping is required from the connection to the main to the boiler. The
Reach Code Team assumed 1” corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing
distribution.The Reach Code Team included costs for a natural gas plan review, service extension, and a
gas meter, as shown in Figure 14 below. The natural gas plan review cost is based on information received
from the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The meter costs are from PG&E and include both material and labor.
The service extension costs are based on guidance from PG&E, who noted that the cost range is highly
varied and that there is no “typical” cost, with costs being highly dependent on length of extension,
terrain, whether the building is in a developed or undeveloped area, and number of buildings to be
served.While an actual service extension cost is highly uncertain, the team believes the costs assumed in
this analysis are within a reasonable range based on a sample range of costs provided by PG&E.These
costs assume development in a previously developed area.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
15 2019-07-15
Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes
Cost Type Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel
Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $2,316 $2,316
Service Extension $13,000 $13,000 $13,000
Meter $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Plumbing Distribution $633 $9,711 $37,704
Total Cost $18,949 $28,027 $56,020
3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances
The Reach Code Team developed a package of high efficiency (HE) space and water heating appliances
based on commonly available products for both the mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios.This package
assesses the standalone contribution that high efficiency measures would make toward achieving high
performance thresholds. The Reach Code Team reviewed the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) certified product database to estimate appropriate efficiencies.20
The Reach Code Team determined the efficiency increases to be appropriate based on equipment type,
summarized in Figure 15, with cost premiums attained from a Bay Area mechanical contractor. The ranges
in efficiency are indicative of varying federal standard requirements based on equipment size.
Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions
Federal Minimum Efficiency Preempted Efficiency Cost Premium for
HE Appliance
Gas space heating and
water heating 80-82%90-95%10-15%
Large packaged rooftop
cooling
9.8-12 EER
11.4-12.9 IEER
10.5-13 EER
15-15.5 IEER
10-15%
Single zone heat pump
space heating
7.7 HSPF
3.2 COP
10 HSPF
3.5 COP
6-15%
Heat pump water heating 2.0 UEF 3.3 UEF None (market does
not carry 2.0 UEF)
3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates from Zero Code reports available in
CBECC-Com.21 Zero Code uses 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and
carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Fugitive
20 Available at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome?ReturnUrl=%2f
21 More information available at: https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
16 2019-07-15
emissions are not included. There are two strings of multipliers –one for Northern California climate
zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.22
4 Results
The Reach Code Team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixed-
fuel code compliant baseline for all climate zones, as detailed in Sections 4.1 --4.3 and reiterated in Figure
16:
Package 1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal
minimum appliance efficiencies.
Package 1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries.
Package 1C –Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering
federal preemption.
Package 2 –All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code
minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery.
Package 3A –All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal
minimum appliance efficiencies.
Package 3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.
Package 3C –All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering
federal preemption.
Figure 16. Package Summary
Package
Fuel Type Energy
Efficiency
Measures
PV & Battery
(PV + B)
High Efficiency
Appliances
(HE)Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Mixed-Fuel Code Minimum
Baseline X
1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE X X
1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B X X X
1C –Mixed-fuel + HE X X
2 –All-Electric Federal Code-
Minimum Reference X
3A –All-Electric + EE X X
3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B X X X
3C –All-Electric + HE X X
22 CBECC-Com documentation does not state which climate zones fall under which region. CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for
CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed
to be Southern California).
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
17 2019-07-15
Section 4.4 presents the results of the PV-only and PV+Battery analysis.
The TDV and on-bill based cost effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV in this
section.What constitutes a ‘benefit’or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and
incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings
are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where
both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are
treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are as the ‘cost.’
Overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include:
To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes must both be cost
effective and exceed the energy performance budget using TDV (i.e., have a positive compliance
margin). To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this Section highlight in green
the modeling results that have either a positive compliance margin or are cost effective.This will
allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and
the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Conversely, Section 4.4 only highlights
results that both have a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, to allow readers to
identify reach code-ready scenarios.
Note:Compliance margin represents the proportion of energy usage that is saved compared
to the baseline, measured on a TDV basis.
The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for either solar PV or battery
storage. Thus, the compliance margins in Packages 1A are the same as 1B,and Package 3A is the
same as 3B.However, The Reach Code Team did include the impact of solar PV and battery when
calculating TDV cost-effectiveness.
When performance modeling residential buildings, the Energy Commission allows the Standard
Design to be electric if the Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and
associated negative compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for all-
electric residential buildings. Nonresidential buildings are not treated in the same way and are
compared to a mixed-fuel standard design.
Results do not include an analysis and comparison of utility rates. As mentioned in Section 2.2,
The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the
annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach
Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness.
Note that most utility time-of-use rates are continuously updated,which can affect cost
effectiveness results.
As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 6.5.
4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office
Figure 17 through Figure 23 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages.
Notable findings for each package include:
1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE: Packages achieve +12 to +20 percent compliance margins depending on
climate zone.All packages are cost effective in all climate zones using the TDV approach.All
packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach except for LADWP territory.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
18 2019-07-15
1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B:All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV
approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. When compared to 1A, the B/C ratio changes
depending on the utility and climate zone (some increase while others decrease). However, NPV
savings are increased across the board, suggesting that larger investments yield larger returns.
1C –Mixed-Fuel + HE:Packages achieve +3 to +5 percent compliance margins depending on
climate zone, but no packages were cost effective.The incremental costs of a high efficiency
condensing boiler compared to a non-condensing boiler contributes to 26-47% of total
incremental cost depending on boiler size. Benefits of condensing boiler efficiency come from
resetting hot water return temperature as boiler efficiency increases at lower hot water
temperature. However,hot water temperature reset control cannot currently be implemented in
the software. In addition, the natural gas energy cost constitutes no more than 5% of total cost
for 15 climate zones, so improving boiler efficiency has limited contribution to reduction of total
energy cost.
2 –All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:
Packages achieve between -27 percent and +1 percent compliance margins depending on
climate zone. This is likely because the modeled system is electric resistance, and TDV values
electricity consumption more heavily than natural gas. This all-electric design without other
efficiency measures does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance budget.
All incremental costs are negative due to the elimination of natural gas infrastructure.
Packages achieve utility cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach in CZs 6-
10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve savings and are not cost effective using the On-Bill
approach in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1,2,4, 11-13, and 16). Packages achieve savings and
are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16.
3A –All-Electric + EE:Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent in CZ16,
which has a higher space heating load than other climate zones.All packages are cost effective in
all climate zones except CZ16.
3B –All-Electric + EE + PV +B:Packages achieve positive compliance margins except -15 percent
in CZ16. All packages are cost-effective from a TDV perspective in all climate zones. All packages
are cost effective from an On-Bill perspective in all climate zones except in CZ 2 and CZ 16 in
LADWP territory.
3C –All-Electric + HE:Packages achieve between -26 percent and +2 percent compliance margins
depending on climate zone. The only packages that are cost effective and with a positive
compliance margin are in CZs 7-9 and 15.As described in Package 1C results, space heating is a
relatively low proportion of energy costs in most climate zones, limiting the costs gains for higher
efficiency equipment.
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
1 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 1 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 1 A – M i x e d -F u e l + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G R e d u c -
t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V
(O n -b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 A : M i x e d F u e l
+ E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 4 ,4 2 1
-8 0 8
4 .5
1 8 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 2 5 ,9 0 2
$7 1 ,3 0 7
1 .9
1 .1
$5 9 ,2 5 3
$4 ,6 5 8
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 0 ,9 8 5
-5 0 5
8 .1
1 7 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 6 3 ,6 5 5
$9 9 ,1 8 1
2 .5
1 .5
$9 7 ,0 0 5
$3 2 ,5 3 2
C Z 0 3
P G &E
3 6 ,2 6 6
-4 6 3
7 .0
2 0 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 4 1 ,8 9 7
$8 4 ,0 5 1
2 .1
1 .3
$7 5 ,2 4 8
$1 7 ,4 0 1
C Z 0 4
P G &E
4 0 ,5 9 0
-5 4 7
7 .7
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 6 2 ,1 3 9
$9 5 ,4 1 0
2 .4
1 .4
$9 5 ,4 8 9
$2 8 ,7 6 1
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 0 ,5 9 0
-5 4 7
7 .7
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$8 5 ,5 3 7
$9 5 ,4 1 0
1 .3
1 .4
$1 8 ,8 8 7
$2 8 ,7 6 1
C Z 0 5
P G &E
3 8 ,8 8 8
-4 9 9
7 .4
1 8 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 5 4 ,0 4 4
$9 1 ,1 1 5
2 .3
1 .4
$8 7 ,3 9 5
$2 4 ,4 6 5
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
3 8 ,8 8 8
-4 9 9
7 .4
1 8 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 5 6 ,3 1 5
$9 1 ,1 1 5
2 .3
1 .4
$8 9 ,6 6 5
$2 4 ,4 6 5
C Z 0 6
S C E
3 9 ,5 7 9
-3 0 5
8 .7
2 0 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$8 6 ,3 9 0
$1 0 0 ,4 6 9
1 .3
1 .5
$1 9 ,7 4 1
$3 3 ,8 2 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
3 9 ,5 7 9
-3 0 5
8 .7
2 0 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$5 1 ,8 2 8
$1 0 0 ,4 6 9
0 .8
1 .5
($1 4 ,8 2 1 )
$3 3 ,8 2 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 1 ,8 1 7
-6
1 1 .3
2 0 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$2 0 4 ,3 9 4
$1 1 2 ,4 9 7
3 .1
1 .7
$1 3 7 ,7 4 5
$4 5 ,8 4 8
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 1 ,6 3 7
-6 0
1 0 .8
1 8 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$8 9 ,7 8 3
$1 1 3 ,7 8 6
1 .3
1 .7
$2 3 ,1 3 4
$4 7 ,1 3 7
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
4 1 ,6 3 7
-6 0
1 0 .8
1 8 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$5 4 ,8 7 6
$1 1 3 ,7 8 6
0 .8
1 .7
($1 1 ,7 7 3 )
$4 7 ,1 3 7
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 2 ,5 3 9
-2 1 0
1 0 .1
1 6 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$9 5 ,6 3 6
$1 1 5 ,6 4 7
1 .4
1 .7
$2 8 ,9 8 7
$4 8 ,9 9 8
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
4 2 ,5 3 9
-2 1 0
1 0 .1
1 6 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$5 8 ,1 6 8
$1 1 5 ,6 4 7
0 .9
1 .7
($8 ,4 8 1 )
$4 8 ,9 9 8
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 1 ,8 5 7
-2 1 6
9 .8
1 7 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$2 1 0 ,3 0 3
$1 0 8 ,7 2 6
3 .2
1 .6
$1 4 3 ,6 5 4
$4 2 ,0 7 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 1 ,8 5 7
-2 1 6
9 .8
1 7 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$9 2 ,7 3 6
$1 0 8 ,7 2 6
1 .4
1 .6
$2 6 ,0 8 7
$4 2 ,0 7 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 2 ,5 2 3
-3 9 0
9 .1
1 3 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 6 6 ,9 5 1
$1 0 4 ,0 0 1
2 .5
1 .6
$1 0 0 ,3 0 1
$3 7 ,3 5 2
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 1 ,5 2 1
-4 6 6
8 .4
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 6 1 ,5 9 4
$1 0 0 ,1 3 5
2 .4
1 .5
$9 4 ,9 4 5
$3 3 ,4 8 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 1 ,5 2 1
-4 6 6
8 .4
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$7 1 ,7 3 4
$1 0 0 ,1 3 5
1 .1
1 .5
$5 ,0 8 5
$3 3 ,4 8 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 2 ,8 9 8
-4 3 4
9 .0
1 3 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 6 9 ,1 0 7
$9 9 ,9 9 2
2 .5
1 .5
$1 0 2 ,4 5 7
$3 3 ,3 4 3
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
4 2 ,2 2 4
-4 4 1
8 .6
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$2 1 1 ,5 2 9
$1 0 6 ,9 1 3
3 .2
1 .6
$1 4 4 ,8 8 0
$4 0 ,2 6 4
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
4 2 ,2 2 4
-4 4 1
8 .6
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$9 5 ,8 0 9
$1 0 6 ,9 1 3
1 .4
1 .6
$2 9 ,1 6 0
$4 0 ,2 6 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
4 5 ,7 2 3
-1 4 7
1 1 .2
1 2 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 0 2 ,7 1 4
$1 1 8 ,0 3 4
1 .5
1 .8
$3 6 ,0 6 5
$5 1 ,3 8 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
3 7 ,7 5 8
-7 3 6
5 .8
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$1 4 5 ,9 4 7
$7 9 ,7 5 5
2 .2
1 .2
$7 9 ,2 9 7
$1 3 ,1 0 6
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
3 7 ,7 5 8
-7 3 6
5 .8
1 4 %
$6 6 ,6 4 9
$4 0 ,1 1 5
$7 9 ,7 5 5
0 .6
1 .2
($2 6 ,5 3 4 )
$1 3 ,1 0 6
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 1 8 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 1 B – M i x e d -F u e l + E E + P V + B
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n (%)
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + P V + B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
2 1 1 ,2 2 5
-8 0 8
3 9 .9
1 8 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$6 4 5 ,0 1 0
$4 5 4 ,2 8 4
1 .6
1 .1
$2 4 7 ,6 0 5
$5 6 ,8 7 9
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 5 5 ,7 8 7
-5 0 5
5 0 .6
1 7 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 1 9 ,3 0 7
$5 7 3 ,0 3 3
2 .1
1 .4
$4 2 1 ,9 0 2
$1 7 5 ,6 2 8
C Z 0 3
P G &E
2 4 5 ,4 2 1
-4 6 3
4 8 .8
2 0 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$7 7 7 ,1 5 6
$5 3 6 ,3 3 0
2 .0
1 .3
$3 7 9 ,7 5 1
$1 3 8 ,9 2 5
C Z 0 4
P G &E
2 6 7 ,6 1 2
-5 4 7
5 2 .7
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 3 6 ,2 2 1
$5 9 7 ,4 7 1
2 .1
1 .5
$4 3 8 ,8 1 6
$2 0 0 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
2 6 7 ,6 1 2
-5 4 7
5 2 .7
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$6 2 1 ,8 7 9
$5 9 7 ,4 7 1
1 .6
1 .5
$2 2 4 ,4 7 4
$2 0 0 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 6 4 ,5 8 1
-4 9 9
5 2 .5
1 8 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 9 7 ,2 1 6
$5 7 8 ,8 5 6
2 .3
1 .5
$4 9 9 ,8 1 1
$1 8 1 ,4 5 1
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
2 6 4 ,5 8 1
-4 9 9
5 2 .5
1 8 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 9 9 ,4 8 7
$5 7 8 ,8 5 6
2 .3
1 .5
$5 0 2 ,0 8 2
$1 8 1 ,4 5 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 5 7 ,4 7 4
-3 0 5
5 2 .1
2 0 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 8 4 ,2 2 9
$5 9 4 ,4 1 6
1 .2
1 .5
$8 6 ,8 2 4
$1 9 7 ,0 1 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
2 5 7 ,4 7 4
-3 0 5
5 2 .1
2 0 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$2 8 2 ,3 6 0
$5 9 4 ,4 1 6
0 .7
1 .5
($1 1 5 ,0 4 5 )
$1 9 7 ,0 1 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 6 4 ,5 3 0
-6
5 5 .7
2 0 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 1 7 ,5 2 8
$6 1 0 ,5 4 8
2 .1
1 .5
$4 2 0 ,1 2 3
$2 1 3 ,1 4 3
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 5 8 ,3 4 8
-6 0
5 4 .0
1 8 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 7 9 ,0 7 3
$6 2 5 ,2 4 9
1 .2
1 .6
$8 1 ,6 6 8
$2 2 7 ,8 4 4
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
2 5 8 ,3 4 8
-6 0
5 4 .0
1 8 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$2 7 5 ,7 0 4
$6 2 5 ,2 4 9
0 .7
1 .6
($1 2 1 ,7 0 1 )
$2 2 7 ,8 4 4
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 6 2 ,0 8 5
-2 1 0
5 4 .3
1 6 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 8 0 ,2 4 1
$6 2 2 ,5 2 8
1 .2
1 .6
$8 2 ,8 3 6
$2 2 5 ,1 2 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
2 6 2 ,0 8 5
-2 1 0
5 4 .3
1 6 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$2 8 2 ,2 0 9
$6 2 2 ,5 2 8
0 .7
1 .6
($1 1 5 ,1 9 6 )
$2 2 5 ,1 2 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
2 5 8 ,5 4 8
-2 1 6
5 3 .4
1 7 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 3 9 ,9 3 1
$5 9 5 ,3 2 3
2 .1
1 .5
$4 4 2 ,5 2 6
$1 9 7 ,9 1 8
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 5 8 ,5 4 8
-2 1 6
5 3 .4
1 7 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 8 5 ,5 2 3
$5 9 5 ,3 2 3
1 .2
1 .5
$8 8 ,1 1 8
$1 9 7 ,9 1 8
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 5 3 ,6 2 3
-3 9 0
5 0 .9
1 3 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 2 6 ,0 7 6
$5 8 5 ,6 8 2
2 .1
1 .5
$4 2 8 ,6 7 1
$1 8 8 ,2 7 7
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 5 2 ,8 6 8
-4 6 6
5 0 .3
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 0 2 ,7 1 5
$5 8 2 ,8 6 6
2 .0
1 .5
$4 0 5 ,3 1 0
$1 8 5 ,4 6 1
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 5 2 ,8 6 8
-4 6 6
5 0 .3
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 1 5 ,5 9 7
$5 8 2 ,8 6 6
1 .0
1 .5
$1 8 ,1 9 2
$1 8 5 ,4 6 1
C Z 1 3
P G &E
2 5 0 ,9 1 5
-4 3 4
5 0 .4
1 3 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 0 6 ,4 0 1
$5 7 3 ,6 0 6
2 .0
1 .4
$4 0 8 ,9 9 6
$1 7 6 ,2 0 1
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 8 3 ,6 8 4
-4 4 1
5 6 .4
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 7 4 ,7 5 3
$6 7 6 ,2 7 1
2 .2
1 .7
$4 7 7 ,3 4 8
$2 7 8 ,8 6 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 8 3 ,6 8 4
-4 4 1
5 6 .4
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 9 3 ,8 8 8
$6 7 6 ,2 7 1
1 .2
1 .7
$9 6 ,4 8 3
$2 7 8 ,8 6 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 7 4 ,7 7 1
-1 4 7
5 6 .0
1 2 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$4 7 6 ,3 2 7
$6 4 0 ,3 7 9
1 .2
1 .6
$7 8 ,9 2 2
$2 4 2 ,9 7 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 6 6 ,4 9 0
-7 3 6
5 1 .8
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$8 4 2 ,2 0 5
$5 7 5 ,5 6 3
2 .1
1 .4
$4 4 4 ,8 0 0
$1 7 8 ,1 5 8
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
2 6 6 ,4 9 0
-7 3 6
5 1 .8
1 4 %
$3 9 7 ,4 0 5
$2 6 0 ,3 7 2
$5 7 5 ,5 6 3
0 .7
1 .4
($1 3 7 ,0 3 3 )
$1 7 8 ,1 5 8
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 1 9 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 1 C – M i x e d -F u e l + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 C : M i x e d F u e l
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
2 8 8
6 8 8
4 .1
3 %
$6 1 ,2 5 3
$1 8 ,6 5 6
$1 2 ,3 1 4
0 .3
0 .2
($4 2 ,5 9 7 )
($4 8 ,9 3 9 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
3 ,7 9 5
5 5 0
4 .3
4 %
$6 8 ,9 3 7
$3 6 ,6 8 3
$2 4 ,6 7 6
0 .5
0 .4
($3 2 ,2 5 4 )
($4 4 ,2 6 1 )
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 ,2 4 1
4 3 9
2 .9
3 %
$5 7 ,5 2 9
$2 0 ,1 5 0
$1 1 ,8 8 5
0 .4
0 .2
($3 7 ,3 7 9 )
($4 5 ,6 4 4 )
C Z 0 4
P G &E
5 ,5 9 9
5 2 9
4 .7
5 %
$7 2 ,0 7 4
$4 4 ,9 1 5
$3 0 ,9 2 8
0 .6
0 .4
($2 7 ,1 5 8 )
($4 1 ,1 4 5 )
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
5 ,5 9 9
5 2 9
4 .7
5 %
$7 2 ,0 7 4
$2 4 ,1 7 5
$3 0 ,9 2 8
0 .3
0 .4
($4 7 ,8 9 8 )
($4 1 ,1 4 5 )
C Z 0 5
P G &E
3 ,4 7 0
4 5 3
3 .6
4 %
$6 0 ,3 3 0
$3 5 ,0 7 2
$1 8 ,2 3 2
0 .6
0 .3
($2 5 ,2 5 8 )
($4 2 ,0 9 7 )
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
3 ,4 7 0
4 5 3
3 .6
4 %
$6 0 ,3 3 0
$3 2 ,7 7 7
$1 8 ,2 3 2
0 .5
0 .3
($2 7 ,5 5 3 )
($4 2 ,0 9 7 )
C Z 0 6
S C E
3 ,3 7 4
2 9 8
2 .6
3 %
$5 5 ,5 9 4
$1 9 ,4 4 6
$1 6 ,1 3 2
0 .3
0 .3
($3 6 ,1 4 8 )
($3 9 ,4 6 2 )
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
3 ,3 7 4
2 9 8
2 .6
3 %
$5 5 ,5 9 4
$1 3 ,4 5 0
$1 6 ,1 3 2
0 .2
0 .3
($4 2 ,1 4 5 )
($3 9 ,4 6 2 )
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
5 ,2 5 7
1 4 0
2 .3
4 %
$5 4 ,1 1 1
$4 1 ,0 8 6
$1 9 ,9 0 3
0 .8
0 .4
($1 3 ,0 2 5 )
($3 4 ,2 0 8 )
C Z 0 8
S C E
5 ,9 2 1
1 7 6
2 .7
4 %
$6 0 ,4 9 7
$2 2 ,2 1 0
$2 4 ,0 5 5
0 .4
0 .4
($3 8 ,2 8 7 )
($3 6 ,4 4 2 )
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
5 ,9 2 1
1 7 6
2 .7
4 %
$6 0 ,4 9 7
$1 4 ,0 6 4
$2 4 ,0 5 5
0 .2
0 .4
($4 6 ,4 3 4 )
($3 6 ,4 4 2 )
C Z 0 9
S C E
7 ,5 6 0
2 2 4
3 .5
4 %
$6 1 ,3 1 1
$2 8 ,5 7 6
$3 1 ,8 3 5
0 .5
0 .5
($3 2 ,7 3 5 )
($2 9 ,4 7 6 )
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
7 ,5 6 0
2 2 4
3 .5
4 %
$6 1 ,3 1 1
$1 8 ,2 6 2
$3 1 ,8 3 5
0 .3
0 .5
($4 3 ,0 4 9 )
($2 9 ,4 7 6 )
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
5 ,7 8 6
2 8 8
3 .2
4 %
$6 2 ,6 8 5
$5 0 ,7 1 7
$2 4 ,6 2 8
0 .8
0 .4
($1 1 ,9 6 8 )
($3 8 ,0 5 7 )
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
5 ,7 8 6
2 8 8
3 .2
4 %
$6 2 ,6 8 5
$2 4 ,5 7 5
$2 4 ,6 2 8
0 .4
0 .4
($3 8 ,1 1 0 )
($3 8 ,0 5 7 )
C Z 1 1
P G &E
8 ,1 2 8
4 4 1
4 .9
5 %
$7 1 ,1 0 1
$5 4 ,1 8 8
$3 7 ,8 4 9
0 .8
0 .5
($1 6 ,9 1 2 )
($3 3 ,2 5 2 )
C Z 1 2
P G &E
6 ,5 0 3
4 7 8
4 .7
5 %
$6 8 ,3 2 9
$4 7 ,3 2 9
$3 4 ,5 5 6
0 .7
0 .5
($2 0 ,9 9 9 )
($3 3 ,7 7 3 )
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
6 ,5 0 3
4 7 8
4 .7
5 %
$6 8 ,3 2 9
$2 4 ,0 0 3
$3 4 ,5 5 6
0 .4
0 .5
($4 4 ,3 2 5 )
($3 3 ,7 7 3 )
C Z 1 3
P G &E
8 ,3 9 8
4 3 2
5 .0
5 %
$6 9 ,4 7 4
$5 1 ,3 4 7
$3 7 ,2 2 9
0 .7
0 .5
($1 8 ,1 2 8 )
($3 2 ,2 4 6 )
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
7 ,9 2 7
4 7 0
5 .0
5 %
$6 9 ,4 6 3
$6 2 ,7 4 4
$3 7 ,1 3 3
0 .9
0 .5
($6 ,7 1 8 )
($3 2 ,3 2 9 )
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
7 ,9 2 7
4 7 0
5 .0
5 %
$6 9 ,4 6 3
$3 2 ,5 1 7
$3 7 ,1 3 3
0 .5
0 .5
($3 6 ,9 4 6 )
($3 2 ,3 2 9 )
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 5 ,1 4 0
2 1 9
5 .5
5 %
$6 6 ,7 0 2
$4 3 ,7 7 3
$5 2 ,3 5 9
0 .7
0 .8
($2 2 ,9 2 9 )
($1 4 ,3 4 4 )
C Z 1 6
P G &E
3 ,1 1 1
9 1 2
6 .3
5 %
$7 1 ,7 6 5
$3 6 ,0 0 2
$2 4 ,9 1 4
0 .5
0 .3
($3 5 ,7 6 3 )
($4 6 ,8 5 1 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
3 ,1 1 1
9 1 2
6 .3
5 %
$7 1 ,7 6 5
$2 3 ,0 5 7
$2 4 ,9 1 4
0 .3
0 .3
($4 8 ,7 0 8 )
($4 6 ,8 5 1 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 0 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 2 – A l l -E l e c t r i c F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e
C o s t *
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 2 : A l l -E l e c t r i c
F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-5 3 ,6 5 7
4 9 6 7
1 0 .1
-1 5 %
($8 7 ,2 5 3 )
($9 8 ,2 3 7 )
($5 8 ,4 2 0 )
0 .9
1 .5
($1 0 ,9 8 4 )
$2 8 ,8 3 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-4 9 ,6 8 4
3 8 6 8
5 .0
-7 %
($7 3 ,6 9 5 )
($1 0 1 ,6 0 5 )
($4 1 ,4 2 9 )
0 .7
1 .8
($2 7 ,9 1 0 )
$3 2 ,2 6 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-3 5 ,8 8 6
3 1 4 2
5 .6
-7 %
($8 2 ,3 3 0 )
($5 7 ,3 4 5 )
($2 9 ,5 9 2 )
1 .4
2 .8
$2 4 ,9 8 6
$5 2 ,7 3 8
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-4 8 ,8 2 9
3 7 5 9
4 .7
-6 %
($6 9 ,0 1 2 )
($9 0 ,5 2 7 )
($4 0 ,5 7 0 )
0 .8
1 .7
($2 1 ,5 1 5 )
$2 8 ,4 4 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-4 8 ,8 2 9
3 7 5 9
4 .7
-6 %
($6 9 ,0 1 2 )
($1 9 ,9 9 5 )
($4 0 ,5 7 0 )
3 .5
1 .7
$4 9 ,0 1 8
$2 8 ,4 4 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-4 0 ,5 3 1
3 2 4 0
4 .5
-8 %
($8 4 ,5 0 3 )
($6 3 ,6 6 3 )
($3 9 ,9 9 7 )
1 .3
2 .1
$2 0 ,8 4 0
$4 4 ,5 0 6
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 6 ,1 7 4
2 1 1 7
3 .1
-4 %
($7 6 ,1 5 3 )
$2 4 ,9 0 8
($2 0 ,5 7 1 )
>1
3 .7
$1 0 1 ,0 6 1
$5 5 ,5 8 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-2 6 ,1 7 4
2 1 1 7
3 .1
-4 %
($7 6 ,1 5 3 )
$2 6 ,3 6 6
($2 0 ,5 7 1 )
>1
3 .7
$1 0 2 ,5 1 8
$5 5 ,5 8 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-1 2 ,9 0 2
9 5 0
0 .9
-2 %
($7 0 ,3 2 5 )
$4 6 ,8 7 9
($1 1 ,4 0 7 )
>1
6 .2
$1 1 7 ,2 0 4
$5 8 ,9 1 8
C Z 0 8
S C E
-1 5 ,6 8 0
1 2 1 9
1 .5
-2 %
($6 8 ,7 7 4 )
$1 7 ,8 5 9
($1 2 ,6 4 8 )
>1
5 .4
$8 6 ,6 3 3
$5 6 ,1 2 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-1 5 ,6 8 0
1 2 1 9
1 .5
-2 %
($6 8 ,7 7 4 )
$1 8 ,6 0 3
($1 2 ,6 4 8 )
>1
5 .4
$8 7 ,3 7 6
$5 6 ,1 2 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
-1 9 ,7 6 7
1 6 0 5
2 .4
-2 %
($6 3 ,1 0 2 )
$2 0 ,9 2 0
($1 4 ,4 6 2 )
>1
4 .4
$8 4 ,0 2 2
$4 8 ,6 4 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-1 9 ,7 6 7
1 6 0 5
2 .4
-2 %
($6 3 ,1 0 2 )
$2 1 ,9 2 9
($1 4 ,4 6 2 )
>1
4 .4
$8 5 ,0 3 0
$4 8 ,6 4 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-2 7 ,4 1 4
2 0 5 3
2 .2
-4 %
($4 7 ,9 0 2 )
$3 8 ,9 1 8
($2 3 ,3 3 9 )
>1
2 .1
$8 6 ,8 2 0
$2 4 ,5 6 2
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-2 7 ,4 1 4
2 0 5 3
2 .2
-4 %
($4 7 ,9 0 2 )
$2 0 ,7 6 5
($2 3 ,3 3 9 )
>1
2 .1
$6 8 ,6 6 6
$2 4 ,5 6 2
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-4 0 ,1 5 6
3 0 6 2
3 .6
-4 %
($6 3 ,9 8 7 )
($7 2 ,7 9 1 )
($3 2 ,8 3 7 )
0 .9
1 .9
($8 ,8 0 4 )
$3 1 ,1 5 0
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-4 3 ,4 1 1
3 3 2 7
4 .1
-5 %
($6 8 ,3 4 3 )
($8 5 ,8 5 6 )
($3 5 ,4 6 3 )
0 .8
1 .9
($1 7 ,5 1 2 )
$3 2 ,8 8 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-4 3 ,4 1 1
3 3 2 7
4 .1
-5 %
($6 8 ,3 4 3 )
($5 ,1 0 9 )
($3 5 ,4 6 3 )
1 3 .4
1 .9
$6 3 ,2 3 4
$3 2 ,8 8 0
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-3 9 ,6 4 9
3 0 6 3
3 .8
-4 %
($6 2 ,7 2 6 )
($7 0 ,7 0 5 )
($3 2 ,4 0 8 )
0 .9
1 .9
($7 ,9 8 0 )
$3 0 ,3 1 8
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-4 4 ,3 2 2
3 2 6 6
3 .4
-5 %
($6 5 ,1 5 6 )
$6 ,0 4 3
($3 8 ,4 2 2 )
>1
1 .7
$7 1 ,1 9 9
$2 6 ,7 3 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-4 4 ,3 2 2
3 2 6 6
3 .4
-5 %
($6 5 ,1 5 6 )
$4 ,7 9 8
($3 8 ,4 2 2 )
>1
1 .7
$6 9 ,9 5 4
$2 6 ,7 3 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
-1 9 ,9 1 7
1 5 3 7
1 .8
-2 %
($3 6 ,1 7 6 )
$1 2 ,8 2 2
($1 5 ,4 6 4 )
>1
2 .3
$4 8 ,9 9 8
$2 0 ,7 1 1
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-9 4 ,0 6 2
6 1 8 5
5 .6
-2 7 %
($6 4 ,0 9 6 )
($2 1 2 ,1 5 8 )
($1 5 0 ,8 7 1 )
0 .3
0 .4
($1 4 8 ,0 6 2 )
($8 6 ,7 7 5 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-9 4 ,0 6 2
6 1 8 5
5 .6
-2 7 %
($6 4 ,0 9 6 )
$1 ,4 9 3
($1 5 0 ,8 7 1 )
>1
0 .4
$6 5 ,5 8 9
($8 6 ,7 7 5 )
*
T h e I n c r e m e n t a l P a c k a g e C o s t i s e q u a l t o t h e
s u m
o f t h e
i n c r e m e n t a l H V A C a n d w a t e r h e a t i n g e q u i p m e n t c o s t s f r o m
F i g u r e
1 0 ,
t h e e l e c t r i c a l
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t
o f $2 7 ,8 0 2
(s e e s e c t i o n 3 .3 .2 .1 ), a n d t h e n a t u r a l g a s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t s
o f $(1 8 ,9 4 9 )
(s e e
s e c t i o n 3 .3 .2 .2 ).
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 1 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 3 A – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e
C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 A : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+
E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 9 ,1 1 5
4 9 6 7
1 9 .4
7 %
($2 0 ,6 0 4 )
$2 0 ,6 3 0
$2 8 ,1 1 2
>1
>1
$4 1 ,2 3 4
$4 8 ,7 1 6
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 1 ,8 1 1
3 8 6 8
1 5 .2
1 0 %
($7 ,0 4 6 )
$3 9 ,2 6 0
$5 8 ,5 6 3
>1
>1
$4 6 ,3 0 6
$6 5 ,6 0 9
C Z 0 3
P G &E
2 ,5 3 0
3 1 4 2
1 6 .2
1 6 %
($1 5 ,6 8 1 )
$8 5 ,2 4 1
$6 8 ,6 8 2
>1
>1
$1 0 0 ,9 2 2
$8 4 ,3 6 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 0 ,8 3 9
3 7 5 9
1 4 .8
9 %
($2 ,3 6 3 )
$5 9 ,4 3 2
$5 8 ,4 2 0
>1
>1
$6 1 ,7 9 5
$6 0 ,7 8 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 0 ,8 3 9
3 7 5 9
1 4 .8
9 %
($2 ,3 6 3 )
$7 0 ,6 8 0
$5 8 ,4 2 0
>1
>1
$7 3 ,0 4 3
$6 0 ,7 8 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-2 ,3 1 6
3 2 4 0
1 4 .6
1 2 %
($1 7 ,8 5 4 )
$8 5 ,3 8 0
$5 8 ,8 0 2
>1
>1
$1 0 3 ,2 3 4
$7 6 ,6 5 6
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 5 ,3 9 9
2 1 1 7
1 4 .3
1 8 %
($9 ,5 0 3 )
$1 1 4 ,9 6 2
$8 9 ,9 2 1
>1
>1
$1 2 4 ,4 6 6
$9 9 ,4 2 5
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 5 ,3 9 9
2 1 1 7
1 4 .3
1 8 %
($9 ,5 0 3 )
$8 2 ,3 8 9
$8 9 ,9 2 1
>1
>1
$9 1 ,8 9 3
$9 9 ,4 2 5
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
3 3 ,3 1 8
9 5 0
1 3 .8
2 0 %
($3 ,6 7 6 )
$2 5 6 ,7 0 4
$1 1 1 ,3 9 9
>1
>1
$2 6 0 ,3 8 0
$1 1 5 ,0 7 6
C Z 0 8
S C E
3 0 ,2 3 1
1 2 1 9
1 4 .2
1 8 %
($2 ,1 2 4 )
$1 1 0 ,1 4 4
$1 1 1 ,7 8 1
>1
>1
$1 1 2 ,2 6 8
$1 1 3 ,9 0 6
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
3 0 ,2 3 1
1 2 1 9
1 4 .2
1 8 %
($2 ,1 2 4 )
$7 6 ,0 6 9
$1 1 1 ,7 8 1
>1
>1
$7 8 ,1 9 4
$1 1 3 ,9 0 6
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 4 ,2 8 3
1 6 0 5
1 4 .3
1 5 %
$3 ,5 4 7
$1 1 9 ,8 2 4
$1 0 8 ,2 4 9
3 3 .8
3 0 .5
$1 1 6 ,2 7 7
$1 0 4 ,7 0 2
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
2 4 ,2 8 3
1 6 0 5
1 4 .3
1 5 %
$3 ,5 4 7
$8 3 ,5 4 9
$1 0 8 ,2 4 9
2 3 .6
3 0 .5
$8 0 ,0 0 1
$1 0 4 ,7 0 2
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 2 ,3 4 4
2 0 5 3
1 2 .6
1 3 %
$1 8 ,7 4 8
$2 3 0 ,5 5 3
$8 2 ,9 0 5
1 2 .3
4 .4
$2 1 1 ,8 0 6
$6 4 ,1 5 8
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 2 ,3 4 4
2 0 5 3
1 2 .6
1 3 %
$1 8 ,7 4 8
$1 0 5 ,8 9 8
$8 2 ,9 0 5
5 .6
4 .4
$8 7 ,1 5 0
$6 4 ,1 5 8
C Z 1 1
P G &E
9 2 9
3 0 6 2
1 4 .5
1 0 %
$2 ,6 6 2
$8 5 ,9 8 8
$7 5 ,0 3 0
3 2 .3
2 8 .2
$8 3 ,3 2 6
$7 2 ,3 6 8
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-3 ,4 1 9
3 3 2 7
1 4 .8
1 0 %
($1 ,6 9 4 )
$6 8 ,8 6 6
$6 9 ,5 8 9
>1
>1
$7 0 ,5 6 0
$7 1 ,2 8 3
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-3 ,4 1 9
3 3 2 7
1 4 .8
1 0 %
($1 ,6 9 4 )
$7 1 ,7 6 1
$6 9 ,5 8 9
>1
>1
$7 3 ,4 5 5
$7 1 ,2 8 3
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 ,3 9 8
3 0 6 3
1 4 .8
9 %
$3 ,9 2 3
$8 9 ,7 9 9
$7 1 ,3 0 7
2 2 .9
1 8 .2
$8 5 ,8 7 5
$6 7 ,3 8 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-5 ,4 6 9
3 2 6 6
1 3 .5
9 %
$1 ,4 9 3
$2 0 6 ,8 4 0
$6 9 ,0 1 6
1 3 8 .6
4 6 .2
$2 0 5 ,3 4 7
$6 7 ,5 2 3
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-5 ,4 6 9
3 2 6 6
1 3 .5
9 %
$1 ,4 9 3
$9 4 ,1 4 3
$6 9 ,0 1 6
6 3 .1
4 6 .2
$9 2 ,6 5 0
$6 7 ,5 2 3
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 5 ,3 7 5
1 5 3 7
1 3 .7
1 0 %
$3 0 ,4 7 4
$1 1 4 ,9 0 9
$1 0 4 ,3 3 5
3 .8
3 .4
$8 4 ,4 3 5
$7 3 ,8 6 2
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-6 5 ,8 7 7
6 1 8 5
1 2 .7
-1 5 %
$2 ,5 5 3
($9 1 ,4 7 7 )
($8 5 ,6 7 3 )
-3 5 .8
-3 3 .6
($9 4 ,0 3 0 )
($8 8 ,2 2 6 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-6 5 ,8 7 7
6 1 8 5
1 2 .7
-1 5 %
$2 ,5 5 3
$7 2 ,7 8 0
($8 5 ,6 7 3 )
2 8 .5
-3 3 .6
$7 0 ,2 2 7
($8 8 ,2 2 6 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 2 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 3 B – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E + P V + B
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(m t o n s )
C o m p l i a n c e
M a r g i n (%)
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y
C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V + B
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 5 7 ,7 3 3
4 9 6 7
5 4 .9
7 %
$3 1 0 ,1 5 2
$5 1 8 ,4 2 1
$4 1 0 ,9 4 6
1 .7
1 .3
$2 0 8 ,2 6 9
$1 0 0 ,7 9 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 0 3 ,0 2 6
3 8 6 8
5 7 .8
1 0 %
$3 2 3 ,7 1 0
$6 9 2 ,3 3 6
$5 3 2 ,2 7 3
2 .1
1 .6
$3 6 8 ,6 2 6
$2 0 8 ,5 6 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
2 1 1 ,7 0 6
3 1 4 2
5 8 .0
1 6 %
$3 1 5 ,0 7 5
$7 0 8 ,2 3 5
$5 2 0 ,8 6 6
2 .2
1 .7
$3 9 3 ,1 6 0
$2 0 5 ,7 9 1
C Z 0 4
P G &E
2 1 6 ,2 0 4
3 7 5 9
5 9 .9
9 %
$3 2 8 ,3 9 3
$7 4 1 ,3 8 2
$5 6 0 ,5 7 6
2 .3
1 .7
$4 1 2 ,9 8 9
$2 3 2 ,1 8 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
2 1 6 ,2 0 4
3 7 5 9
5 9 .9
9 %
$3 2 8 ,3 9 3
$6 0 7 ,0 7 4
$5 6 0 ,5 7 6
1 .8
1 .7
$2 7 8 ,6 8 1
$2 3 2 ,1 8 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 2 3 ,3 9 9
3 2 4 0
5 9 .8
1 2 %
$3 1 2 ,9 0 2
$7 9 9 ,9 9 2
$5 4 6 ,5 9 2
2 .6
1 .7
$4 8 7 ,0 9 0
$2 3 3 ,6 9 0
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 3 3 ,2 9 9
2 1 1 7
5 7 .7
1 8 %
$3 2 1 ,2 5 2
$5 0 9 ,9 6 9
$5 8 3 ,9 6 3
1 .6
1 .8
$1 8 8 ,7 1 6
$2 6 2 ,7 1 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
2 3 3 ,2 9 9
2 1 1 7
5 7 .7
1 8 %
$3 2 1 ,2 5 2
$3 1 1 ,9 3 1
$5 8 3 ,9 6 3
1 .0
1 .8
($9 ,3 2 2 )
$2 6 2 ,7 1 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 5 6 ,0 3 4
9 5 0
5 8 .3
2 0 %
$3 2 7 ,0 7 9
$8 7 0 ,1 5 6
$6 0 9 ,4 9 8
2 .7
1 .9
$5 4 3 ,0 7 6
$2 8 2 ,4 1 9
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 4 6 ,9 4 4
1 2 1 9
5 7 .4
1 8 %
$3 2 8 ,6 3 1
$4 9 9 ,5 0 6
$6 2 3 ,2 9 2
1 .5
1 .9
$1 7 0 ,8 7 4
$2 9 4 ,6 6 1
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
2 4 6 ,9 4 4
1 2 1 9
5 7 .4
1 8 %
$3 2 8 ,6 3 1
$2 9 6 ,9 9 1
$6 2 3 ,2 9 2
0 .9
1 .9
($3 1 ,6 4 0 )
$2 9 4 ,6 6 1
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 4 3 ,8 3 8
1 6 0 5
5 8 .5
1 5 %
$3 3 4 ,3 0 3
$5 0 4 ,4 9 8
$6 1 5 ,1 7 8
1 .5
1 .8
$1 7 0 ,1 9 5
$2 8 0 ,8 7 5
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
2 4 3 ,8 3 8
1 6 0 5
5 8 .5
1 5 %
$3 3 4 ,3 0 3
$3 0 7 ,6 2 6
$6 1 5 ,1 7 8
0 .9
1 .8
($2 6 ,6 7 7 )
$2 8 0 ,8 7 5
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
2 2 9 ,0 4 4
2 0 5 3
5 6 .2
1 3 %
$3 4 9 ,5 0 3
$8 5 1 ,8 1 0
$5 6 9 ,5 4 9
2 .4
1 .6
$5 0 2 ,3 0 6
$2 2 0 ,0 4 6
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 2 9 ,0 4 4
2 0 5 3
5 6 .2
1 3 %
$3 4 9 ,5 0 3
$4 9 1 ,3 8 3
$5 6 9 ,5 4 9
1 .4
1 .6
$1 4 1 ,8 8 0
$2 2 0 ,0 4 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 1 2 ,0 4 7
3 0 6 2
5 6 .4
1 0 %
$3 3 3 ,4 1 8
$7 4 3 ,4 0 3
$5 5 6 ,7 5 8
2 .2
1 .7
$4 0 9 ,9 8 5
$2 2 3 ,3 4 0
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 0 7 ,9 5 5
3 3 2 7
5 6 .7
1 0 %
$3 2 9 ,0 6 2
$7 1 3 ,0 5 4
$5 5 2 ,4 1 5
2 .2
1 .7
$3 8 3 ,9 9 3
$2 2 3 ,3 5 3
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 0 7 ,9 5 5
3 3 2 7
5 6 .7
1 0 %
$3 2 9 ,0 6 2
$4 1 4 ,3 7 1
$5 5 2 ,4 1 5
1 .3
1 .7
$8 5 ,3 1 0
$2 2 3 ,3 5 3
C Z 1 3
P G &E
2 0 9 ,4 3 1
3 0 6 3
5 6 .3
9 %
$3 3 4 ,6 7 9
$7 2 8 ,8 2 2
$5 4 4 ,9 6 9
2 .2
1 .6
$3 9 4 ,1 4 3
$2 1 0 ,2 8 9
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 3 6 ,0 0 2
3 2 6 6
6 1 .3
9 %
$3 3 2 ,2 4 9
$8 6 5 ,1 8 1
$6 3 8 ,5 1 7
2 .6
1 .9
$5 3 2 ,9 3 3
$3 0 6 ,2 6 9
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 3 6 ,0 0 2
3 2 6 6
6 1 .3
9 %
$3 3 2 ,2 4 9
$4 8 8 ,1 6 3
$6 3 8 ,5 1 7
1 .5
1 .9
$1 5 5 ,9 1 4
$3 0 6 ,2 6 9
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 5 4 ,4 2 6
1 5 3 7
5 8 .5
1 0 %
$3 6 1 ,2 2 9
$4 8 7 ,7 1 5
$6 2 6 ,7 2 8
1 .4
1 .7
$1 2 6 ,4 8 6
$2 6 5 ,4 9 9
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 6 2 ,9 1 5
6 1 8 5
5 8 .6
-1 5 %
$3 3 3 ,3 0 9
$5 8 0 ,3 5 3
$4 0 6 ,7 4 6
1 .7
1 .2
$2 4 7 ,0 4 4
$7 3 ,4 3 7
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 6 2 ,9 1 5
6 1 8 5
5 8 .6
-1 5 %
$3 3 3 ,3 0 9
$2 9 0 ,5 6 6
$4 0 6 ,7 4 6
0 .9
1 .2
($4 2 ,7 4 2 )
$7 3 ,4 3 7
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 3 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e P a c k a g e 3 C – A l l -E l e c t r i c + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 C : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-5 3 ,3 9 0
4 9 6 7
1 0 .2
-1 4 %
($4 3 ,9 8 7 )
($9 3 ,7 4 0 )
($5 7 ,7 5 2 )
0 .5
0 .8
($4 9 ,7 5 3 )
($1 3 ,7 6 5 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-4 5 ,9 1 6
3 8 6 8
6 .1
-5 %
($2 2 ,7 2 2 )
($7 7 ,2 1 2 )
($2 6 ,3 9 4 )
0 .3
0 .9
($5 4 ,4 9 0 )
($3 ,6 7 2 )
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-3 4 ,6 5 6
3 1 4 2
6 .0
-6 %
($3 8 ,2 6 1 )
($4 5 ,7 9 6 )
($2 5 ,1 5 3 )
0 .8
1 .5
($7 ,5 3 5 )
$1 3 ,1 0 8
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-4 3 ,2 4 8
3 7 5 9
6 .3
-3 %
($1 5 ,2 2 9 )
($5 6 ,9 3 2 )
($1 8 ,9 9 6 )
0 .3
0 .8
($4 1 ,7 0 3 )
($3 ,7 6 7 )
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-4 3 ,2 4 8
3 7 5 9
6 .3
-3 %
($1 5 ,2 2 9 )
($5 ,2 9 8 )
($1 8 ,9 9 6 )
2 .9
0 .8
$9 ,9 3 2
($3 ,7 6 7 )
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-3 7 ,0 6 8
3 2 4 0
5 .4
-6 %
($4 0 ,4 3 4 )
($3 8 ,3 3 0 )
($2 9 ,5 4 4 )
1 .1
1 .4
$2 ,1 0 4
$1 0 ,8 9 0
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 2 ,8 0 5
2 1 1 7
4 .0
-2 %
($3 0 ,2 3 7 )
$3 9 ,8 1 2
($9 ,5 9 4 )
>1
3 .2
$7 0 ,0 5 0
$2 0 ,6 4 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-2 2 ,8 0 5
2 1 1 7
4 .0
-2 %
($3 0 ,2 3 7 )
$3 5 ,4 1 4
($9 ,5 9 4 )
>1
3 .2
$6 5 ,6 5 1
$2 0 ,6 4 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-7 ,6 4 6
9 5 0
2 .5
1 %
($2 2 ,5 6 4 )
$8 6 ,1 5 9
$6 ,0 6 2
>1
>1
$1 0 8 ,7 2 2
$2 8 ,6 2 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
-9 ,7 6 1
1 2 1 9
3 .2
1 %
($1 8 ,4 4 3 )
$3 7 ,3 7 5
$8 ,3 0 5
>1
>1
$5 5 ,8 1 8
$2 6 ,7 4 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-9 ,7 6 1
1 2 1 9
3 .2
1 %
($1 8 ,4 4 3 )
$2 9 ,9 7 3
$8 ,3 0 5
>1
>1
$4 8 ,4 1 6
$2 6 ,7 4 8
C Z 0 9
S C E
-1 2 ,2 1 1
1 6 0 5
4 .5
2 %
($1 0 ,2 8 2 )
$4 6 ,3 3 5
$1 3 ,3 6 4
>1
>1
$5 6 ,6 1 7
$2 3 ,6 4 6
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-1 2 ,2 1 1
1 6 0 5
4 .5
2 %
($1 0 ,2 8 2 )
$3 7 ,0 3 0
$1 3 ,3 6 4
>1
>1
$4 7 ,3 1 3
$2 3 ,6 4 6
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-2 1 ,6 4 2
2 0 5 3
3 .7
-1 %
$1 1 ,3 4 0
$8 4 ,9 0 1
($3 ,8 1 8 )
7 .5
-0 .3
$7 3 ,5 6 1
($1 5 ,1 5 8 )
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-2 1 ,6 4 2
2 0 5 3
3 .7
-1 %
$1 1 ,3 4 0
$4 0 ,6 5 9
($3 ,8 1 8 )
3 .6
-0 .3
$2 9 ,3 1 9
($1 5 ,1 5 8 )
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-3 2 ,0 5 2
3 0 6 2
5 .9
0 %
($8 ,5 1 9 )
($2 9 ,0 1 3 )
($3 ,0 0 7 )
0 .3
2 .8
($2 0 ,4 9 5 )
$5 ,5 1 2
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-3 6 ,9 2 6
3 3 2 7
6 .0
-1 %
($1 5 ,4 4 3 )
($4 8 ,9 5 5 )
($9 ,5 4 6 )
0 .3
1 .6
($3 3 ,5 1 1 )
$5 ,8 9 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-3 6 ,9 2 6
3 3 2 7
6 .0
-1 %
($1 5 ,4 4 3 )
$9 ,9 1 6
($9 ,5 4 6 )
>1
1 .6
$2 5 ,3 5 9
$5 ,8 9 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-3 1 ,2 5 3
3 0 6 3
6 .3
0 %
($7 ,2 5 7 )
($2 7 ,7 8 2 )
($3 ,0 5 5 )
0 .3
2 .4
($2 0 ,5 2 5 )
$4 ,2 0 2
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-3 6 ,4 0 2
3 2 6 6
5 .7
-1 %
($1 0 ,6 5 1 )
$6 1 ,6 0 5
($9 ,8 3 2 )
>1
1 .1
$7 2 ,2 5 6
$8 1 9
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-3 6 ,4 0 2
3 2 6 6
5 .7
-1 %
($1 0 ,6 5 1 )
$3 0 ,6 2 5
($9 ,8 3 2 )
>1
1 .1
$4 1 ,2 7 6
$8 1 9
C Z 1 5
S C E
-4 ,7 7 5
1 5 3 7
6 .0
3 %
$2 8 ,9 2 7
$5 2 ,9 5 5
$3 2 ,7 9 0
1 .8
1 .1
$2 4 ,0 2 8
$3 ,8 6 3
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-9 0 ,9 4 9
6 1 8 5
6 .5
-2 6 %
($8 ,4 6 7 )
($1 9 4 ,1 1 5 )
($1 4 2 ,0 4 1 )
0 .0
0 .1
($1 8 5 ,6 4 8 )
($1 3 3 ,5 7 4 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-9 0 ,9 4 9
6 1 8 5
6 .5
-2 6 %
($8 ,4 6 7 )
$3 7 ,1 2 7
($1 4 2 ,0 4 1 )
>1
0 .1
$4 5 ,5 9 4
($1 3 3 ,5 7 4 )
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
26 2019-07-15
4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail
Figure 24 through Figure 30 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages.
Notable findings for each package include:
1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE:
Packages achieve +9% to +18% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and all
packages are cost effective in all climate zones.
Incremental package costs vary across climate zones because of the HVAC system size in some
climate zones are small enough (<54 kBtu/h) to have the economizers measure applied.
B/C ratios are high compared to other prototypes because the measures applied are primarily
low-cost lighting measures. This suggests room for the inclusion of other energy efficiency
measures with lower cost-effectiveness to achieve even higher compliance margins for a cost
effective package.
1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B:All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV
approach, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and battery to the efficiency packages
reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings.
1C –Mixed-fuel + HE: Packages achieve +1 to +4% compliance margins depending on climate
zone, and packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZs 1, 3 and 5 using the TDV
approach.
2 –All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:
Packages achieve between -12% and +1% compliance margins depending on climate zone.
Packages achieve positive savings using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches in CZs 6-10 and
14-15. Packages do not achieve On-Bill or TDV savings in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1, 2, 4, 5,
12-13, and 16).
Packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16.
All incremental costs are negative primarily due to elimination of natural gas infrastructure.
3A –All-Electric + EE:Packages achieve between +3% and +16% compliance margins depending
on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones.
3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B:All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV
approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and Battery to the efficiency package
reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings.
3C –All-Electric + HE:Packages achieve between -8% and +5% compliance margins depending on
climate zone, and packages are cost effective using both On-Bill and TDV approaches in all CZs
except CZs 1 and 16.
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 4 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 1 A – M i x e d -F u e l + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 A : M i x e d F u e l
+ E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 5 ,2 1 0
1 2 0 9
1 1 .1 0
1 8 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$6 8 ,3 5 8
$6 0 ,1 8 9
2 5 .2
2 2 .2
$6 5 ,6 4 6
$5 7 ,4 7 8
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 8 ,8 8 5
6 1 3
8 .7 3
1 3 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$7 6 ,2 6 0
$5 9 ,1 3 5
1 3 .7
1 0 .6
$7 0 ,6 9 1
$5 3 ,5 6 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 8 ,7 7 2
4 6 2
7 .8 7
1 6 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$6 6 ,8 1 3
$5 7 ,1 3 5
1 2 .0
1 0 .3
$6 1 ,2 4 4
$5 1 ,5 6 6
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 9 ,1 0 0
4 3 9
7 .8 4
1 4 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$7 5 ,9 8 9
$5 8 ,0 3 6
1 3 .6
1 0 .4
$7 0 ,4 2 0
$5 2 ,4 6 7
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 9 ,1 0 0
4 3 9
7 .8 4
1 4 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$5 1 ,5 5 6
$5 8 ,0 3 6
9 .3
1 0 .4
$4 5 ,9 8 7
$5 2 ,4 6 7
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 7 ,9 5 5
4 1 5
7 .4 1
1 6 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$6 3 ,1 8 2
$5 5 ,0 0 3
1 1 .3
9 .9
$5 7 ,6 1 3
$4 9 ,4 3 5
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
1 7 ,9 5 5
4 1 5
7 .4 1
1 6 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$6 1 ,8 1 0
$5 5 ,0 0 3
1 1 .1
9 .9
$5 6 ,2 4 1
$4 9 ,4 3 5
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 2 ,3 7 5
3 4 7
5 .5 4
1 0 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$3 1 ,9 9 0
$4 1 ,4 0 1
1 1 .8
1 5 .3
$2 9 ,2 7 8
$3 8 ,6 8 9
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 2 ,3 7 5
3 4 7
5 .5 4
1 0 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$2 1 ,6 6 7
$4 1 ,4 0 1
8 .0
1 5 .3
$1 8 ,9 5 6
$3 8 ,6 8 9
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 7 ,1 7 0
1 3 6
5 .6 5
1 3 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$7 3 ,4 7 9
$4 9 ,8 8 3
1 3 .2
9 .0
$6 7 ,9 1 0
$4 4 ,3 1 4
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 2 ,2 8 4
2 8 3
5 .1 5
1 0 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$3 0 ,1 3 0
$4 1 ,1 1 5
1 1 .1
1 5 .2
$2 7 ,4 1 9
$3 8 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
1 2 ,2 8 4
2 8 3
5 .1 5
1 0 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$2 0 ,2 4 3
$4 1 ,1 1 5
7 .5
1 5 .2
$1 7 ,5 3 1
$3 8 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 3 ,4 7 3
3 0 2
5 .5 1
1 0 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$3 2 ,6 6 3
$4 6 ,1 2 6
5 .9
8 .3
$2 7 ,0 9 4
$4 0 ,5 5 7
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
1 3 ,4 7 3
3 0 2
5 .5 1
1 0 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$2 2 ,4 3 5
$4 6 ,1 2 6
4 .0
8 .3
$1 6 ,8 6 6
$4 0 ,5 5 7
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 9 ,8 7 3
2 6 7
6 .9 9
1 2 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$8 3 ,3 1 9
$5 8 ,3 2 2
1 5 .0
1 0 .5
$7 7 ,7 5 1
$5 2 ,7 5 3
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 9 ,8 7 3
2 6 7
6 .9 9
1 2 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$3 9 ,9 1 7
$5 8 ,3 2 2
7 .2
1 0 .5
$3 4 ,3 4 8
$5 2 ,7 5 3
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 1 ,1 2 0
5 7 8
9 .1 4
1 3 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$8 6 ,6 6 3
$6 7 ,4 8 5
1 5 .6
1 2 .1
$8 1 ,0 9 5
$6 1 ,9 1 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 0 ,3 7 0
5 6 2
8 .8 5
1 3 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$8 1 ,0 2 8
$6 4 ,4 0 9
1 4 .6
1 1 .6
$7 5 ,4 5 9
$5 8 ,8 4 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 0 ,3 7 0
5 6 2
8 .8 5
1 3 %
$5 ,5 6 9
$4 4 ,9 9 1
$6 4 ,4 0 9
8 .1
1 1 .6
$3 9 ,4 2 2
$5 8 ,8 4 0
C Z 1 3
P G &E
2 2 ,1 1 5
6 2 0
9 .9 8
1 5 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$1 0 9 ,4 8 4
$8 3 ,1 0 9
4 0 .4
3 0 .6
$1 0 6 ,7 7 2
$8 0 ,3 9 8
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 5 ,5 7 9
4 0 6
9 .3 8
1 3 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$1 1 6 ,3 5 4
$8 0 ,0 5 5
4 2 .9
2 9 .5
$1 1 3 ,6 4 3
$7 7 ,3 4 3
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 6 ,3 2 7
3 8 3
9 .4 2
1 3 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$5 7 ,2 9 0
$8 3 ,0 6 5
2 1 .1
3 0 .6
$5 4 ,5 7 8
$8 0 ,3 5 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 6 ,4 3 3
1 6 9
8 .3 5
1 2 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$5 7 ,1 5 2
$7 9 ,5 0 6
2 1 .1
2 9 .3
$5 4 ,4 4 0
$7 6 ,7 9 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 5 ,9 7 5
7 5 2
8 .7 2
1 3 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$7 2 ,4 2 7
$5 5 ,0 2 5
2 6 .7
2 0 .3
$6 9 ,7 1 5
$5 2 ,3 1 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
1 5 ,9 7 5
7 5 2
8 .7 2
1 3 %
$2 ,7 1 2
$3 1 ,9 0 6
$5 5 ,0 2 5
1 1 .8
2 0 .3
$2 9 ,1 9 4
$5 2 ,3 1 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 8
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 5 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 1 B – M i x e d -F u e l + E E + P V + B
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
C o m p l i a n c e
M a r g i n (%)
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + P V + B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 5 8 ,5 8 4
1 2 0 9
4 0 .7 9
1 8 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$5 0 9 ,0 9 2
$3 8 3 ,6 8 3
1 .8
1 .4
$2 3 1 ,7 0 9
$1 0 6 ,3 0 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 8 9 ,4 0 0
6 1 3
4 3 .7 5
1 3 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 9 0 ,0 4 3
$4 6 5 ,4 7 4
2 .1
1 .7
$3 0 9 ,8 0 3
$1 8 5 ,2 3 4
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 9 1 ,0 1 6
4 6 2
4 3 .5 2
1 6 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 7 8 ,4 6 5
$4 5 2 ,7 9 5
2 .1
1 .6
$2 9 8 ,2 2 4
$1 7 2 ,5 5 4
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 9 5 ,0 1 4
4 3 9
4 4 .1 4
1 4 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$6 0 5 ,3 6 9
$4 8 0 ,9 8 9
2 .2
1 .7
$3 2 5 ,1 2 9
$2 0 0 ,7 4 8
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 9 5 ,0 1 4
4 3 9
4 4 .1 4
1 4 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$4 5 1 ,9 3 3
$4 8 0 ,9 8 9
1 .6
1 .7
$1 7 1 ,6 9 3
$2 0 0 ,7 4 8
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 9 6 ,6 5 4
4 1 5
4 4 .3 0
1 6 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 8 9 ,7 7 1
$4 6 4 ,7 4 9
2 .1
1 .7
$3 0 9 ,5 3 0
$1 8 4 ,5 0 9
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
1 9 6 ,6 5 4
4 1 5
4 4 .3 0
1 6 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 8 8 ,4 0 7
$4 6 4 ,7 4 9
2 .1
1 .7
$3 0 8 ,1 6 7
$1 8 4 ,5 0 9
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 8 5 ,9 0 3
3 4 7
4 1 .6 1
1 0 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$3 2 2 ,4 9 5
$4 5 6 ,5 9 6
1 .2
1 .6
$4 5 ,1 1 1
$1 7 9 ,2 1 3
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 8 5 ,9 0 3
3 4 7
4 1 .6 1
1 0 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$1 9 1 ,4 2 8
$4 5 6 ,5 9 6
0 .7
1 .6
($8 5 ,9 5 5 )
$1 7 9 ,2 1 3
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 9 7 ,6 5 0
1 3 6
4 3 .2 4
1 3 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$4 9 6 ,7 8 6
$4 7 7 ,5 8 2
1 .8
1 .7
$2 1 6 ,5 4 5
$1 9 7 ,3 4 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 8 7 ,8 6 9
2 8 3
4 1 .4 8
1 0 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$3 2 6 ,8 1 0
$4 7 8 ,1 3 2
1 .2
1 .7
$4 9 ,4 2 7
$2 0 0 ,7 4 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 8 7 ,8 6 9
2 8 3
4 1 .4 8
1 0 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$1 9 0 ,3 7 9
$4 7 8 ,1 3 2
0 .7
1 .7
($8 7 ,0 0 4 )
$2 0 0 ,7 4 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 9 1 ,3 9 9
3 0 2
4 2 .3 2
1 0 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$3 3 4 ,8 6 9
$4 7 2 ,7 7 0
1 .2
1 .7
$5 4 ,6 2 9
$1 9 2 ,5 3 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 9 1 ,3 9 9
3 0 2
4 2 .3 2
1 0 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$2 0 1 ,7 5 9
$4 7 2 ,7 7 0
0 .7
1 .7
($7 8 ,4 8 1 )
$1 9 2 ,5 3 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
2 0 0 ,0 3 3
2 6 7
4 4 .0 1
1 2 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 4 7 ,7 4 1
$4 7 2 ,8 8 0
2 .0
1 .7
$2 6 7 ,5 0 1
$1 9 2 ,6 4 0
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 0 0 ,0 3 3
2 6 7
4 4 .0 1
1 2 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$3 4 0 ,8 2 2
$4 7 2 ,8 8 0
1 .2
1 .7
$6 0 ,5 8 2
$1 9 2 ,6 4 0
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 9 2 ,8 4 6
5 7 8
4 4 .0 7
1 3 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 8 2 ,9 6 9
$4 9 0 ,8 5 5
2 .1
1 .8
$3 0 2 ,7 2 8
$2 1 0 ,6 1 5
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 9 1 ,7 2 0
5 6 2
4 3 .7 0
1 3 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$5 8 6 ,8 3 6
$4 8 5 ,0 7 6
2 .1
1 .7
$3 0 6 ,5 9 6
$2 0 4 ,8 3 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 9 1 ,7 2 0
5 6 2
4 3 .7 0
1 3 %
$2 8 0 ,2 4 0
$3 1 9 ,5 1 3
$4 8 5 ,0 7 6
1 .1
1 .7
$3 9 ,2 7 3
$2 0 4 ,8 3 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 9 5 ,0 3 1
6 2 0
4 5 .1 9
1 5 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$6 0 5 ,6 0 8
$4 8 6 ,2 8 5
2 .2
1 .8
$3 2 8 ,2 2 5
$2 0 8 ,9 0 1
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 1 7 ,1 8 3
4 0 6
4 7 .8 6
1 3 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$5 5 9 ,1 4 8
$5 3 4 ,9 1 5
2 .0
1 .9
$2 8 1 ,7 6 5
$2 5 7 ,5 3 2
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 1 7 ,9 2 7
3 8 3
4 7 .9 1
1 4 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$3 5 4 ,7 5 7
$5 3 8 ,0 5 8
1 .3
1 .9
$7 7 ,3 7 3
$2 6 0 ,6 7 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 0 8 ,6 6 2
1 6 9
4 4 .5 1
1 2 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$3 3 8 ,7 7 2
$4 9 6 ,1 0 7
1 .2
1 .8
$6 1 ,3 8 9
$2 1 8 ,7 2 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 1 0 ,2 4 2
7 5 2
4 8 .7 6
1 3 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$6 0 8 ,7 7 9
$4 9 0 ,2 6 2
2 .2
1 .8
$3 3 1 ,3 9 5
$2 1 2 ,8 7 9
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
2 1 0 ,2 4 2
7 5 2
4 8 .7 6
1 3 %
$2 7 7 ,3 8 3
$2 0 7 ,1 6 0
$4 9 0 ,2 6 2
0 .7
1 .8
($7 0 ,2 2 3 )
$2 1 2 ,8 7 9
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
2 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 6 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 1 C – M i x e d -F u e l + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 C : M i x e d F u e l
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
5 7
3 4 6
2 .0 4
2 %
$9 ,0 0 6
$6 ,3 0 1
$6 ,0 6 5
0 .7
0 .7
($2 ,7 0 5 )
($2 ,9 4 1 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 ,2 8 8
2 2 9
2 .0 1
3 %
$9 ,7 2 6
$2 3 ,0 1 6
$1 3 ,9 9 8
2 .4
1 .4
$1 3 ,2 9 1
$4 ,2 7 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 ,0 8 7
1 7 1
1 .3 1
2 %
$9 ,0 6 3
$6 ,7 8 2
$7 ,1 8 6
0 .7
0 .8
($2 ,2 8 2 )
($1 ,8 7 7 )
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 ,8 6 2
1 5 9
1 .4 6
3 %
$9 ,0 0 4
$1 7 ,8 9 1
$1 0 ,8 7 8
2 .0
1 .2
$8 ,8 8 7
$1 ,8 7 4
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 ,8 6 2
1 5 9
1 .4 6
3 %
$9 ,0 0 4
$7 ,8 2 1
$1 0 ,8 7 8
0 .9
1 .2
($1 ,1 8 2 )
$1 ,8 7 4
C Z 0 5
P G &E
6 6 4
1 6 2
1 .1 1
1 %
$9 ,4 5 4
$5 ,1 1 9
$4 ,7 2 5
0 .5
0 .5
($4 ,3 3 5 )
($4 ,7 2 9 )
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
6 6 4
1 6 2
1 .1 1
1 %
$9 ,4 5 4
$4 ,5 5 8
$4 ,7 2 5
0 .5
0 .5
($4 ,8 9 6 )
($4 ,7 2 9 )
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 ,6 4 8
9 0
1 .2 4
3 %
$8 ,9 4 3
$1 1 ,6 4 6
$1 1 ,4 2 7
1 .3
1 .3
$2 ,7 0 3
$2 ,4 8 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
2 ,6 4 8
9 0
1 .2 4
3 %
$8 ,9 4 3
$7 ,3 2 9
$1 1 ,4 2 7
0 .8
1 .3
($1 ,6 1 4 )
$2 ,4 8 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 ,3 7 6
4 9
0 .9 5
2 %
$9 ,1 9 4
$2 0 ,1 0 3
$9 ,7 7 9
2 .2
1 .1
$1 0 ,9 0 9
$5 8 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 ,8 2 2
7 2
1 .2 0
3 %
$9 ,6 4 5
$1 1 ,9 8 9
$1 2 ,8 7 7
1 .2
1 .3
$2 ,3 4 4
$3 ,2 3 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
2 ,8 2 2
7 2
1 .2 0
3 %
$9 ,6 4 5
$7 ,4 2 7
$1 2 ,8 7 7
0 .8
1 .3
($2 ,2 1 8 )
$3 ,2 3 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,2 0 6
8 8
1 .7 3
4 %
$1 0 ,4 4 6
$1 6 ,8 5 6
$1 8 ,7 4 5
1 .6
1 .8
$6 ,4 1 0
$8 ,2 9 9
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
4 ,2 0 6
8 8
1 .7 3
4 %
$1 0 ,4 4 6
$1 0 ,6 0 4
$1 8 ,7 4 5
1 .0
1 .8
$1 5 8
$8 ,2 9 9
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,2 2 6
1 1 9
1 .8 8
4 %
$9 ,5 1 4
$3 6 ,4 1 2
$1 9 ,0 0 8
3 .8
2 .0
$2 6 ,8 9 8
$9 ,4 9 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,2 2 6
1 1 9
1 .8 8
4 %
$9 ,5 1 4
$1 7 ,0 9 4
$1 9 ,0 0 8
1 .8
2 .0
$7 ,5 8 0
$9 ,4 9 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,1 8 8
2 2 5
2 .5 6
4 %
$1 0 ,4 7 9
$3 1 ,8 7 2
$2 2 ,3 9 3
3 .0
2 .1
$2 1 ,3 9 2
$1 1 ,9 1 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
3 ,6 7 5
2 1 4
2 .3 4
4 %
$1 0 ,4 0 9
$2 9 ,6 5 3
$2 0 ,5 2 5
2 .8
2 .0
$1 9 ,2 4 3
$1 0 ,1 1 5
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
3 ,6 7 5
2 1 4
2 .3 4
4 %
$1 0 ,4 0 9
$1 2 ,8 2 3
$2 0 ,5 2 5
1 .2
2 .0
$2 ,4 1 4
$1 0 ,1 1 5
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,8 1 8
1 8 0
2 .4 6
4 %
$9 ,8 0 9
$3 4 ,1 4 9
$2 3 ,6 2 3
3 .5
2 .4
$2 4 ,3 4 0
$1 3 ,8 1 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
6 ,4 3 9
1 5 3
2 .7 1
4 %
$1 2 ,1 0 3
$4 4 ,7 0 5
$2 6 ,3 4 8
3 .7
2 .2
$3 2 ,6 0 1
$1 4 ,2 4 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
6 ,4 3 9
1 5 3
2 .7 1
4 %
$1 2 ,1 0 3
$2 2 ,0 3 2
$2 6 ,3 4 8
1 .8
2 .2
$9 ,9 2 9
$1 4 ,2 4 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
8 ,8 0 2
4 8
2 .7 6
5 %
$1 2 ,5 3 4
$2 5 ,7 0 6
$3 1 ,4 0 2
2 .1
2 .5
$1 3 ,1 7 1
$1 8 ,8 6 8
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 ,3 1 6
3 9 0
2 .9 7
3 %
$1 1 ,9 9 9
$2 2 ,6 6 3
$1 3 ,8 8 8
1 .9
1 .2
$1 0 ,6 6 5
$1 ,8 9 0
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
2 ,3 1 6
3 9 0
2 .9 7
3 %
$1 1 ,9 9 9
$1 1 ,9 2 1
$1 3 ,8 8 8
1 .0
1 .2
($7 8 )
$1 ,8 9 0
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 2 – A l l -E l e c t r i c F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t *
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 2 : A l l -E l e c t r i c
F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-2 9 ,1 5 5
3 8 9 3
1 3 .8 5
-4 .1 %
($2 3 ,0 4 8 )
($8 ,3 3 3 )
($1 3 ,9 1 0 )
2 .8
1 .7
$1 4 ,7 1 5
$9 ,1 3 8
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-2 1 ,7 8 6
2 4 4 8
7 .4 9
-1 .0 %
($2 7 ,4 6 4 )
($1 6 ,4 7 6 )
($4 ,4 8 3 )
1 .7
6 .1
$1 0 ,9 8 7
$2 2 ,9 8 1
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 4 ,5 8 3
1 8 6 8
6 .2 6
-0 .4 %
($2 4 ,1 1 1 )
$2 6 3
($1 ,4 5 0 )
>1
1 6 .6
$2 4 ,3 7 4
$2 2 ,6 6 1
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 4 ,1 8 6
1 7 0 6
5 .3 0
-0 .1 %
($2 2 ,8 9 6 )
($8 ,7 5 3 )
($2 2 0 )
2 .6
1 0 4 .2
$1 4 ,1 4 3
$2 2 ,6 7 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 4 ,1 8 6
1 7 0 6
5 .3 0
-0 .1 %
($2 2 ,8 9 6 )
$1 2 ,4 9 3
($2 2 0 )
>1
1 0 4 .2
$3 5 ,3 8 9
$2 2 ,6 7 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 4 ,3 3 4
1 7 4 6
5 .4 7
-1 .2 %
($2 5 ,5 0 7 )
($1 ,5 6 7 )
($4 ,1 9 7 )
1 6 .3
6 .1
$2 3 ,9 4 0
$2 1 ,3 0 9
C Z 0 6
S C E
-7 ,5 2 7
1 0 0 2
3 .3 2
0 .5 %
($2 1 ,7 6 2 )
$1 8 ,5 9 0
$1 ,8 6 8
>1
>1
$4 0 ,3 5 1
$2 3 ,6 3 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-7 ,5 2 7
1 0 0 2
3 .3 2
0 .5 %
($2 1 ,7 6 2 )
$1 9 ,3 0 9
$1 ,8 6 8
>1
>1
$4 1 ,0 7 1
$2 3 ,6 3 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-3 ,8 1 2
5 2 2
1 .7 6
0 .3 %
($2 3 ,7 6 2 )
$5 4 ,3 4 5
$1 ,3 1 8
>1
>1
$7 8 ,1 0 7
$2 5 ,0 8 0
C Z 0 8
S C E
-5 ,8 0 5
7 9 3
2 .7 0
0 .4 %
($2 6 ,9 2 2 )
$1 6 ,7 3 5
$1 ,8 4 6
>1
>1
$4 3 ,6 5 8
$2 8 ,7 6 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-5 ,8 0 5
7 9 3
2 .7 0
0 .4 %
($2 6 ,9 2 2 )
$1 7 ,1 3 0
$1 ,8 4 6
>1
>1
$4 4 ,0 5 2
$2 8 ,7 6 8
C Z 0 9
S C E
-7 ,2 4 1
9 7 0
3 .3 2
0 .4 %
($3 2 ,1 1 3 )
$1 8 ,5 8 2
$1 ,9 7 8
>1
>1
$5 0 ,6 9 5
$3 4 ,0 9 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-7 ,2 4 1
9 7 0
3 .3 2
0 .4 %
($3 2 ,1 1 3 )
$1 9 ,0 8 9
$1 ,9 7 8
>1
>1
$5 1 ,2 0 2
$3 4 ,0 9 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-1 0 ,3 3 6
1 2 6 2
3 .9 9
0 .1 %
($2 7 ,2 7 2 )
$5 4 ,4 5 3
$5 0 5
>1
>1
$8 1 ,7 2 4
$2 7 ,7 7 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-1 0 ,3 3 6
1 2 6 2
3 .9 9
0 .1 %
($2 7 ,2 7 2 )
$2 0 ,9 9 6
$5 0 5
>1
>1
$4 8 ,2 6 8
$2 7 ,7 7 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-1 9 ,2 5 1
2 4 1 5
7 .9 5
0 .5 %
($3 2 ,2 0 2 )
($7 ,9 5 1 )
$2 ,6 1 5
4 .1
>1
$2 4 ,2 5 1
$3 4 ,8 1 7
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-1 9 ,4 7 1
2 3 0 9
7 .2 8
-0 .1 %
($3 2 ,5 0 4 )
($1 4 ,1 5 3 )
($4 6 1 )
2 .3
7 0 .4
$1 8 ,3 5 1
$3 2 ,0 4 2
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-1 9 ,4 7 1
2 3 0 9
7 .2 8
-0 .1 %
($3 2 ,5 0 4 )
$1 2 ,9 3 9
($4 6 1 )
>1
7 0 .4
$4 5 ,4 4 3
$3 2 ,0 4 2
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-1 6 ,8 1 9
1 9 8 3
6 .1 5
-0 .4 %
($2 8 ,1 5 8 )
($1 0 ,5 7 5 )
($2 ,0 2 2 )
2 .7
1 3 .9
$1 7 ,5 8 2
$2 6 ,1 3 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-1 3 ,2 0 8
1 6 7 2
5 .4 4
0 .7 %
($2 6 ,6 5 6 )
$4 1 ,1 1 7
$4 ,4 6 1
>1
>1
$6 7 ,7 7 2
$3 1 ,1 1 7
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-1 3 ,2 0 8
1 6 7 2
5 .4 4
0 .7 %
($2 6 ,6 5 6 )
$1 8 ,4 6 7
$4 ,4 6 1
>1
>1
$4 5 ,1 2 3
$3 1 ,1 1 7
C Z 1 5
S C E
-2 ,4 6 3
5 1 8
2 .1 4
0 .9 %
($2 9 ,5 4 4 )
$1 6 ,7 9 6
$5 ,8 2 3
>1
>1
$4 6 ,3 3 9
$3 5 ,3 6 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-4 1 ,4 1 8
4 3 0 4
1 3 .2 3
-1 2 .2 %
($2 5 ,7 7 1 )
($4 9 ,8 6 2 )
($5 2 ,5 4 2 )
0 .5
0 .5
($2 4 ,0 9 1 )
($2 6 ,7 7 1 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-4 1 ,4 1 8
4 3 0 4
1 3 .2 3
-1 2 .2 %
($2 5 ,7 7 1 )
$3 9 ,3 1 9
($5 2 ,5 4 2 )
>1
0 .5
$6 5 ,0 9 0
($2 6 ,7 7 1 )
* T h e I n c r e m e n t a l P a c k a g e C o s t i s t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e i n c r e m e n t a l H V A C a n d w a t e r h e a t i n g e q u i p m e n t c o s t s f r o m F i g u r e 1 1
a n d
t h e n a t u r a l g a s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t s a v i n g s
o f $2 8 ,0 2 7
(s e e s e c t i o n 3 .3 .2 .2 ).
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 8 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 3 A – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 A : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+
E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-5 ,4 7 8
3 8 9 3
2 0 .6 4
1 5 %
($2 0 ,3 3 6 )
$6 3 ,5 9 3
$5 1 ,2 2 4
>1
>1
$8 3 ,9 2 9
$7 1 ,5 6 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 ,8 4 3
2 4 4 8
1 4 .5 8
1 3 %
($2 1 ,8 9 5 )
$7 4 ,9 9 7
$5 6 ,8 9 3
>1
>1
$9 6 ,8 9 2
$7 8 ,7 8 8
C Z 0 3
P G &E
7 ,7 9 1
1 8 6 8
1 2 .7 3
1 6 %
($1 8 ,5 4 2 )
$6 8 ,9 6 8
$5 6 ,5 8 6
>1
>1
$8 7 ,5 1 1
$7 5 ,1 2 8
C Z 0 4
P G &E
8 ,5 7 2
1 7 0 6
1 1 .8 9
1 4 %
($1 7 ,3 2 7 )
$8 1 ,9 5 7
$5 7 ,9 0 4
>1
>1
$9 9 ,2 8 4
$7 5 ,2 3 1
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
8 ,5 7 2
1 7 0 6
1 1 .8 9
1 4 %
($1 7 ,3 2 7 )
$6 3 ,0 8 2
$5 7 ,9 0 4
>1
>1
$8 0 ,4 0 8
$7 5 ,2 3 1
C Z 0 5
P G &E
6 ,9 7 3
1 7 4 6
1 1 .6 8
1 5 %
($1 9 ,9 3 8 )
$6 3 ,6 7 7
$5 1 ,9 4 9
>1
>1
$8 3 ,6 1 5
$7 1 ,8 8 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
7 ,4 3 1
1 0 0 2
7 .7 2
1 1 %
($1 9 ,0 5 0 )
$4 7 ,0 7 2
$4 2 ,6 1 0
>1
>1
$6 6 ,1 2 2
$6 1 ,6 6 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
7 ,4 3 1
1 0 0 2
7 .7 2
1 1 %
($1 9 ,0 5 0 )
$3 7 ,0 7 8
$4 2 ,6 1 0
>1
>1
$5 6 ,1 2 8
$6 1 ,6 6 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 4 ,3 5 0
5 2 2
6 .9 8
1 3 %
($1 8 ,1 9 3 )
$1 2 7 ,4 6 1
$5 0 ,8 2 8
>1
>1
$1 4 5 ,6 5 4
$6 9 ,0 2 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
8 ,5 2 4
7 9 3
6 .9 0
1 0 %
($2 4 ,2 1 0 )
$4 3 ,6 7 9
$4 2 ,2 5 8
>1
>1
$6 7 ,8 9 0
$6 6 ,4 6 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
8 ,5 2 4
7 9 3
6 .9 0
1 0 %
($2 4 ,2 1 0 )
$3 4 ,0 3 8
$4 2 ,2 5 8
>1
>1
$5 8 ,2 4 8
$6 6 ,4 6 8
C Z 0 9
S C E
8 ,4 0 3
9 7 0
7 .8 1
1 0 %
($2 6 ,5 4 5 )
$4 7 ,8 1 9
$4 7 ,3 5 6
>1
>1
$7 4 ,3 6 4
$7 3 ,9 0 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
8 ,4 0 3
9 7 0
7 .8 1
1 0 %
($2 6 ,5 4 5 )
$3 7 ,9 3 4
$4 7 ,3 5 6
>1
>1
$6 4 ,4 7 8
$7 3 ,9 0 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 1 ,7 3 7
1 2 6 2
1 0 .2 3
1 2 %
($2 1 ,7 0 3 )
$1 3 7 ,4 3 6
$5 8 ,7 6 1
>1
>1
$1 5 9 ,1 3 9
$8 0 ,4 6 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 1 ,7 3 7
1 2 6 2
1 0 .2 3
1 2 %
($2 1 ,7 0 3 )
$5 8 ,2 5 7
$5 8 ,7 6 1
>1
>1
$7 9 ,9 5 9
$8 0 ,4 6 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
5 ,8 9 2
2 4 1 5
1 5 .1 3
1 2 %
($2 6 ,6 3 3 )
$8 5 ,2 5 6
$6 5 ,8 5 9
>1
>1
$1 1 1 ,8 8 9
$9 2 ,4 9 2
C Z 1 2
P G &E
5 ,5 4 8
2 3 0 9
1 4 .4 6
1 2 %
($2 6 ,9 3 5 )
$8 0 ,6 3 1
$6 3 ,9 0 3
>1
>1
$1 0 7 ,5 6 6
$9 0 ,8 3 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
5 ,5 4 8
2 3 0 9
1 4 .4 6
1 2 %
($2 6 ,9 3 5 )
$5 9 ,3 1 1
$6 3 ,9 0 3
>1
>1
$8 6 ,2 4 6
$9 0 ,8 3 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 0 ,1 8 4
1 9 8 3
1 4 .1 5
1 4 %
($2 5 ,4 4 6 )
$1 1 0 ,1 0 5
$8 0 ,6 0 4
>1
>1
$1 3 5 ,5 5 1
$1 0 6 ,0 5 0
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 6 ,5 8 3
1 6 7 2
1 3 .8 3
1 5 %
($2 3 ,9 4 4 )
$1 7 1 ,2 0 0
$8 8 ,4 7 1
>1
>1
$1 9 5 ,1 4 5
$1 1 2 ,4 1 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 6 ,5 8 3
1 6 7 2
1 3 .8 3
1 5 %
($2 3 ,9 4 4 )
$6 5 6 ,1 7 8
$1 5 9 ,6 0 4
>1
>1
$6 8 0 ,1 2 2
$1 8 3 ,5 4 8
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 3 ,6 4 2
5 1 8
9 .4 4
1 2 %
($2 6 ,8 3 2 )
$6 5 ,5 7 3
$7 6 ,7 8 1
>1
>1
$9 2 ,4 0 4
$1 0 3 ,6 1 2
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-1 8 ,2 3 2
4 3 0 4
1 9 .8 0
3 %
($2 3 ,0 5 9 )
$3 8 ,7 9 6
$1 4 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$6 1 ,8 5 5
$3 7 ,2 1 1
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-1 8 ,2 3 2
4 3 0 4
1 9 .8 0
3 %
($2 3 ,0 5 9 )
$6 7 ,7 9 3
$1 4 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$9 0 ,8 5 2
$3 7 ,2 1 1
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 2 9 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 3 B – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E + P V + B
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
C o m p l i a n c e
M a r g i n (%)
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V + B
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 3 7 ,9 5 6
3 8 9 3
5 0 .5 1
1 5 %
$2 5 4 ,3 3 5
$5 1 0 ,8 3 1
$3 7 4 ,4 3 2
2 .0
1 .5
$2 5 6 ,4 9 6
$1 2 0 ,0 9 7
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 7 3 ,3 8 7
2 4 4 8
4 9 .8 7
1 3 %
$2 5 2 ,7 7 7
$5 9 0 ,1 1 2
$4 6 3 ,4 3 1
2 .3
1 .8
$3 3 7 ,3 3 6
$2 1 0 ,6 5 4
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 8 0 ,0 5 5
1 8 6 8
4 8 .5 5
1 6 %
$2 5 6 ,1 2 9
$5 8 5 ,8 6 1
$4 5 2 ,3 9 9
2 .3
1 .8
$3 2 9 ,7 3 2
$1 9 6 ,2 7 0
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 8 4 ,4 9 9
1 7 0 6
4 8 .3 8
1 4 %
$2 5 7 ,3 4 5
$6 0 8 ,8 1 4
$4 8 1 ,0 1 1
2 .4
1 .9
$3 5 1 ,4 7 0
$2 2 3 ,6 6 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 8 4 ,4 9 9
1 7 0 6
4 8 .3 8
1 4 %
$2 5 7 ,3 4 5
$4 6 5 ,6 9 0
$4 8 1 ,0 1 1
1 .8
1 .9
$2 0 8 ,3 4 5
$2 2 3 ,6 6 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 8 5 ,6 9 0
1 7 4 6
4 8 .8 4
1 5 %
$2 5 4 ,7 3 4
$6 0 0 ,9 3 3
$4 6 1 ,8 0 4
2 .4
1 .8
$3 4 6 ,1 9 9
$2 0 7 ,0 7 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 8 0 ,9 6 8
1 0 0 2
4 3 .9 1
1 1 %
$2 5 5 ,6 2 1
$3 3 5 ,9 0 9
$4 5 7 ,9 5 9
1 .3
1 .8
$8 0 ,2 8 8
$2 0 2 ,3 3 7
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 8 0 ,9 6 8
1 0 0 2
4 3 .9 1
1 1 %
$2 5 5 ,6 2 1
$2 0 6 ,0 2 1
$4 5 7 ,9 5 9
0 .8
1 .8
($4 9 ,6 0 1 )
$2 0 2 ,3 3 7
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 9 4 ,8 3 7
5 2 2
4 4 .6 7
1 3 %
$2 5 6 ,4 7 8
$5 5 0 ,7 1 4
$4 7 8 ,6 3 7
2 .1
1 .9
$2 9 4 ,2 3 6
$2 2 2 ,1 5 9
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 8 4 ,1 2 0
7 9 3
4 3 .3 2
1 0 %
$2 5 0 ,4 6 1
$3 4 0 ,3 0 1
$4 7 9 ,4 0 6
1 .4
1 .9
$8 9 ,8 4 0
$2 2 8 ,9 4 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
1 8 4 ,1 2 0
7 9 3
4 3 .3 2
1 0 %
$2 5 0 ,4 6 1
$2 0 3 ,8 1 3
$4 7 9 ,4 0 6
0 .8
1 .9
($4 6 ,6 4 8 )
$2 2 8 ,9 4 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 8 6 ,3 4 6
9 7 0
4 4 .7 7
1 0 %
$2 4 8 ,1 2 7
$3 4 9 ,5 2 4
$4 7 4 ,1 7 6
1 .4
1 .9
$1 0 1 ,3 9 7
$2 2 6 ,0 4 9
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
1 8 6 ,3 4 6
9 7 0
4 4 .7 7
1 0 %
$2 4 8 ,1 2 7
$2 1 6 ,6 5 4
$4 7 4 ,1 7 6
0 .9
1 .9
($3 1 ,4 7 3 )
$2 2 6 ,0 4 9
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 9 1 ,9 2 3
1 2 6 2
4 7 .4 6
1 2 %
$2 5 2 ,9 6 9
$5 9 3 ,5 1 4
$4 7 3 ,6 0 5
2 .3
1 .9
$3 4 0 ,5 4 5
$2 2 0 ,6 3 6
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 9 1 ,9 2 3
1 2 6 2
4 7 .4 6
1 2 %
$2 5 2 ,9 6 9
$3 5 6 ,9 5 8
$4 7 3 ,6 0 5
1 .4
1 .9
$1 0 3 ,9 8 9
$2 2 0 ,6 3 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 7 7 ,6 3 9
2 4 1 5
5 0 .2 6
1 2 %
$2 4 8 ,0 3 9
$5 8 5 ,6 8 9
$4 8 9 ,3 1 7
2 .4
2 .0
$3 3 7 ,6 5 0
$2 4 1 ,2 7 8
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 7 6 ,9 1 9
2 3 0 9
4 9 .4 6
1 2 %
$2 4 7 ,7 3 6
$5 9 1 ,1 0 4
$4 8 4 ,7 0 2
2 .4
2 .0
$3 4 3 ,3 6 8
$2 3 6 ,9 6 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 7 6 ,9 1 9
2 3 0 9
4 9 .4 6
1 2 %
$2 4 7 ,7 3 6
$3 3 5 ,2 8 6
$4 8 4 ,7 0 2
1 .4
2 .0
$8 7 ,5 5 0
$2 3 6 ,9 6 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 8 3 ,1 2 9
1 9 8 3
4 9 .4 8
1 4 %
$2 4 9 ,2 2 6
$6 0 8 ,5 6 0
$4 8 3 ,6 7 0
2 .4
1 .9
$3 5 9 ,3 3 4
$2 3 4 ,4 4 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 0 8 ,1 8 3
1 6 7 2
5 2 .5 4
1 5 %
$2 5 0 ,7 2 7
$5 9 3 ,2 3 2
$5 4 4 ,0 7 9
2 .4
2 .2
$3 4 2 ,5 0 5
$2 9 3 ,3 5 1
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 6 4 ,5 8 9
1 6 7 2
8 0 .9 7
1 5 %
$2 5 0 ,7 2 7
$6 5 6 ,1 7 8
$5 8 0 ,4 0 3
2 .6
2 .3
$4 0 5 ,4 5 0
$3 2 9 ,6 7 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 0 5 ,8 6 9
5 1 8
4 5 .6 7
1 2 %
$2 4 7 ,8 4 0
$3 4 7 ,1 2 5
$4 9 3 ,3 3 9
1 .4
2 .0
$9 9 ,2 8 5
$2 4 5 ,4 9 9
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 7 6 ,1 1 4
4 3 0 4
6 0 .1 3
3 %
$2 5 1 ,6 1 2
$5 6 7 ,8 2 2
$4 4 6 ,7 9 5
2 .3
1 .8
$3 1 6 ,2 1 0
$1 9 5 ,1 8 3
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
1 7 6 ,1 1 4
4 3 0 4
6 0 .1 3
3 %
$2 5 1 ,6 1 2
$2 4 1 ,7 5 7
$4 4 6 ,7 9 5
1 .0
1 .8
($9 ,8 5 6 )
$1 9 5 ,1 8 3
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 0 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l P a c k a g e 3 C – A l l -E l e c t r i c + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 C : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-2 6 ,1 9 9
3 8 9 3
1 4 .7 6
-2 %
($5 8 7 )
$3 6 9
($5 ,7 5 7 )
>1
0 .1
$9 5 6
($5 ,1 7 0 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 6 ,9 8 9
2 4 4 8
8 .9 5
3 %
($4 ,2 1 1 )
$1 2 ,3 2 3
$1 1 ,2 5 1
>1
>1
$1 6 ,5 3 4
$1 5 ,4 6 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 1 ,7 0 3
1 8 6 8
7 .1 5
2 %
($2 ,2 1 3 )
$9 ,1 5 9
$6 ,9 4 4
>1
>1
$1 1 ,3 7 2
$9 ,1 5 7
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 0 ,6 7 5
1 7 0 6
6 .3 7
3 %
($3 1 6 )
$1 4 ,3 1 7
$1 1 ,3 8 3
>1
>1
$1 4 ,6 3 3
$1 1 ,7 0 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 0 ,6 7 5
1 7 0 6
6 .3 7
3 %
($3 1 6 )
$2 0 ,5 9 9
$1 1 ,3 8 3
>1
>1
$2 0 ,9 1 5
$1 1 ,7 0 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 1 ,9 6 9
1 7 4 6
6 .1 9
1 %
($2 ,2 9 8 )
$5 ,5 9 2
$1 ,8 2 4
>1
>1
$7 ,8 9 0
$4 ,1 2 2
C Z 0 6
S C E
-3 ,9 1 9
1 0 0 2
4 .3 5
3 %
$1 ,4 1 8
$2 9 ,7 5 1
$1 3 ,7 3 4
2 1 .0
9 .7
$2 8 ,3 3 3
$1 2 ,3 1 6
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-3 ,9 1 9
1 0 0 2
4 .3 5
3 %
$1 ,4 1 8
$2 5 ,8 9 1
$1 3 ,7 3 4
1 8 .3
9 .7
$2 4 ,4 7 3
$1 2 ,3 1 6
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-9 5 5
5 2 2
2 .5 9
3 %
($7 1 0 )
$7 4 ,5 1 8
$1 1 ,2 2 9
>1
>1
$7 5 ,2 2 7
$1 1 ,9 3 9
C Z 0 8
S C E
-2 ,2 2 4
7 9 3
3 .7 4
4 %
($3 ,7 1 9 )
$2 8 ,0 6 7
$1 5 ,0 7 5
>1
>1
$3 1 ,7 8 5
$1 8 ,7 9 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-2 ,2 2 4
7 9 3
3 .7 4
4 %
($3 ,7 1 9 )
$2 3 ,8 4 8
$1 5 ,0 7 5
>1
>1
$2 7 ,5 6 6
$1 8 ,7 9 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
-2 ,0 8 9
9 7 0
4 .8 4
4 %
($8 ,2 6 8 )
$3 4 ,6 4 8
$2 1 ,1 6 2
>1
>1
$4 2 ,9 1 6
$2 9 ,4 3 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-2 ,0 8 9
9 7 0
4 .8 4
4 %
($8 ,2 6 8 )
$2 8 ,8 3 7
$2 1 ,1 6 2
>1
>1
$3 7 ,1 0 5
$2 9 ,4 3 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-4 ,8 6 8
1 2 6 2
5 .5 8
4 %
($5 ,2 2 2 )
$9 1 ,1 3 6
$2 0 ,0 4 1
>1
>1
$9 6 ,3 5 8
$2 5 ,2 6 3
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-4 ,8 6 8
1 2 6 2
5 .5 8
4 %
($5 ,2 2 2 )
$3 7 ,2 0 0
$2 0 ,0 4 1
>1
>1
$4 2 ,4 2 2
$2 5 ,2 6 3
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-1 2 ,6 5 1
2 4 1 5
9 .9 5
5 %
($8 ,2 1 7 )
$2 9 ,0 1 5
$2 6 ,1 7 2
>1
>1
$3 7 ,2 3 2
$3 4 ,3 8 9
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-1 3 ,4 7 9
2 3 0 9
9 .1 0
4 %
($9 ,2 3 9 )
$2 0 ,8 3 9
$2 1 ,2 2 8
>1
>1
$3 0 ,0 7 8
$3 0 ,4 6 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-1 3 ,4 7 9
2 3 0 9
9 .1 0
4 %
($9 ,2 3 9 )
$2 6 ,5 0 7
$2 1 ,2 2 8
>1
>1
$3 5 ,7 4 6
$3 0 ,4 6 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-9 ,9 3 5
1 9 8 3
8 .2 3
4 %
($4 ,9 7 5 )
$3 0 ,1 2 3
$2 4 ,0 6 3
>1
>1
$3 5 ,0 9 7
$2 9 ,0 3 7
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-5 ,4 0 7
1 6 7 2
7 .7 1
5 %
$1 2 1
$8 8 ,6 6 9
$3 1 ,0 2 9
7 3 2 .5
2 5 6 .3
$8 8 ,5 4 7
$3 0 ,9 0 8
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-5 ,4 0 7
1 6 7 2
7 .7 1
5 %
$1 2 1
$4 0 ,7 0 9
$3 1 ,0 2 9
3 3 6 .3
2 5 6 .3
$4 0 ,5 8 8
$3 0 ,9 0 8
C Z 1 5
S C E
6 ,7 8 2
5 1 8
4 .7 7
6 %
($2 ,5 0 8 )
$4 2 ,2 3 8
$3 7 ,3 7 9
>1
>1
$4 4 ,7 4 5
$3 9 ,8 8 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-3 5 ,2 9 7
4 3 0 4
1 5 .0 3
-8 %
$1 ,1 0 2
($2 1 ,3 8 4 )
($3 3 ,7 5 4 )
-1 9 .4
-3 0 .6
($2 2 ,4 8 6 )
($3 4 ,8 5 6 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-3 5 ,2 9 7
4 3 0 4
1 5 .0 3
-8 %
$1 ,1 0 2
$4 8 ,6 2 5
($3 3 ,7 5 4 )
4 4 .1
-3 0 .6
$4 7 ,5 2 3
($3 4 ,8 5 6 )
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
34 2019-07-15
4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel
The following issues must be considered when reviewing the Small Hotel results:
The Small Hotel is a mix of residential and nonresidential space types, which results in different
occupancy and load profiles than the office and retail prototypes.
A potential laundry load has not been examined for the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team
attempted to characterize and apply the energy use intensity of laundry loads in hotels but did
not find readily available data for use. Thus, cost effectiveness including laundry systems has not
been examined.
Contrary to the office and retail prototypes, the Small Hotel baseline water heater is a central gas
storage type. Current compliance software cannot model central heat pump water heater
systems with recirculation serving guest rooms.23 The only modeling option for heat pump water
heating is individual water heaters at each guest room even though this is a very uncommon
configuration. TRC modeled individual heat pump water heaters but as a proxy for central heat
pump water heating performance, but integrated costs associated with tank and controls for
central heat pump water heating into cost effectiveness calculations.
Assuming central heat pump water heating also enabled the inclusion of a solar hot water thermal
collection system, which was a key efficiency measure to achieving compliance in nearly all
climate zones.
Figure 31 through Figure 37 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable
findings for each package include:
1A –Mixed-Fuel + EE:
Packages achieve +3 to +10% compliance margins depending on climate zone.
Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs except 12
(using SMUD rates), 14 (using SCE rates), and 15 (with SCE rates).
The hotel is primarily guest rooms with a smaller proportion of nonresidential space.
Thus, the inexpensive VAV minimum flow measure and lighting measures that have been
applied to the entirety of the Medium Office and Medium Retail prototypes have a
relatively small impact in the Small Hotel.24
1B –Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B:Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV
approach in all CZs.Solar PV generally increases cost effectiveness compared to efficiency-only,
particularly when using an NPV metric.
1C –Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +2 to +5% compliance margins depending on climate
zone.The package is cost effective using the On-Bill approach in a minority of climate zones, and
cost effective using TDV approach only in CZ15.
23 The IOUs and CEC are actively working on including central heat pump water heater modeling with recirculation systems in
early 2020.
24 Title 24 requires that hotel/motel guest room lighting design comply with the residential lighting standards, which are all
mandatory and are not awarded compliance credit for improved efficacy.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
35 2019-07-15
2 –All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference:
This all-electric design does not comply with the Energy Commission’s TDV performance
budget. Packages achieve between -50% and -4% compliance margins depending on climate
zone.This may be because the modeled HW system is constrained to having an artificially low
efficiency to avoid triggering federal pre-emption, and the heat pump space heating systems
must operate overnight when operation is less efficient.
All packages are cost effective in all climate zones.
3A –All-Electric + EE:Packages achieve positive compliance margins in all CZs ranging from 0% to
+17%, except CZ16 which had a -18% compliance margin. All packages are cost effective in all
climate zones. The improved degree of cost effectiveness outcomes in Package 3A compared to
Package 1A appear to be due to the significant incremental package cost savings.
3B –All-Electric + EE + PV + B:All packages are cost effective. Packages improve in B/C ratio when
compared to 3A and increase in magnitude of overall NPV savings.PV appears to be more cost-
effective with higher building electricity loads.
3C –All-Electric + HE:
Packages do not comply with Title 24 in all CZs except CZ15 which resulted in a +0.04%
compliance margin.
All packages are cost effective.
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 6
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 1 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 1 A – M i x e d -F u e l + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 A : M i x e d F u e l
+ E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,8 5 5
1 2 8 8
5 .6 5
9 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$3 4 ,3 3 9
$3 6 ,8 7 4
1 .6
1 .8
$1 3 ,3 6 8
$1 5 ,9 0 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
3 ,8 0 2
9 7 6
3 .9 1
7 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$2 6 ,3 1 2
$2 9 ,3 5 3
1 .3
1 .4
$5 ,3 4 1
$8 ,3 8 1
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,1 5 3
1 0 4 6
4 .4 8
1 0 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$3 1 ,1 7 2
$3 5 ,9 1 5
1 .5
1 .7
$1 0 ,2 0 1
$1 4 ,9 4 4
C Z 0 4
P G &E
5 ,0 0 7
3 9 5
0 .8 5
6 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 4 ,4 4 9
$2 4 ,2 7 0
1 .1
1 .1
$2 ,6 2 5
$2 ,4 4 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 ,9 1 6
4 2 2
0 .9 8
6 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 8 ,7 1 3
$2 4 ,3 0 6
0 .9
1 .1
($3 ,1 1 1 )
$2 ,4 8 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
3 ,5 3 0
1 0 1 8
4 .1 3
9 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$2 8 ,7 8 2
$3 4 ,4 4 8
1 .4
1 .6
$7 ,8 1 0
$1 3 ,4 7 7
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
3 ,5 3 0
1 0 1 8
4 .1 3
9 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$2 3 ,0 2 8
$3 4 ,4 4 8
1 .1
1 .6
$2 ,0 5 7
$1 3 ,4 7 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
5 ,1 3 7
4 1 8
1 .1 6
8 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 6 ,0 0 1
$2 6 ,9 3 4
0 .7
1 .2
($5 ,8 2 3 )
$5 ,1 1 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
5 ,1 3 7
4 1 8
1 .1 6
8 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 1 ,7 0 6
$2 6 ,9 3 4
0 .5
1 .2
($1 0 ,1 1 8 )
$5 ,1 1 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
5 ,3 5 2
4 2 4
1 .3 1
8 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 6 ,6 9 9
$2 7 ,9 7 5
1 .2
1 .3
$4 ,8 7 6
$6 ,1 5 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
5 ,1 5 1
4 1 9
1 .2 1
7 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 5 ,9 3 1
$2 3 ,5 7 6
0 .7
1 .1
($5 ,8 9 3 )
$1 ,7 5 2
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
5 ,1 5 1
4 1 9
1 .2 1
7 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 1 ,6 4 3
$2 3 ,5 7 6
0 .5
1 .1
($1 0 ,1 8 0 )
$1 ,7 5 2
C Z 0 9
S C E
5 ,2 2 9
4 0 6
1 .1 6
6 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 5 ,8 3 7
$2 2 ,3 6 5
0 .7
1 .0
($5 ,9 8 7 )
$5 4 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
5 ,2 2 9
4 0 6
1 .1 6
6 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 1 ,6 3 2
$2 2 ,3 6 5
0 .5
1 .0
($1 0 ,1 9 2 )
$5 4 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,6 0 7
3 4 2
0 .9 2
5 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 5 ,5 0 6
$2 2 ,2 1 9
1 .2
1 .0
$3 ,6 8 3
$3 9 6
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,6 0 7
3 4 2
0 .9 2
5 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 3 ,8 6 8
$2 2 ,2 1 9
0 .6
1 .0
($7 ,9 5 6 )
$3 9 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,8 0 1
3 2 5
0 .8 7
4 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 2 ,9 3 6
$1 9 ,5 0 3
1 .1
0 .9
$1 ,1 1 2
($2 ,3 2 1 )
C Z 1 2
P G &E
5 ,2 7 6
3 2 7
0 .9 0
5 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 2 ,3 5 6
$2 1 ,3 0 5
1 .0
0 .9 8
$5 3 2
($5 1 9 )
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
5 ,2 7 6
3 2 7
0 .9 0
5 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 5 ,1 0 6
$2 1 ,3 0 5
0 .7
0 .9 8
($6 ,7 1 7 )
($5 1 9 )
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,9 7 5
3 1 0
0 .8 7
4 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 3 ,5 9 4
$1 9 ,3 7 8
1 .1
0 .9
$1 ,7 7 0
($2 ,4 4 5 )
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
4 ,8 8 4
3 7 0
0 .8 2
4 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$2 4 ,8 9 4
$2 1 ,0 3 5
1 .1
0 .9 6
$3 ,0 7 0
($7 8 9 )
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
4 ,8 8 4
3 7 0
0 .8 2
4 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 4 ,3 5 1
$2 1 ,0 3 5
0 .7
0 .9 6
($7 ,4 7 3 )
($7 8 9 )
C Z 1 5
S C E
5 ,1 8 7
2 7 8
1 .2 3
3 %
$2 1 ,8 2 4
$1 3 ,6 4 5
$1 8 ,0 8 9
0 .6
0 .8
($8 ,1 7 8 )
($3 ,7 3 5 )
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 ,9 9 2
1 1 9 7
4 .9 5
6 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$2 7 ,8 1 3
$3 0 ,8 6 9
1 .3
1 .5
$6 ,8 4 2
$9 ,8 9 8
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
2 ,9 9 2
1 1 9 7
4 .9 5
6 %
$2 0 ,9 7 1
$1 9 ,7 8 2
$3 0 ,8 6 9
0 .9
1 .5
($1 ,1 9 0 )
$9 ,8 9 8
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 2 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 1 B – M i x e d -F u e l + E E + P V + B
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 B : M i x e d F u e l
+
E E + P V + B
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 0 7 ,6 9 4
1 2 8 8
2 8 .7 3
9 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$3 6 6 ,5 0 9
$2 9 5 ,7 3 1
1 .6
1 .3
$1 3 8 ,1 6 8
$6 7 ,3 9 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 3 0 ,1 4 4
9 7 6
3 1 .1 4
7 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$3 5 9 ,2 4 8
$3 3 6 ,5 7 5
1 .6
1 .5
$1 3 0 ,9 0 7
$1 0 8 ,2 3 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 2 9 ,1 0 7
1 0 4 6
3 1 .5 7
1 0 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$4 3 0 ,7 3 7
$3 3 5 ,7 5 8
1 .9
1 .5
$2 0 2 ,3 9 6
$1 0 7 ,4 1 6
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 3 2 ,6 4 8
3 9 5
2 8 .4 6
6 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 5 5 ,4 0 6
$3 3 8 ,4 5 5
1 .6
1 .5
$1 2 6 ,2 1 2
$1 0 9 ,2 6 2
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 3 2 ,5 5 6
4 2 2
2 8 .5 9
6 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 2 2 ,6 9 8
$3 3 8 ,4 9 2
1 .4
1 .5
$9 3 ,5 0 4
$1 0 9 ,2 9 8
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 3 6 ,3 1 8
1 0 1 8
3 2 .7 3
9 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$4 5 2 ,6 1 1
$3 5 2 ,3 4 2
2 .0
1 .5
$2 2 4 ,2 6 9
$1 2 4 ,0 0 1
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
1 3 6 ,3 1 8
1 0 1 8
3 2 .7 3
9 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$4 4 6 ,8 5 8
$3 5 2 ,3 4 2
2 .0
1 .5
$2 1 8 ,5 1 6
$1 2 4 ,0 0 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 3 1 ,0 5 1
4 1 8
2 8 .4 7
8 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 1 7 ,7 2 8
$3 3 6 ,8 4 3
0 .9
1 .5
($1 1 ,4 6 6 )
$1 0 7 ,6 4 9
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 3 1 ,0 5 1
4 1 8
2 8 .4 7
8 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$1 3 1 ,0 5 2
$3 3 6 ,8 4 3
0 .6
1 .5
($9 8 ,1 4 2 )
$1 0 7 ,6 4 9
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 3 6 ,3 5 9
4 2 4
2 9 .6 3
8 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 0 6 ,0 8 8
$3 4 5 ,3 7 8
1 .3
1 .5
$7 6 ,8 9 4
$1 1 6 ,1 8 4
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 3 2 ,5 3 9
4 1 9
2 8 .8 5
7 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 2 7 ,2 9 7
$3 5 3 ,0 1 3
1 .0
1 .5
($1 ,8 9 7 )
$1 2 3 ,8 1 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
1 3 2 ,5 3 9
4 1 9
2 8 .8 5
7 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$1 3 4 ,7 3 9
$3 5 3 ,0 1 3
0 .6
1 .5
($9 4 ,4 5 5 )
$1 2 3 ,8 1 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 3 1 ,4 2 2
4 0 6
2 8 .8 2
6 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 3 0 ,7 9 1
$3 4 3 ,6 6 5
1 .0
1 .5
$1 ,5 9 7
$1 1 4 ,4 7 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
1 3 1 ,4 2 2
4 0 6
2 8 .8 2
6 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$1 3 6 ,0 2 4
$3 4 3 ,6 6 5
0 .6
1 .5
($9 3 ,1 7 0 )
$1 1 4 ,4 7 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 3 4 ,1 4 6
3 4 2
2 9 .0 5
5 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 3 9 ,6 1 2
$3 4 2 ,5 7 4
1 .5
1 .5
$1 1 0 ,4 1 8
$1 1 3 ,3 8 0
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 3 4 ,1 4 6
3 4 2
2 9 .0 5
5 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 2 6 ,2 4 4
$3 4 2 ,5 7 4
1 .0
1 .5
($2 ,9 4 9 )
$1 1 3 ,3 8 0
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 2 8 ,9 1 6
3 2 5
2 7 .6 2
4 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 5 2 ,8 3 1
$3 3 7 ,2 0 8
1 .5
1 .5
$1 2 3 ,6 3 7
$1 0 8 ,0 1 4
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 3 1 ,2 2 6
3 2 7
2 8 .0 4
5 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$4 2 5 ,0 2 9
$3 3 8 ,0 2 6
1 .9
1 .5
$1 9 5 ,8 3 5
$1 0 8 ,8 3 2
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 3 1 ,2 2 6
3 2 7
2 8 .0 4
5 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 1 3 ,1 7 6
$3 3 8 ,0 2 6
0 .9
1 .5
($1 6 ,0 1 8 )
$1 0 8 ,8 3 2
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 2 7 ,2 5 8
3 1 0
2 7 .3 3
4 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$3 5 1 ,2 4 4
$3 2 4 ,2 1 7
1 .5
1 .4
$1 2 2 ,0 5 0
$9 5 ,0 2 3
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 4 7 ,0 1 7
3 7 0
3 0 .9 6
4 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$8 6 1 ,4 4 5
$2 1 7 ,6 7 5
3 .8
0 .9
$6 3 2 ,2 5 1
($1 1 ,5 1 8 )
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 4 7 ,0 1 7
3 7 0
3 0 .9 6
4 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 4 4 ,1 0 0
$3 8 1 ,1 6 4
1 .1
1 .7
$1 4 ,9 0 6
$1 5 1 ,9 7 0
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 3 7 ,1 8 0
2 7 8
2 9 .1 2
3 %
$2 2 9 ,1 9 4
$2 2 5 ,0 5 4
$3 4 8 ,3 2 0
1 .0
1 .5
($4 ,1 4 0 )
$1 1 9 ,1 2 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 4 1 ,4 7 8
1 1 9 7
3 4 .6 0
6 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$3 7 7 ,4 6 5
$3 5 7 ,2 4 1
1 .7
1 .6
$1 4 9 ,1 2 4
$1 2 8 ,8 9 9
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
1 4 1 ,4 7 8
1 1 9 7
3 4 .6 0
6 %
$2 2 8 ,3 4 1
$1 3 6 ,5 6 3
$3 5 7 ,2 4 1
0 .6
1 .6
($9 1 ,7 7 8 )
$1 2 8 ,8 9 9
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 8
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 3 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 1 C – M i x e d -F u e l + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
P a c k a g e 1 C : M i x e d F u e l
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 0
6 3 2
3 .7 6
2 %
$2 2 ,8 3 9
$1 1 ,0 1 5
$1 0 ,2 1 8
0 .5
0 .4
($1 1 ,8 2 3 )
($1 2 ,6 2 1 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
9 8 1
4 0 2
2 .6 9
3 %
$2 3 ,0 9 2
$1 6 ,2 5 5
$1 1 ,8 0 8
0 .7
0 .5
($6 ,8 3 7 )
($1 1 ,2 8 4 )
C Z 0 3
P G &E
8 1
3 8 3
2 .3 0
2 %
$2 0 ,5 1 0
$7 ,0 6 6
$6 ,8 5 0
0 .3
0 .3
($1 3 ,4 4 4 )
($1 3 ,6 6 0 )
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 6 1
3 7 3
2 .2 6
2 %
$2 2 ,1 6 4
$8 ,5 9 3
$7 ,6 4 5
0 .4
0 .3
($1 3 ,5 7 1 )
($1 4 ,5 1 9 )
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 6 1
3 7 3
2 .2 6
2 %
$2 2 ,1 6 4
$7 ,0 9 7
$7 ,6 4 5
0 .3
0 .3
($1 5 ,0 6 7 )
($1 4 ,5 1 9 )
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 5 4
3 6 1
2 .1 9
2 %
$2 1 ,4 1 8
$6 ,8 9 7
$6 ,5 8 5
0 .3
0 .3
($1 4 ,5 2 1 )
($1 4 ,8 3 3 )
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
1 5 4
3 6 1
2 .1 9
2 %
$2 1 ,4 1 8
$4 ,7 8 6
$6 ,5 8 5
0 .2
0 .3
($1 6 ,6 3 2 )
($1 4 ,8 3 3 )
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 3 7
2 0 1
1 .2 7
2 %
$2 0 ,9 4 1
$3 ,7 8 9
$4 ,8 8 2
0 .2
0 .2
($1 7 ,1 5 2 )
($1 6 ,0 5 9 )
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
2 3 7
2 0 1
1 .2 7
2 %
$2 0 ,9 4 1
$3 ,2 1 9
$4 ,8 8 2
0 .2
0 .2
($1 7 ,7 2 2 )
($1 6 ,0 5 9 )
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 ,1 1 7
1 5 8
1 .2 8
2 %
$1 9 ,6 2 5
$1 3 ,7 7 1
$7 ,3 4 2
0 .7
0 .4
($5 ,8 5 4 )
($1 2 ,2 8 3 )
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 ,3 0 2
1 6 9
1 .3 9
2 %
$2 0 ,6 7 8
$8 ,3 7 8
$8 ,5 9 1
0 .4
0 .4
($1 2 ,3 0 0 )
($1 2 ,0 8 8 )
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
1 ,3 0 2
1 6 9
1 .3 9
2 %
$2 0 ,6 7 8
$5 ,8 0 2
$8 ,5 9 1
0 .3
0 .4
($1 4 ,8 7 7 )
($1 2 ,0 8 8 )
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 ,7 3 3
1 7 8
1 .5 6
3 %
$2 0 ,0 5 2
$1 0 ,4 8 9
$1 1 ,1 6 4
0 .5
0 .6
($9 ,5 6 3 )
($8 ,8 8 8 )
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
1 ,7 3 3
1 7 8
1 .5 6
3 %
$2 0 ,0 5 2
$7 ,3 0 7
$1 1 ,1 6 4
0 .4
0 .6
($1 2 ,7 4 5 )
($8 ,8 8 8 )
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
3 ,1 7 0
2 2 0
2 .2 9
4 %
$2 2 ,6 8 2
$3 5 ,1 9 5
$1 9 ,1 4 9
1 .6
0 .8
$1 2 ,5 1 3
($3 ,5 3 3 )
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
3 ,1 7 0
2 2 0
2 .2 9
4 %
$2 2 ,6 8 2
$1 6 ,7 0 1
$1 9 ,1 4 9
0 .7
0 .8
($5 ,9 8 1 )
($3 ,5 3 3 )
C Z 1 1
P G &E
3 ,3 4 3
3 2 3
2 .9 6
4 %
$2 3 ,3 4 4
$2 7 ,6 3 3
$2 0 ,9 6 6
1 .2
0 .9
$4 ,2 8 8
($2 ,3 7 9 )
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 ,7 2 4
3 2 0
2 .4 4
4 %
$2 2 ,3 0 2
$1 1 ,5 9 7
$1 5 ,5 9 2
0 .5
0 .7
($1 0 ,7 0 5 )
($6 ,7 1 0 )
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 ,7 2 4
3 2 0
2 .4 4
4 %
$2 2 ,3 0 2
$1 1 ,1 5 6
$1 5 ,5 9 2
0 .5
0 .7
($1 1 ,1 4 6 )
($6 ,7 1 0 )
C Z 1 3
P G &E
3 ,0 8 3
3 1 6
2 .8 1
3 %
$2 2 ,8 8 2
$2 3 ,9 5 0
$1 7 ,0 6 8
1 .0
0 .7
$1 ,0 6 8
($5 ,8 1 4 )
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
3 ,7 1 4
3 1 2
2 .9 9
4 %
$2 3 ,2 9 9
$3 5 ,3 0 1
$2 1 ,1 5 5
1 .5
0 .9
$1 2 ,0 0 2
($2 ,1 4 4 )
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
3 ,7 1 4
3 1 2
2 .9 9
4 %
$2 3 ,2 9 9
$1 8 ,4 6 0
$2 1 ,1 5 5
0 .8
0 .9
($4 ,8 3 9 )
($2 ,1 4 4 )
C Z 1 5
S C E
8 ,6 8 4
9 7
3 .2 1
5 %
$2 0 ,9 4 5
$2 6 ,7 3 8
$3 1 ,6 0 0
1 .3
1 .5
$5 ,7 9 2
$1 0 ,6 5 5
C Z 1 6
P G &E
8 3 6
7 0 0
4 .4 2
3 %
$2 4 ,6 1 6
$1 8 ,6 0 8
$1 4 ,4 9 4
0 .8
0 .6
($6 ,0 0 7 )
($1 0 ,1 2 1 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
8 3 6
7 0 0
4 .4 2
3 %
$2 4 ,6 1 6
$1 5 ,2 3 7
$1 4 ,4 9 4
0 .6
0 .6
($9 ,3 7 8 )
($1 0 ,1 2 1 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
3 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 4 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 2 – A l l -E l e c t r i c F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t *
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
P a c k a g e 2 : A l l -E l e c t r i c
F e d e r a l C o d e M i n i m u m
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 5 9 ,8 0 2
1 6 9 1 7
5 3 .9 2
-2 8 %
($1 ,2 9 6 ,7 8 4 )
($5 8 2 ,7 6 2 )
($1 1 5 ,1 6 1 )
2 .2
1 1 .3
$7 1 4 ,0 2 2
$1 ,1 8 1 ,6 2 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 1 8 ,7 3 9
1 2 6 7 7
4 0 .0 0
-1 2 %
($1 ,2 9 7 ,7 5 7 )
($2 4 5 ,4 3 4 )
($5 1 ,6 2 0 )
5 .3
2 5 .1
$1 ,0 5 2 ,3 2 2
$1 ,2 4 6 ,1 3 7
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 1 0 ,5 9 5
1 2 3 2 2
4 0 .4 8
-1 4 %
($1 ,3 0 0 ,0 2 9 )
($3 2 6 ,6 3 3 )
($5 1 ,1 6 6 )
4 .0
2 5 .4
$9 7 3 ,3 9 6
$1 ,2 4 8 ,8 6 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 1 3 ,4 0 4
1 1 9 2 7
3 6 .5 9
-1 3 %
($1 ,2 9 9 ,8 6 4 )
($2 2 5 ,3 0 7 )
($5 3 ,1 3 4 )
5 .8
2 4 .5
$1 ,0 7 4 ,5 5 6
$1 ,2 4 6 ,7 3 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 1 3 ,4 0 4
1 1 9 2 7
3 6 .5 9
-1 3 %
($1 ,2 9 9 ,8 6 4 )
($1 7 ,7 6 8 )
($5 3 ,1 3 4 )
7 3 .2
2 4 .5
$1 ,2 8 2 ,0 9 6
$1 ,2 4 6 ,7 3 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 0 8 ,6 0 5
1 1 9 6 0
3 8 .3 4
-1 5 %
($1 ,2 9 9 ,9 1 7 )
($3 5 0 ,5 8 5 )
($5 4 ,6 8 5 )
3 .7
2 3 .8
$9 4 9 ,3 3 2
$1 ,2 4 5 ,2 3 2
C Z 0 6
S C E
-7 8 ,2 9 3
8 9 1 2
2 9 .3 6
-5 %
($1 ,3 0 0 ,0 5 8 )
($6 1 ,5 3 4 )
($2 8 ,0 4 3 )
2 1 .1
4 6 .4
$1 ,2 3 8 ,5 2 4
$1 ,2 7 2 ,0 1 5
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
-7 8 ,2 9 3
8 9 1 2
2 9 .3 6
-5 %
($1 ,3 0 0 ,0 5 8 )
$4 3 ,2 0 0
($2 8 ,0 4 3 )
>1
4 6 .4
$1 ,3 4 3 ,2 5 8
$1 ,2 7 2 ,0 1 5
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-6 9 ,8 1 9
8 1 8 8
2 8 .0 4
-7 %
($1 ,2 9 8 ,4 0 6 )
($1 3 7 ,6 3 8 )
($2 3 ,1 9 9 )
9 .4
5 6 .0
$1 ,1 6 0 ,7 6 8
$1 ,2 7 5 ,2 0 7
C Z 0 8
S C E
-7 1 ,9 1 4
8 3 5 3
2 8 .2 1
-6 %
($1 ,2 9 6 ,3 7 6 )
($5 3 ,5 2 4 )
($2 2 ,8 2 0 )
2 4 .2
5 6 .8
$1 ,2 4 2 ,8 5 2
$1 ,2 7 3 ,5 5 6
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
-7 1 ,9 1 4
8 3 5 3
2 8 .2 1
-6 %
($1 ,2 9 6 ,3 7 6 )
$4 2 ,8 4 1
($2 2 ,8 2 0 )
>1
5 6 .8
$1 ,3 3 9 ,2 1 7
$1 ,2 7 3 ,5 5 6
C Z 0 9
S C E
-7 2 ,2 6 2
8 4 0 2
2 8 .3 8
-6 %
($1 ,2 9 8 ,1 7 4 )
($4 4 ,9 7 9 )
($2 1 ,9 5 0 )
2 8 .9
5 9 .1
$1 ,2 5 3 ,1 9 6
$1 ,2 7 6 ,2 2 4
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
-7 2 ,2 6 2
8 4 0 2
2 8 .3 8
-6 %
($1 ,2 9 8 ,1 7 4 )
$4 6 ,6 7 9
($2 1 ,9 5 0 )
>1
5 9 .1
$1 ,3 4 4 ,8 5 3
$1 ,2 7 6 ,2 2 4
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-8 0 ,0 6 2
8 4 1 8
2 6 .2 2
-8 %
($1 ,2 9 5 ,1 7 6 )
($1 7 2 ,5 1 3 )
($3 6 ,1 7 9 )
7 .5
3 5 .8
$1 ,1 2 2 ,6 6 3
$1 ,2 5 8 ,9 9 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-8 0 ,0 6 2
8 4 1 8
2 6 .2 2
-8 %
($1 ,2 9 5 ,1 7 6 )
($6 3 ,9 7 4 )
($3 6 ,1 7 9 )
2 0 .2
3 5 .8
$1 ,2 3 1 ,2 0 2
$1 ,2 5 8 ,9 9 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-9 9 ,4 8 4
1 0 2 5 2
3 0 .9 9
-1 0 %
($1 ,2 9 5 ,9 8 5 )
($1 8 6 ,0 3 7 )
($4 9 ,3 8 7 )
7 .0
2 6 .2
$1 ,1 0 9 ,9 4 8
$1 ,2 4 6 ,5 9 8
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-9 9 ,4 7 2
1 0 4 0 3
3 2 .0 8
-1 0 %
($1 ,2 9 7 ,4 2 5 )
($3 4 0 ,8 0 1 )
($4 5 ,5 6 5 )
3 .8
2 8 .5
$9 5 6 ,6 2 4
$1 ,2 5 1 ,8 6 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-9 9 ,0 6 7
1 0 4 0 3
3 2 .2 1
-1 0 %
($1 ,2 9 7 ,4 2 5 )
$5 ,7 9 4
($4 4 ,3 5 4 )
>1
2 9 .3
$1 ,3 0 3 ,2 1 9
$1 ,2 5 3 ,0 7 1
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-9 6 ,8 2 9
1 0 0 2 9
3 0 .6 0
-1 0 %
($1 ,2 9 5 ,7 9 7 )
($1 8 4 ,3 3 2 )
($5 0 ,3 3 3 )
7 .0
2 5 .7
$1 ,1 1 1 ,4 6 5
$1 ,2 4 5 ,4 6 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-1 0 1 ,3 9 8
1 0 0 5 6
2 9 .6 8
-1 1 %
($1 ,2 9 6 ,1 5 6 )
($3 2 5 ,9 2 8 )
($5 6 ,5 7 8 )
4 .0
2 2 .9
$9 7 0 ,2 2 8
$1 ,2 3 9 ,5 7 8
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-1 0 1 ,3 9 8
1 0 0 5 6
2 9 .6 8
-1 1 %
($1 ,2 9 6 ,1 5 6 )
($1 2 1 ,6 6 2 )
($5 6 ,5 7 8 )
1 0 .7
2 2 .9
$1 ,1 7 4 ,4 9 4
$1 ,2 3 9 ,5 7 8
C Z 1 5
S C E
-4 9 ,8 5 3
5 5 7 9
1 8 .0 7
-4 %
($1 ,2 9 4 ,2 7 6 )
$2 0 9
($2 1 ,4 2 0 )
>1
6 0 .4
$1 ,2 9 4 ,4 8 5
$1 ,2 7 2 ,8 5 6
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-2 1 6 ,7 0 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 1 .8 9
-5 0 %
($1 ,3 0 0 ,5 5 2 )
($6 4 5 ,7 0 5 )
($2 3 9 ,1 7 8 )
2 .0
5 .4
$6 5 4 ,8 4 7
$1 ,0 6 1 ,3 7 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-2 1 6 ,7 0 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 1 .8 9
-5 0 %
($1 ,3 0 0 ,5 5 2 )
$3 0 ,9 7 4
($2 3 9 ,1 7 8 )
>1
5 .4
$1 ,3 3 1 ,5 2 6
$1 ,0 6 1 ,3 7 4
*
T h e I n c r e m e n t a l P a c k a g e C o s t i s t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e i n c r e m e n t a l H V A C a n d w a t e r h e a t i n g e q u i p m e n t c o s t s f r o m F i g u r e 1 2 ,
t h e e l e c t r i c a l
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t
o f $2 6 ,8 0 0
(s e e s e c t i o n
3 .3 .2 .1 ), a n d t h e n a t u r a l g a s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t s a v i n g s
o f $5 6 ,0 2 0
(s e e s e c t i o n 3 .3 .2 .2 ).
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 5 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 3 A – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 A : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+
E E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 1 3 ,2 5 9
1 6 9 1 7
6 2 .3 8
1 .3 %
($1 ,2 5 1 ,5 4 4 )
($2 0 0 ,3 6 7 )
$5 ,4 6 0
6 .2
>1
$1 ,0 5 1 ,1 7 7
$1 ,2 5 7 ,0 0 5
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-9 0 ,0 3 3
1 2 6 7 7
4 5 .4 6
4 %
($1 ,2 6 5 ,0 6 4 )
($1 0 8 ,0 7 5 )
$1 5 ,6 8 5
1 1 .7
>1
$1 ,1 5 6 ,9 8 9
$1 ,2 8 0 ,7 4 9
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-8 3 ,8 9 2
1 2 3 2 2
4 5 .9 3
6 %
($1 ,2 6 7 ,5 0 9 )
($1 9 8 ,2 3 4 )
$2 0 ,7 2 9
6 .4
>1
$1 ,0 6 9 ,2 7 4
$1 ,2 8 8 ,2 3 7
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-9 1 ,1 9 7
1 1 9 2 7
4 0 .3 6
0 .2 %
($1 ,2 6 3 ,9 3 2 )
($1 1 2 ,8 9 2 )
$7 0 3
1 1 .2
>1
$1 ,1 5 1 ,0 4 1
$1 ,2 6 4 ,6 3 5
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-9 0 ,9 8 1
1 1 9 2 7
4 0 .4 2
0 .2 %
($1 ,2 6 3 ,9 3 2 )
$3 2 ,5 5 7
$9 1 8
>1
>1
$1 ,2 9 6 ,4 8 9
$1 ,2 6 4 ,8 5 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-8 2 ,4 9 1
1 1 9 6 0
4 3 .6 2
5 %
($1 ,2 6 7 ,3 5 5 )
($2 2 1 ,4 9 2 )
$1 8 ,4 8 8
5 .7
>1
$1 ,0 4 5 ,8 6 3
$1 ,2 8 5 ,8 4 3
C Z 0 6
S C E
-6 1 ,5 2 3
8 9 1 2
3 2 .4 5
7 %
($1 ,2 6 7 ,9 1 6 )
($3 3 ,4 7 5 )
$1 5 ,1 4 2
3 7 .9
>1
$1 ,2 3 4 ,4 4 1
$1 ,2 8 3 ,0 5 7
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-6 1 ,5 2 3
8 9 1 2
3 2 .4 5
7 %
($1 ,2 6 7 ,9 1 6 )
$5 7 ,2 1 5
$1 5 ,1 4 2
>1
>1
$1 ,3 2 5 ,1 3 0
$1 ,2 8 3 ,0 5 7
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-5 3 ,3 0 8
8 1 8 8
3 1 .2 2
7 %
($1 ,2 6 6 ,3 5 4 )
($8 1 ,3 3 8 )
$2 2 ,5 1 6
1 5 .6
>1
$1 ,1 8 5 ,0 1 5
$1 ,2 8 8 ,8 7 0
C Z 0 8
S C E
-5 5 ,4 5 2
8 3 5 3
3 1 .3 3
3 %
($1 ,2 6 4 ,4 0 8 )
($2 3 ,8 9 3 )
$9 ,3 9 1
5 2 .9
>1
$1 ,2 4 0 ,5 1 5
$1 ,2 7 3 ,8 0 0
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-5 5 ,4 5 2
8 3 5 3
3 1 .3 3
3 %
($1 ,2 6 4 ,4 0 8 )
$5 7 ,0 5 8
$9 ,3 9 1
>1
>1
$1 ,3 2 1 ,4 6 6
$1 ,2 7 3 ,8 0 0
C Z 0 9
S C E
-5 5 ,8 8 7
8 4 0 2
3 1 .4 0
2 %
($1 ,2 6 6 ,3 0 2 )
($1 9 ,8 8 7 )
$9 ,1 1 0
6 3 .7
>1
$1 ,2 4 6 ,4 1 5
$1 ,2 7 5 ,4 1 2
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-5 5 ,8 8 7
8 4 0 2
3 1 .4 0
2 %
($1 ,2 6 6 ,3 0 2 )
$6 0 ,4 4 1
$9 ,1 1 0
>1
>1
$1 ,3 2 6 ,7 4 3
$1 ,2 7 5 ,4 1 2
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-6 0 ,2 3 9
8 4 1 8
2 9 .9 6
2 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,0 0 2 )
($1 2 6 ,0 7 2 )
$7 ,3 6 5
1 0 .0
>1
$1 ,1 2 9 ,9 3 0
$1 ,2 6 3 ,3 6 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-6 0 ,2 3 9
8 4 1 8
2 9 .9 6
2 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,0 0 2 )
($3 3 ,0 6 1 )
$7 ,3 6 5
3 8 .0
>1
$1 ,2 2 2 ,9 4 0
$1 ,2 6 3 ,3 6 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-7 7 ,3 0 7
1 0 2 5 2
3 5 .1 2
1 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,1 4 9 )
($8 0 ,1 8 7 )
$3 ,1 1 4
1 5 .7
>1
$1 ,1 7 5 ,9 6 2
$1 ,2 5 9 ,2 6 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-7 5 ,0 9 8
1 0 4 0 3
3 6 .7 3
2 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,8 2 4 )
($2 3 4 ,2 7 5 )
$9 ,0 4 8
5 .4
>1
$1 ,0 2 2 ,5 5 0
$1 ,2 6 5 ,8 7 2
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-7 5 ,0 9 8
1 0 4 0 3
3 6 .7 3
2 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,8 2 4 )
$5 4 ,9 4 1
$9 ,0 4 8
>1
>1
$1 ,3 1 1 ,7 6 5
$1 ,2 6 5 ,8 7 2
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-7 5 ,0 5 2
1 0 0 2 9
3 4 .7 2
0 .3 %
($1 ,2 5 6 ,1 0 9 )
($7 9 ,3 7 8 )
$1 ,2 6 0
1 5 .8
>1
$1 ,1 7 6 ,7 3 1
$1 ,2 5 7 ,3 6 9
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-7 6 ,3 7 5
1 0 0 5 6
3 4 .2 8
0 .1 %
($1 ,2 5 5 ,7 0 4 )
($1 7 0 ,9 7 5 )
$5 4 3
7 .3
>1
$1 ,0 8 4 ,7 2 9
$1 ,2 5 6 ,2 4 7
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-7 6 ,3 7 5
1 0 0 5 6
3 4 .2 8
0 .1 %
($1 ,2 5 5 ,7 0 4 )
($3 4 ,4 1 8 )
$5 4 3
3 6 .5
>1
$1 ,2 2 1 ,2 8 6
$1 ,2 5 6 ,2 4 7
C Z 1 5
S C E
-3 3 ,7 2 2
5 5 7 9
2 1 .4 3
2 %
($1 ,2 5 7 ,8 3 5 )
$2 6 ,0 3 0
$1 2 ,2 6 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 8 3 ,8 6 4
$1 ,2 7 0 ,0 9 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-1 3 9 ,6 7 6
1 7 5 9 9
5 5 .2 5
-1 4 %
($1 ,2 5 5 ,3 6 4 )
($1 9 7 ,1 7 4 )
($6 6 ,6 5 0 )
6 .4
1 8 .8
$1 ,0 5 8 ,1 9 0
$1 ,1 8 8 ,7 1 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-1 3 9 ,6 7 6
1 7 5 9 9
5 5 .2 5
-1 4 %
($1 ,2 5 5 ,3 6 4 )
$1 6 5 ,7 8 9
($6 6 ,6 5 0 )
>1
1 8 .8
$1 ,4 2 1 ,1 5 3
$1 ,1 8 8 ,7 1 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 6 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 3 B – A l l -E l e c t r i c + E E + P V + B
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C R a t i o (T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 B : A l l -E l e c t r i c +
E E + P V
+ B
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-8 ,9 0 0
1 6 9 1 7
8 7 .1 5
1 %
($1 ,0 4 4 ,1 7 4 )
$9 0 ,9 6 4
$3 2 4 ,3 7 6
>1
>1
$1 ,1 3 5 ,1 3 9
$1 ,3 6 8 ,5 5 1
C Z 0 2
P G &E
3 6 ,4 9 1
1 2 6 7 7
7 3 .0 3
4 %
($1 ,0 5 7 ,6 9 4 )
$2 4 2 ,5 1 4
$3 1 3 ,7 1 1
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 0 ,2 0 8
$1 ,3 7 1 ,4 0 5
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 1 ,2 3 9
1 2 3 2 2
7 3 .4 3
6 %
($1 ,0 6 0 ,1 3 9 )
$1 5 5 ,8 6 8
$3 0 8 ,3 8 5
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 6 ,0 0 7
$1 ,3 6 8 ,5 2 4
C Z 0 4
P G &E
3 6 ,6 2 8
1 1 9 2 7
6 9 .7 0
0 .2 %
($1 ,0 5 6 ,5 6 2 )
$2 4 0 ,7 9 9
$3 0 8 ,6 8 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 9 7 ,3 6 1
$1 ,3 6 5 ,2 4 4
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
3 6 ,8 4 4
1 1 9 2 7
6 9 .7 6
0 .2 %
($1 ,0 5 6 ,5 6 2 )
$3 3 6 ,8 1 3
$4 1 8 ,8 3 6
>1
>1
$1 ,3 9 3 ,3 7 5
$1 ,4 7 5 ,3 9 8
C Z 0 5
P G &E
3 6 ,3 6 5
1 1 9 6 0
7 3 .1 1
5 %
($1 ,0 5 9 ,9 8 5 )
$1 1 9 ,1 7 3
$3 1 7 ,9 5 2
>1
>1
$1 ,1 7 9 ,1 5 8
$1 ,3 7 7 ,9 3 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
6 4 ,4 7 6
8 9 1 2
6 0 .4 7
7 %
($1 ,0 6 0 ,5 4 5 )
$1 5 6 ,3 2 7
$3 1 1 ,7 3 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 6 ,8 7 2
$1 ,3 7 2 ,2 7 5
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
6 4 ,4 7 6
8 9 1 2
6 0 .4 7
7 %
($1 ,0 6 0 ,5 4 5 )
$1 8 0 ,6 4 8
$3 1 1 ,7 3 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 1 ,1 9 3
$1 ,3 7 2 ,2 7 5
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
7 7 ,7 1 5
8 1 8 8
6 0 .4 5
7 %
($1 ,0 5 8 ,9 8 3 )
$1 9 7 ,7 1 1
$3 3 0 ,4 5 8
>1
>1
$1 ,2 5 6 ,6 9 4
$1 ,3 8 9 ,4 4 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
7 1 ,9 9 0
8 3 5 3
5 9 .4 9
3 %
($1 ,0 5 7 ,0 3 8 )
$1 6 5 ,3 9 3
$3 2 0 ,8 1 4
>1
>1
$1 ,2 2 2 ,4 3 2
$1 ,3 7 7 ,8 5 2
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
7 1 ,9 9 0
8 3 5 3
6 0 .2 4
3 %
($1 ,0 5 7 ,0 3 8 )
$1 8 0 ,3 6 7
$4 4 3 ,8 0 9
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 7 ,4 0 5
$1 ,5 0 0 ,8 4 7
C Z 0 9
S C E
7 0 ,4 6 5
8 4 0 2
5 9 .2 9
2 %
($1 ,0 5 8 ,9 3 2 )
$1 7 5 ,6 0 2
$3 0 1 ,4 5 9
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 4 ,5 3 4
$1 ,3 6 0 ,3 9 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
7 0 ,4 6 5
8 4 0 2
5 9 .2 9
2 %
($1 ,0 5 8 ,9 3 2 )
$1 8 3 ,2 2 0
$3 0 1 ,4 5 9
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 2 ,1 5 2
$1 ,3 6 0 ,3 9 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
6 9 ,5 8 1
8 4 1 8
5 8 .0 4
2 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,6 3 2 )
$1 6 1 ,5 1 3
$2 9 4 ,5 3 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 0 ,1 4 5
$1 ,3 4 3 ,1 6 2
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
6 9 ,5 8 1
8 4 1 8
5 8 .0 4
2 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,6 3 2 )
$1 6 4 ,8 3 7
$2 9 4 ,5 3 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 3 ,4 6 9
$1 ,3 4 3 ,1 6 2
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 7 ,2 6 0
1 0 2 5 2
6 1 .5 7
1 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,7 7 9 )
$2 5 3 ,7 1 7
$2 8 6 ,7 9 7
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 2 ,4 9 6
$1 ,3 3 5 ,5 7 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
5 1 ,1 1 5
1 0 4 0 3
6 4 .0 7
2 %
($1 ,0 4 9 ,4 5 4 )
$1 0 4 ,5 2 3
$3 0 5 ,4 4 6
>1
>1
$1 ,1 5 3 ,9 7 7
$1 ,3 5 4 ,9 0 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
5 1 ,1 1 5
1 0 4 0 3
6 4 .9 9
2 %
($1 ,0 4 9 ,4 5 4 )
$2 5 3 ,1 9 7
$4 3 0 ,9 7 7
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 2 ,6 5 1
$1 ,4 8 0 ,4 3 1
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 7 ,7 5 7
1 0 0 2 9
6 0 .7 7
0 .3 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,7 3 9 )
$2 5 1 ,6 6 3
$2 8 1 ,8 7 7
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 0 ,4 0 2
$1 ,3 3 0 ,6 1 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
6 6 ,0 8 4
1 0 0 5 6
6 4 .5 4
0 .1 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,3 3 4 )
$1 4 8 ,5 1 0
$3 3 4 ,9 3 8
>1
>1
$1 ,1 9 6 ,8 4 4
$1 ,3 8 3 ,2 7 2
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
6 6 ,0 8 4
1 0 0 5 6
6 4 .5 4
0 .1 %
($1 ,0 4 8 ,3 3 4 )
$1 8 5 ,0 1 8
$3 3 4 ,9 3 8
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 3 ,3 5 2
$1 ,3 8 3 ,2 7 2
C Z 1 5
S C E
9 8 ,7 5 5
5 5 7 9
4 9 .0 4
2 .1 %
($1 ,0 5 0 ,4 6 5 )
$2 3 3 ,3 0 8
$3 1 1 ,1 2 1
>1
>1
$1 ,2 8 3 ,7 7 2
$1 ,3 6 1 ,5 8 5
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-8 7 3
1 7 5 9 9
8 4 .9 9
-1 4 %
($1 ,0 4 7 ,9 9 4 )
$1 9 1 ,9 9 4
$2 4 0 ,7 2 4
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 9 ,9 8 7
$1 ,2 8 8 ,7 1 8
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-8 7 3
1 7 5 9 9
8 4 .9 9
-1 4 %
($1 ,0 4 7 ,9 9 4 )
$2 9 1 ,2 7 9
$2 4 0 ,7 2 4
>1
>1
$1 ,3 3 9 ,2 7 3
$1 ,2 8 8 ,7 1 8
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l P a c k a g e 3 C – A l l -E l e c t r i c + H E
C Z
U t i l i t y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
R e d u c t i o n s
(m t o n s )
C o m p -
l i a n c e
M a r g i n
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
U t i l i t y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
P a c k a g e 3 C : A l l -E l e c t r i c
+ H E
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 5 4 ,8 4 0
1 6 9 1 7
5 6 .2 4
-2 4 %
($1 ,2 8 1 ,3 3 8 )
($6 0 6 ,6 1 9 )
($1 0 1 ,2 7 2 )
2 .1
1 2 .7
$6 7 4 ,7 1 9
$1 ,1 8 0 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 1 8 ,2 8 4
1 2 6 7 7
4 1 .1 8
-1 1 %
($1 ,2 8 3 ,2 4 3 )
($3 9 5 ,6 4 1 )
($4 4 ,5 0 5 )
3 .2
2 8 .8
$8 8 7 ,6 0 2
$1 ,2 3 8 ,7 3 8
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 1 3 ,4 1 3
1 2 3 2 2
4 0 .8 0
-1 4 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,7 8 2 )
($5 2 2 ,4 5 8 )
($5 1 ,5 8 2 )
2 .5
2 5 .0
$7 6 6 ,3 2 4
$1 ,2 3 7 ,2 0 0
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 1 5 ,9 2 8
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .0 9
-1 3 %
($1 ,2 8 7 ,8 7 8 )
($3 8 3 ,1 7 7 )
($5 3 ,2 8 5 )
3 .4
2 4 .2
$9 0 4 ,7 0 1
$1 ,2 3 4 ,5 9 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 1 5 ,9 2 8
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .0 9
-1 3 %
($1 ,2 8 7 ,8 7 8 )
($2 4 ,1 7 0 )
($5 3 ,2 8 5 )
5 3 .3
2 4 .2
$1 ,2 6 3 ,7 0 8
$1 ,2 3 4 ,5 9 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 1 1 ,0 7 5
1 1 9 6 0
3 8 .7 5
-1 5 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,2 4 2 )
($5 3 0 ,7 4 0 )
($5 6 ,1 2 4 )
2 .4
2 3 .0
$7 5 7 ,5 0 2
$1 ,2 3 2 ,1 1 9
C Z 0 6
S C E
-8 3 ,0 0 0
8 9 1 2
2 9 .4 1
-1 5 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,6 9 5 )
($1 5 4 ,6 2 5 )
($3 2 ,2 4 4 )
8 .3
4 0 .0
$1 ,1 3 4 ,0 6 9
$1 ,2 5 6 ,4 5 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-8 3 ,0 0 0
8 9 1 2
2 9 .4 1
-1 5 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,6 9 5 )
($1 7 ,6 2 6 )
($3 2 ,2 4 4 )
7 3 .1
4 0 .0
$1 ,2 7 1 ,0 6 8
$1 ,2 5 6 ,4 5 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-7 3 ,8 2 3
8 1 8 8
2 8 .3 2
-7 %
($1 ,2 8 5 ,7 5 9 )
($2 6 8 ,2 0 7 )
($2 4 ,0 6 9 )
4 .8
5 3 .4
$1 ,0 1 7 ,5 5 2
$1 ,2 6 1 ,6 9 0
C Z 0 8
S C E
-7 5 ,5 7 3
8 3 5 3
2 8 .5 6
-6 %
($1 ,2 8 1 ,2 4 1 )
($1 5 7 ,3 9 3 )
($2 1 ,9 1 2 )
8 .1
5 8 .5
$1 ,1 2 3 ,8 4 8
$1 ,2 5 9 ,3 2 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-7 5 ,5 7 3
8 3 5 3
2 8 .5 6
-6 %
($1 ,2 8 1 ,2 4 1 )
($1 8 ,5 0 2 )
($2 1 ,9 1 2 )
6 9 .2
5 8 .5
$1 ,2 6 2 ,7 3 9
$1 ,2 5 9 ,3 2 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
-7 4 ,7 9 0
8 4 0 2
2 9 .0 4
-4 %
($1 ,2 8 5 ,1 3 9 )
($1 3 8 ,7 4 6 )
($1 6 ,9 9 2 )
9 .3
7 5 .6
$1 ,1 4 6 ,3 9 3
$1 ,2 6 8 ,1 4 7
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-7 4 ,7 9 0
8 4 0 2
2 9 .0 4
-4 %
($1 ,2 8 5 ,1 3 9 )
($6 ,3 4 4 )
($1 6 ,9 9 2 )
2 0 2 .6
7 5 .6
$1 ,2 7 8 ,7 9 4
$1 ,2 6 8 ,1 4 7
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-8 0 ,2 4 8
8 4 1 8
2 7 .5 7
-5 %
($1 ,2 7 8 ,0 9 7 )
($2 3 5 ,4 7 9 )
($2 4 ,1 0 7 )
5 .4
5 3 .0
$1 ,0 4 2 ,6 1 7
$1 ,2 5 3 ,9 9 0
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-8 0 ,2 4 8
8 4 1 8
2 7 .5 7
-5 %
($1 ,2 7 8 ,0 9 7 )
($1 2 3 ,3 7 1 )
($2 4 ,1 0 7 )
1 0 .4
5 3 .0
$1 ,1 5 4 ,7 2 6
$1 ,2 5 3 ,9 9 0
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-9 8 ,0 4 1
1 0 2 5 2
3 2 .7 3
-7 %
($1 ,2 7 9 ,5 2 8 )
($2 7 8 ,2 4 2 )
($3 5 ,1 5 8 )
4 .6
3 6 .4
$1 ,0 0 1 ,2 8 6
$1 ,2 4 4 ,3 7 0
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-1 0 0 ,0 8 0
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .2 4
-9 %
($1 ,2 8 2 ,8 3 4 )
($4 8 0 ,3 4 7 )
($3 8 ,7 1 5 )
2 .7
3 3 .1
$8 0 2 ,4 8 7
$1 ,2 4 4 ,1 1 9
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-1 0 0 ,0 8 0
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .2 4
-9 %
($1 ,2 8 2 ,8 3 4 )
($2 3 ,3 6 2 )
($3 8 ,7 1 5 )
5 4 .9
3 3 .1
$1 ,2 5 9 ,4 7 2
$1 ,2 4 4 ,1 1 9
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-9 4 ,6 0 7
1 0 0 2 9
3 2 .4 7
-7 %
($1 ,2 7 9 ,3 0 1 )
($2 7 6 ,9 4 4 )
$2 4 4 ,5 5 2
4 .6
>1
$1 ,0 0 2 ,3 5 7
$1 ,5 2 3 ,8 5 3
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-9 7 ,9 5 9
1 0 0 5 6
3 1 .9 1
-7 %
($1 ,2 7 9 ,8 9 3 )
($3 0 2 ,1 2 3 )
($3 7 ,7 6 9 )
4 .2
3 3 .9
$9 7 7 ,7 7 0
$1 ,2 4 2 ,1 2 4
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-9 7 ,9 5 9
1 0 0 5 6
3 1 .9 1
-7 %
($1 ,2 7 9 ,8 9 3 )
($1 2 9 ,0 8 2 )
($3 7 ,7 6 9 )
9 .9
3 3 .9
$1 ,1 5 0 ,8 1 1
$1 ,2 4 2 ,1 2 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
-4 5 ,2 2 6
5 5 7 9
2 0 .1 7
0 .0 4 %
($1 ,2 7 6 ,8 4 7 )
($6 ,5 3 3 )
$2 2 7
1 9 5 .4
>1
$1 ,2 7 0 ,3 1 4
$1 ,2 7 7 ,0 7 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-1 9 8 ,8 4 0
1 7 5 9 9
4 7 .7 3
-3 9 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 5 0 )
($6 0 5 ,6 0 1 )
($1 8 5 ,4 3 8 )
2 .1
6 .9
$6 8 2 ,8 4 8
$1 ,1 0 3 ,0 1 1
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-1 9 8 ,8 4 0
1 7 5 9 9
4 7 .7 3
-3 9 %
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 5 0 )
$4 0 ,2 6 8
($1 8 5 ,4 3 8 )
>1
6 .9
$1 ,3 2 8 ,7 1 8
$1 ,1 0 3 ,0 1 1
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
43 2019-07-15
4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery
The Reach Code Team ran packages of PV-only and PV+Battery measures, without any additional
efficiency measures, to assess cost effectiveness on top of the mixed-fuel baseline building and the all-
electric federal code minimum reference (Package 2 in Sections 4.1 –4.3).
Jurisdictions interested in adopting PV-only reach codes should reference the mixed-fuel cost
effectiveness results because a mixed-fuel building is the baseline for the nonresidential prototypes
analyzed in this study. PV or PV+Battery packages are added to all-electric federal code minimum
reference which (in many scenarios)do not have a positive compliance margin compared to the mixed-
fuel baseline model,and are solely provided for informational purposes. Jurisdictions interested in reach
codes requiring all-electric+PV or all-electric+PV+battery should reference package 3B results in Sections
4.1 –4.3.25
Each of the following eight packages were evaluated against a mixed fuel baseline designed as per 2019
Title 24 Part 6 requirements.
Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only:
Mixed-Fuel +3 kW PV + 5 kWh battery
Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity
consumption, whichever is smaller
Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building,or to offset the
annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery
All-Electric +3 kW PV Only
All-Electric +3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity
consumption, whichever is smaller
All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the
annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery
Figure 38 through Figure 40 summarize the on-bill and TDV B/C ratios for each prototype for the two PV
only packages and the two PV plus battery packages. Co mpliance margins are 0 percent for all mixed-fuel
packages. For all-electric packages, compliance margins are equal to those found in Package 2 for each
prototype in Sections 4.1 –4.3.The compliance margins are not impacted by renewables and battery
storage measures and hence not shown in the tables. These figures are formatted in the following way:
Cells highlighted in green have a B/C ratio greater than 1 and are cost-effective. The shade of
green gets darker as cost effectiveness increases.
Cells not highlighted have a B/C ratio less than one and are not cost effective.
25 Because this study shows that the addition of battery generally reduces cost effectiveness, removing a battery
measure would only increase cost effectiveness. Thus, a jurisdiction can apply the EE+PV+Battery cost effectiveness
findings to support EE+PV reach codes, because EE+PV would still remain cost effective without a battery.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
44 2019-07-15
Please see Appendix 6.7 for results in full detail. Generally, for mixed-fuel packages across all prototypes,
all climate zones were proven to have cost effective outcomes using TDV except in CZ1 with a 3 kW PV + 5
kWh Battery scenario. Most climate zones also had On-Bill cost effectiveness. The addition of a battery
slightly reduces cost effectiveness.
In all-electric packages, the results for most climate zones were found cost effective using both TDV and
On-Bill approaches with larger PV systems or PV+Battery systems. Most 3 kW PV systems were also found
to be cost effective except in some scenarios analyzing the Medium Office using the On-Bill method. CZ16
results continue to show challenges being cost effective with all electric buildings, likely due to the high
heating loads in this climate.The addition of a battery slightly reduces the cost effectiveness for all-
electric buildings with PV.
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 8 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e - P V a n d B a t t e r y
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 6
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 3 9 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l - P V a n d B a t t e r y
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
4 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 4 0 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l - P V a n d B a t t e r y
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
48 2019-07-15
5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining
energy efficiency with PV generation and battery storage systems, simulated them in building modeling
software, and gathered costs to determine the cost effectiveness of multiple scenarios.The Reach Codes
team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a
set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the
period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely
to change results.
5.1 Summary
Figure 41 through Figure 43 summarize results for each prototype and depict the compliance margins
achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy
Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the
Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary
for potential reach code policies:
Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using
both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the
On-Bill or TDV approach.
Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost
effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
For more detail on the results in the Figures, please refer to Section 4 Results. As described in Section 4.4,
PV-only and PV+Battery packages in the mixed-fuel building were found to be cost effective across all
prototypes, climate zones, and packages using the TDV approach, and results are not reiterated in the
following figures.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
49 2019-07-15
Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 18%18%3%-15%7%7%-14%
CZ02 PG&E 17%17%4%-7%10%10%-5%
CZ03 PG&E 20%20%3%-7%16%16%-6%
CZ04 PG&E 14%14%5%-6%9%9%-3%
CZ04-2 CPAU 14%14%5%-6%9%9%-3%
CZ05 PG&E 18%18%4%-8%12%12%-6%
CZ05-2 SCG 18%18%4%NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 20%20%3%-4%18%18%-2%
CZ06-2 LADWP 20%20%3%-4%18%18%-2%
CZ07 SDG&E 20%20%4%-2%20%20%1%
CZ08 SCE 18%18%4%-2%18%18%1%
CZ08-2 LADWP 18%18%4%-2%18%18%1%
CZ09 SCE 16%16%4%-2%15%15%2%
CZ09-2 LADWP 16%16%4%-2%15%15%2%
CZ10 SDG&E 17%17%4%-4%13%13%-1%
CZ10-2 SCE 17%17%4%-4%13%13%-1%
CZ11 PG&E 13%13%5%-4%10%10%0%
CZ12 PG&E 14%14%5%-5%10%10%-1%
CZ12-2 SMUD 14%14%5%-5%10%10%-1%
CZ13 PG&E 13%13%5%-4%9%9%0%
CZ14 SDG&E 14%14%5%-5%9%9%-1%
CZ14-2 SCE 14%14%5%-5%9%9%-1%
CZ15 SCE 12%12%5%-2%10%10%3%
CZ16 PG&E 14%14%5%-27%-15%-15%-26%
CZ16-2 LADWP 14%14%5%-27%-15%-15%-26%
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
50 2019-07-15
Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 18%18%2%-4.1%15%15%-2%
CZ02 PG&E 13%13%3%-1.0%13%13%3%
CZ03 PG&E 16%16%2%-0.4%16%16%2%
CZ04 PG&E 14%14%3%-0.1%14%14%3%
CZ04-2 CPAU 14%14%3%-0.1%14%14%3%
CZ05 PG&E 16%16%1%-1.2%15%15%1%
CZ05-2 SCG 16%16%1%NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 10%10%3%0.5%11%11%3%
CZ06-2 LADWP 10%10%3%0.5%11%11%3%
CZ07 SDG&E 13%13%2%0.3%13%13%3%
CZ08 SCE 10%10%3%0.4%10%10%4%
CZ08-2 LADWP 10%10%3%0.4%10%10%4%
CZ09 SCE 10%10%4%0.4%10%10%4%
CZ09-2 LADWP 10%10%4%0.4%10%10%4%
CZ10 SDG&E 12%12%4%0.1%12%12%4%
CZ10-2 SCE 12%12%4%0.1%12%12%4%
CZ11 PG&E 13%13%4%0.5%12%12%5%
CZ12 PG&E 13%13%4%-0.1%12%12%4%
CZ12-2 SMUD 13%13%4%-0.1%12%12%4%
CZ13 PG&E 15%15%4%-0.4%14%14%4%
CZ14 SDG&E 13%13%4%0.7%15%15%5%
CZ14-2 SCE 13%13%4%0.7%15%15%5%
CZ15 SCE 12%12%5%0.9%12%12%6%
CZ16 PG&E 13%13%3%-12.2%3%3%-8%
CZ16-2 LADWP 13%13%3%-12.2%3%3%-8%
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
51 2019-07-15
Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
CZ01 PG&E 9%9%2%-28%1%1%-24%
CZ02 PG&E 7%7%3%-12%4%4%-11%
CZ03 PG&E 10%10%2%-14%6%6%-14%
CZ04 PG&E 6%6%2%-13%0.2%0.2%-13%
CZ04-2 CPAU 6%6%2%-13%0.2%0.2%-13%
CZ05 PG&E 9%9%2%-15%5%5%-15%
CZ05-2 SCG 9%9%2%NA NA NA NA
CZ06 SCE 8%8%2%-5%7%7%-15%
CZ06-2 LADWP 8%8%2%-5%7%7%-15%
CZ07 SDG&E 8%8%2%-7%7%7%-7%
CZ08 SCE 7%7%2%-6%3%3%-6%
CZ08-2 LADWP 7%7%2%-6%3%3%-6%
CZ09 SCE 6%6%3%-6%2%2%-4%
CZ09-2 LADWP 6%6%3%-6%2%2%-4%
CZ10 SDG&E 5%5%4%-8%2%2%-5%
CZ10-2 SCE 5%5%4%-8%2%2%-5%
CZ11 PG&E 4%4%4%-10%1%1%-7%
CZ12 PG&E 5%5%4%-10%2%2%-9%
CZ12-2 SMUD 5%5%4%-10%2%2%-9%
CZ13 PG&E 4%4%3%-10%0.3%0.3%-7%
CZ14 SDG&E 4%4%4%-11%0.1%0.1%-7%
CZ14-2 SCE 4%4%4%-11%0.1%0.1%-7%
CZ15 SCE 3%3%5%-4%2%2%0.04%
CZ16 PG&E 6%6%3%-50%-14%-14%-39%
CZ16-2 LADWP 6%6%3%-50%-14%-14%-39%
5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations
Findings are specific to the scenarios analyzed under this specific methodology, and largely pertain to
office, retail, and hotel-type occupancies. Nonresidential buildings constitute a wide variety of occupancy
profiles and process loads, making findings challenging to generalize across multiple building types.
Findings indicate the following overall conclusions:
1.This study assumed that electrifying space heating and service water heating could eliminate
natural gas infrastructure alone, because these were the only gas end-uses included the
prototypes. Avoiding the installation of natural gas infrastructure results in significant cost savings
and is a primary factor toward cost-effective outcomes in all-electric designs, even with necessary
increases in electrical capacity.
2.There is ample opportunity for cost effective energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated
by the compliance margins achieved in many of the efficiency-only and efficiency +PV packages.
Though much of the energy savings are attributable to lighting measures, efficiency measures
selected for these prototypes are confined to the building systems that can be modeled. There is
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
likely further opportunity for energy savings through measures that cannot be currently
demonstrated in compliance software, such as high-performance control sequences or variable
speed parallel fan powered boxes.
3.High efficiency appliances triggering federal preemption do not achieve as high compliance
margins as the other efficiency measures analyzed in this study. Cost effectiveness appears to be
dependent on the system type and building type. Nonetheless, specifying high efficiency
equipment will always be a key feature in integrated design.
4.Regarding the Small Hotel prototype:
a.The Small Hotel presents a challenging prototype to cost-effectively exceed the state’s
energy performance budget without efficiency measures. The Reach Code Team is
uncertain of the precision of the results due to the inability to directly model either drain
water heat recovery or a central heat pump water heater with a recirculation loop.
b.Hotel results may be applicable to high-rise (4 or more stories) multifamily buildings. Both
hotel and multifamily buildings have the same or similar mandatory and prescriptive
compliance options for hot water systems, lighting, and envelope. Furthermore, the
Alternate Calculation Method Reference Manual specifies the same baseline HVAC system
for both building types.
c.Hotel compliance margins were the lowest among the three building types analyzed, and
thus the most conservative performance thresholds applicable to other nonresidential
buildings not analyzed in this study. As stated previously, the varying occupancy and
energy profiles of nonresidential buildings makes challenging to directly apply these
results across all buildings.
5.Many all-electric and solar PV packages demonstrated greater GHG reductions than their mixed-
fuel counterparts, contrary to TDV-based performance, suggesting a misalignment among the TDV
metric and California’s long-term GHG-reduction goals. The Energy Commission has indicated that
they are aware of this issue and are seeking to address it.
6.Changes to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual can
drastically impact results. Two examples include:
a.When performance modeling residential buildings, the Standard Design is electric if the
Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and associated negative
compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for all-electric
residential buildings. If nonresidential buildings were treated in the same way, all-electric
cost effectiveness using the TDV approach would improve.
b.The baseline mixed-fuel system for a hotel includes a furnace in each guest room, which
carries substantial plumbing costs and labor costs for assembly. A change in the baseline
system would lead to different base case costs and different cost effectiveness outcomes.
7.All-electric federal code-minimum packages appear to be cost effective, largely due to avoided
natural gas infrastructure, but in most cases do not comply with the Energy Commission’s
minimum performance budget (as described in item 7a above). For most cases it appears that
adding cost-effective efficiency measures achieves compliance.All-electric nonresidential projects
can leverage the initial cost savings of avoiding natural gas infrastructure by adding energy
efficiency measures that would not be cost effective independently.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
53 2019-07-15
6 Appendices
6.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 44. The map in Figure 44 along with a zip-
code search directory is available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html
Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
54 2019-07-15
6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures
Figure 45 details the applicability and impact of each lighting efficiency measure by prototype and space
function and includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space
function.
Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function
Space Function
Baseline Impact
Modeled
Proposed
LPD
(W/ft2)
Interior
Lighting
Reduced
LPD
Institutional
Tuning
Daylight
Dimming
Plus OFF
Occupant
Sensing in
Open Office
Plan
LPD
(W/ft2)
Medium Office
Office Area (Open plan office) -
Interior 0.65 15%10%-17%0.429
Office Area (Open plan office) -
Perimeter 0.65 15%5%10%30%0.368
Medium Retail
Commercial/Industrial Storage
(Warehouse)0.45 10%5%--0.386
Main Entry Lobby 0.85 10%5%--0.729
Retail Sales Area (Retail
Merchandise Sales)0.95 5%5%--0.857
Small Hotel
Commercial/Industrial Storage
(Warehouse)0.45 10%5%--0.386
Convention, Conference,
Multipurpose, and Meeting 0.85 10%5%--0.729
Corridor Area 0.60 10%5%--0.514
Exercise/Fitness Center and
Gymnasium Areas 0.50 10%---0.450
Laundry Area 0.45 10%---0.405
Lounge, Breakroom, or Waiting
Area 0.65 10%5%--0.557
Mechanical 0.40 10%---0.360
Office Area (>250 ft2)0.65 10%5%--0.557
6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis
To support potential DWHR savings in the Small Hotel prototype, the Reach Code Team modeled the drain
water heat recovery measure in CBECC-Res 2019 in the all-electric and mixed fuel 6,960 ft2 prototype
residential buildings. The Reach Code Team assumed one heat recovery device for every three showers
assuming unequal flow to the shower. Based on specifications from three different drain water heat
recovery device manufacturers for device effectiveness in hotel applications, the team assumed a heat
recovery efficiency of 50 percent.
The Reach Code Team modeled mixed fuel and all-electric residential prototype buildings both with and
without heat recovery in each climate zone. Based on these model results,the Reach Code Team
determined the percentage savings of domestic water heating energy in terms of gas, electricity, and TDV
for mixed fuel and all-electric, in each climate zone.The Reach Code Team then applied the savings
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
55 2019-07-15
percentages to the Small Hotel prototype domestic water heating energy in both the mixed-fuel and all-
electric to determine energy savings for the drain water heat recovery measure in the Small Hotel. The
Reach Code Team applied volumetric energy rates to estimate on-bill cost impacts from this measure.
6.4 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings
for each prototype.
Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View
Climate
Zones
Electric /
Gas Utility
Electricity (Time-of-use)Natural Gas
Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel All Prototypes
CZ01 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ02 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ03 PG&E A-10 A-1 or A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ04 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ04-2 CPAU/PG&E E-2 E-2 E-2 G-NR1
CZ05 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ05-2 PG&E/SCG A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ06 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ06 LADWP/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ07 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)GN-3
CZ08 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ08-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B)A-2 (B)A-2 (B)G-10 (GN-10)
CZ09 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ09-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B)A-2 (B)A-2 (B)G-10 (GN-10)
CZ10 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ10-2 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)GN-3
CZ11 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1
CZ12 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ12-2 SMUD/PG&E GS GS GS G-NR1
CZ13 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1
CZ14 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ14-2 SDG&E
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)GN-3
CZ15 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ16 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1
CZ16-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B)A-2 (B)A-2 (B)G-10 (GN-10)
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
56 2019-07-15
6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures
Figures 47 to 49 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and
GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed fuel design baseline.
Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline
Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Medium Office Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 358,455 4,967 $109,507 $6,506 84 266,893
CZ02 PG&E 404,865 3,868 $130,575 $5,256 122 282,762
CZ03 PG&E 370,147 3,142 $116,478 $4,349 88 251,759
CZ04 PG&E 431,722 3,759 $140,916 $5,144 141 299,993
CZ04-2 CPAU 431,722 3,759 $75,363 $5,144 141 299,993
CZ05 PG&E 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $4,481 106 269,768
CZ05-2 SCG 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $3,683 106 269,768
CZ06 SCE 397,441 2,117 $74,516 $2,718 105 253,571
CZ06-2 LA 397,441 2,117 $44,311 $2,718 105 253,571
CZ07 SDG&E 422,130 950 $164,991 $4,429 118 257,324
CZ08 SCE 431,207 1,219 $79,181 $1,820 132 265,179
CZ08-2 LA 431,207 1,219 $46,750 $1,820 132 265,179
CZ09 SCE 456,487 1,605 $86,190 $2,196 155 287,269
CZ09-2 LA 456,487 1,605 $51,111 $2,196 155 287,269
CZ10 SDG&E 431,337 2,053 $173,713 $5,390 130 272,289
CZ10-2 SCE 431,337 2,053 $80,636 $2,603 130 272,289
CZ11 PG&E 464,676 3,062 $150,520 $4,333 163 310,307
CZ12 PG&E 441,720 3,327 $142,902 $4,647 152 299,824
CZ12-2 SMUD 441,720 3,327 $65,707 $4,647 152 299,824
CZ13 PG&E 471,540 3,063 $150,919 $4,345 161 316,228
CZ14 SDG&E 467,320 3,266 $185,812 $6,448 165 314,258
CZ14-2 SCE 467,320 3,266 $92,071 $3,579 165 314,258
CZ15 SCE 559,655 1,537 $105,388 $2,058 211 347,545
CZ16 PG&E 405,269 6,185 $127,201 $8,056 116 312,684
CZ16-2 LA 405,269 6,185 $43,115 $8,056 116 312,684
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
57 2019-07-15
Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline
Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Medium Retail Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 156,972
CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 157,236
CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 140,558
CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 143,966
CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 143,966
CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 135,849
CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 135,849
CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 135,557
CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 135,557
CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 130,436
CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 133,999
CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 133,999
CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 146,680
CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 146,680
CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 154,572
CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 154,572
CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 170,232
CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 165,133
CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 165,133
CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 170,345
CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 178,507
CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 178,507
CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 179,423
CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 180,630
CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 180,630
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
58 2019-07-15
Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline
Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
TDV
GHG
Emissions
(lbs)
Small Hotel Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 340,491
CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 293,056
CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 284,217
CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 281,851
CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 281,851
CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 281,183
CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 281,183
CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 244,664
CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 244,664
CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 233,884
CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 236,544
CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 236,544
CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 242,296
CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 242,296
CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 255,622
CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 255,622
CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 282,232
CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 270,262
CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 270,262
CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 284,007
CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 283,287
CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 283,287
CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 260,378
CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 358,590
CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 358,590
6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline
The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all-electric packages with a mixed-
fuel design baseline using propane instead of natural gas. Results for each package are shown in Figure
50.through Figure 53.below.
All electric models compared to a propane baseline have positive compliance margins in all climate zones
when compared to results using a natural gas baseline. Compliance margin improvement is roughly 30
percent, which also leads to improved cost effectiveness for the all-electric packages. These outcomes are
likely due to the TDV penalty associated with propane when compared to natural gas.
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
59 2019-07-15
Across packages, TDV cost effectiveness with a propane baseline follows similar trends as the natural gas
baseline. Adding efficiency measures increased compliance margins by 3 to 10 percent depending on
climate zone, while adding high efficiency HVAC and SHW equipment alone increased compliance margins
by smaller margins of about 2 to 4 percent compared to the All-Electric package.
Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All-
Electric Federal Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Complianc
e
Margin
(%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings
B/C Ratio
(TDV)NPV (TDV)
CZ01 -4%($1,271,869)($28,346)44.9 $1,243,523
CZ02 27%($1,272,841)$170,263 >1 $1,443,104
CZ03 -3%($1,275,114)($16,425)77.6 $1,258,689
CZ04 26%($1,274,949)$155,466 >1 $1,430,414
CZ05 27%($1,275,002)$154,709 >1 $1,429,710
CZ06 17%($1,275,143)$126,212 >1 $1,401,355
CZ07 25%($1,273,490)$117,621 >1 $1,391,111
CZ08 24%($1,271,461)$122,087 >1 $1,393,548
CZ09 23%($1,273,259)$123,525 >1 $1,396,784
CZ10 18%($1,270,261)$109,522 >1 $1,379,783
CZ11 19%($1,271,070)$129,428 >1 $1,400,498
CZ12 -4%($1,272,510)($26,302)48.4 $1,246,208
CZ13 18%($1,270,882)$124,357 >1 $1,395,239
CZ14 17%($1,271,241)$117,621 >1 $1,388,861
CZ15 -7%($1,269,361)($45,338)28.0 $1,224,023
CZ16 9%($1,275,637)$68,272 >1 $1,343,908
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
60 2019-07-15
Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All-
Electric + EE)
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings
B/C Ratio
(TDV)NPV (TDV)
CZ01 35%($1,250,898)$252,831 >1 $1,503,729
CZ02 34%($1,251,870)$217,238 >1 $1,469,108
CZ03 37%($1,254,142)$218,642 >1 $1,472,784
CZ04 31%($1,250,769)$191,393 >1 $1,442,162
CZ05 36%($1,254,031)$208,773 >1 $1,462,804
CZ06 25%($1,250,964)$159,714 >1 $1,410,677
CZ07 32%($1,249,311)$154,111 >1 $1,403,422
CZ08 29%($1,247,282)$146,536 >1 $1,393,818
CZ09 27%($1,249,080)$146,671 >1 $1,395,751
CZ10 22%($1,246,081)$134,477 >1 $1,380,559
CZ11 23%($1,246,891)$157,138 >1 $1,404,029
CZ12 27%($1,248,330)$167,945 >1 $1,416,276
CZ13 22%($1,246,703)$149,270 >1 $1,395,973
CZ14 21%($1,247,061)$145,269 >1 $1,392,331
CZ15 14%($1,245,182)$93,647 >1 $1,338,829
CZ16 20%($1,254,665)$154,035 >1 $1,408,701
Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All-
Electric + EE + PV)
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (TDV)
CZ01 35%($1,043,528)$511,688 >1 $1,555,215
CZ02 34%($1,044,500)$524,460 >1 $1,568,960
CZ03 37%($1,046,772)$518,485 >1 $1,565,257
CZ04 31%($1,043,399)$505,579 >1 $1,548,978
CZ05 36%($1,046,660)$526,668 >1 $1,573,328
CZ06 25%($1,043,594)$469,623 >1 $1,513,216
CZ07 32%($1,041,941)$471,513 >1 $1,513,454
CZ08 29%($1,039,912)$475,973 >1 $1,515,885
CZ09 27%($1,041,710)$467,971 >1 $1,509,681
CZ10 22%($1,038,711)$454,832 >1 $1,493,543
CZ11 23%($1,039,521)$474,844 >1 $1,514,364
CZ12 27%($1,040,960)$484,667 >1 $1,525,627
CZ13 22%($1,039,333)$454,108 >1 $1,493,441
CZ14 21%($1,039,691)$505,398 >1 $1,545,090
CZ15 14%($1,037,811)$423,879 >1 $1,461,691
CZ16 20%($1,047,295)$480,407 >1 $1,527,702
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
61 2019-07-15
Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All
Electric + HE)
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (TDV)
CZ01 27%($1,256,423)$194,975 >1 $1,451,398
CZ02 28%($1,258,328)$177,378 >1 $1,435,706
CZ03 28%($1,263,867)$164,094 >1 $1,427,961
CZ04 26%($1,262,963)$155,314 >1 $1,418,277
CZ05 26%($1,263,327)$153,271 >1 $1,416,598
CZ06 17%($1,263,779)$122,011 >1 $1,385,790
CZ07 24%($1,260,844)$116,751 >1 $1,377,594
CZ08 25%($1,256,326)$122,995 >1 $1,379,321
CZ09 24%($1,260,223)$128,482 >1 $1,388,706
CZ10 20%($1,253,181)$121,595 >1 $1,374,776
CZ11 21%($1,254,613)$143,658 >1 $1,398,271
CZ12 23%($1,257,919)$142,901 >1 $1,400,820
CZ13 21%($1,254,386)$138,625 >1 $1,393,011
CZ14 20%($1,254,978)$136,430 >1 $1,391,407
CZ15 14%($1,251,932)$96,087 >1 $1,348,019
CZ16 15%($1,263,534)$122,011 >1 $1,385,545
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
6 .7
P V -o n l y a n d P V +B a t t e r y -o n l y C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s u l t s D e t a i l s
T h e R e a c h C o d e T e a
e v a l u a t e d c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t a l l i n g a P V s y s t e m a n d b a t t e r y s t o r a g e i n s i x d i f f e r e n t m e a s u r e
c o m b i n a t i o n s o v e r a 2 0 1 9
c o d e -c o m p l i a n t b a s e l i n e f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s . T h e b a s e l i n e f o r a l l n o n r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s i s a m i x e d -f u e l d e s i g n .
A l l m i x e d f u e l m o d e l s
a r e c o m p l i a n t w i t h 2 0 1 9 T i t l e 2 4 , w h e r e a s a l l e l e c t r i c m o d e l s
c a n s h o w n e g a t i v e c o m p l i a n c e . T h e c o m p l i a n c e m a r g i n i s t h e
s a m e
a s t h a t o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f e d e r a l m i n i m u m d e s i g n a n d i s n o t a f f e c t e d b y a d d i t i o n o f s o l a r P V o r b a t t e r y . T h e s e s c e n a r i o s
e v a l u a t e t h e c o s t
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f P V a n d /o r b a t t e r y m e a s u r e i n d i v i d u a l l y . T h e c l i m a t e z o n e s w h e r e a l l -e l e c t r i c d e s i g n i s n o t c o m p l i a n t
w i l l h a v e t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t o
r a m p u p t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f a p p l i a n c e o r a d d a n o t h e r m e a s u r e t o b e c o d e c o m p l i a n t , a s p e r p a c k a g e 1 B a n d 3 B i n m a i n b o d y o f t h e r e p o r t .
T h e l a r g e
n e g a t i v e l i f e c y c l e c o s t s i n a l l e l e c t r i c p a c k a g e s a r e d u e t o l o w e r a l l -e l e c t r i c H V A C s y s t e m c o s t s a n d a v o i d e d n a t u r a l g a s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e c o s t s . T h i s i s
c o m m o n l y a p p l i e d a c r o s s a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s a n d p a c k a g e s o v e r a n y a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s f o r P V a n d b a t t e r y .
6 .7 .1
C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s u l t s – M e d i u m O f f i c e
F i g u r e 5 4
t h r o u g h F i g u r e 6 1
c o n t a i n
t h e c o s t -e f f e c t i v e n e s s f i n d i n g s f o r t h e M e d i u m O f f i c e p a c k a g e s . N o t a b l e f i n d i n g s f o r e a c h p a c k a g e i n c l u d e :
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W P V
O n l y : A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s .
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W P V
+ 5 k W h B a t t e r y :
T h e p a c k a g e s
a r e m o s t l y c o s t e f f e c t i v e
o n a T D V b a s i s
e x c e p t i n C Z 1 . A s c o m p a r e d t o t h e 3 k W
P V
o n l y p a c k a g e , b a t t e r y r e d u c e s c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
T h i s p a c k a g e i s n o t c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r L A D W P a n d S M U D t e r r i t o r i e s
u s i n g a n O n -B i l l
a p p r o a c h .
M i x e d -F u e l + P V o n l y : T h e p a c k a g e s a r e l e s s c o s t e f f e c t i v e a s c o m p a r e d t o 3 k W
P V p a c k a g e s i n m o s t c l i m a t e z o n e s . I n a r e a s s e r v e d b y
L A D W P , t h e B /C r a t i o i s n a r r o w l y l e s s t h a n 1
a n d n o t c o s t
e f f e c t i v e .
M i x e d -F u e l + P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y : T h e p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t f o r i n t h e a r e a s s e r v e d b y L A D W P . O n -B i l l
a n d T D V B /C r a t i o s a r e s l i g h t l y l o w e r c o m p a r e d t o t h e P V o n l y p a c k a g e .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V : P a c k a g e s a r e
o n -b i l l c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n t e n o f s i x t e e n
c l i m a t e z o n e s . C l i m a t e z o n e s 1 ,2 ,4 ,1 2 , a n d 1 6 w e r e n o t f o u n d t o
b e c o s t -e f f e c t i v e f r o m a n o n -b i l l p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e s e z o n e s a r e w i t h i n P G &E ’s s e r v i c e a r e a . P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g T D V i n a l l
c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t C Z 1 6 .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V +
5 k W h B a t t e r y :
P a c k a g e s a r e s l i g h t l y m o r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e p r e v i o u s m i n i m a l P V o n l y p a c k a g e .
P a c k a g e s
a r e
o n -b i l l c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n
m o s t c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t f o r 1 ,2 a n d 1 6 f r o m a n o n -b i l l p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e s e z o n e s a r e w i t h i n P G &E ’s s e r v i c e a r e a .
P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g T D V i n a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t C Z 1 6 .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V o n l y : A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s .
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y : A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s . O n -B i l l a n d
T D V B /C r a t i o s a r e s l i g h t l y l o w e r c o m p a r e d t o t h e P V o n l y p a c k a g e .
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 4 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e - M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e $-
T D V S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V
(O n -b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .8
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,7 4 3
$8 ,4 4 8
2 .8
1 .5
$1 0 ,1 7 7
$2 ,8 8 2
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,7 8 5
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 0 ,3 7 2
$1 0 ,5 0 0
3 .7
1 .9
$1 4 ,8 0 6
$4 ,9 3 4
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,6 6 0
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 0 ,6 0 3
$9 ,9 7 5
3 .7
1 .8
$1 5 ,0 3 7
$4 ,4 0 9
C Z 0 4
P G &E
5 ,0 5 6
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 0 ,2 3 5
$1 1 ,0 7 3
3 .6
2 .0
$1 4 ,6 6 9
$5 ,5 0 7
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
5 ,0 5 6
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,9 4 5
$1 1 ,0 7 3
2 .1
2 .0
$6 ,3 7 9
$5 ,5 0 7
C Z 0 5
P G &E
5 ,0 2 7
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 3 ,1 5 9
$1 0 ,8 3 4
4 .2
1 .9
$1 7 ,5 9 3
$5 ,2 6 8
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,8 5 3
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,9 6 8
$1 0 ,9 3 0
2 .0
2 .0
$5 ,4 0 2
$5 ,3 6 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 5 3
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,5 7 5
$1 0 ,9 3 0
1 .2
2 .0
$1 ,0 0 9
$5 ,3 6 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 7 ,9 0 4
$1 1 ,0 2 5
3 .2
2 .0
$1 2 ,3 3 8
$5 ,4 5 9
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,7 6 8
$1 1 ,3 5 9
1 .9
2 .0
$5 ,2 0 2
$5 ,7 9 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,5 0 3
$1 1 ,3 5 9
1 .2
2 .0
$9 3 7
$5 ,7 9 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,8 8 9
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,6 2 2
$1 1 ,2 1 6
1 .9
2 .0
$5 ,0 5 6
$5 ,6 5 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 8 9
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,2 1 7
$1 1 ,2 1 6
1 .1
2 .0
$6 5 1
$5 ,6 5 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 1 ,2 8 0
$1 0 ,7 8 7
3 .8
1 .9
$1 5 ,7 1 4
$5 ,2 2 1
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,5 9 8
$1 0 ,7 8 7
2 .1
1 .9
$6 ,0 3 2
$5 ,2 2 1
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 0 1
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 9 ,8 6 9
$1 0 ,6 4 4
3 .6
1 .9
$1 4 ,3 0 3
$5 ,0 7 8
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 9 ,6 4 3
$1 0 ,6 4 4
3 .5
1 .9
$1 4 ,0 7 7
$5 ,0 7 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$8 ,0 0 5
$1 0 ,6 4 4
1 .4
1 .9
$2 ,4 3 9
$5 ,0 7 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,6 3 3
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 9 ,2 3 1
$1 0 ,2 6 2
3 .5
1 .8
$1 3 ,6 6 5
$4 ,6 9 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 8 ,7 8 9
$1 2 ,6 0 0
3 .4
2 .3
$1 3 ,2 2 3
$7 ,0 3 4
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,5 1 2
$1 2 ,6 0 0
1 .9
2 .3
$4 ,9 4 6
$7 ,0 3 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
5 ,0 9 9
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,1 0 9
$1 1 ,5 5 0
1 .8
2 .1
$4 ,5 4 3
$5 ,9 8 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,0 9 6
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 1 ,8 3 6
$1 0 ,8 8 2
3 .9
2 .0
$1 6 ,2 7 0
$5 ,3 1 6
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
5 ,0 9 6
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,5 0 1
$1 0 ,8 8 2
1 .2
2 .0
$9 3 5
$5 ,3 1 6
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 5 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .8
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,7 4 3
$8 ,4 4 8
1 .7
0 .9
$6 ,2 2 3
($1 ,0 7 2 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,7 8 5
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 0 ,3 7 2
$1 0 ,5 0 0
2 .1
1 .1
$1 0 ,8 5 2
$9 8 0
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,6 6 0
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 0 ,6 0 3
$9 ,9 7 5
2 .2
1 .0
$1 1 ,0 8 3
$4 5 5
C Z 0 4
P G &E
5 ,0 5 6
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 0 ,2 3 5
$1 1 ,0 7 3
2 .1
1 .2
$1 0 ,7 1 4
$1 ,5 5 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
5 ,0 5 6
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,9 4 5
$1 1 ,0 7 3
1 .3
1 .2
$2 ,4 2 5
$1 ,5 5 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
5 ,0 2 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 3 ,1 5 9
$1 0 ,8 3 4
2 .4
1 .1
$1 3 ,6 3 9
$1 ,3 1 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,8 5 3
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,9 6 8
$1 0 ,9 3 0
1 .2
1 .1
$1 ,4 4 8
$1 ,4 1 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 5 3
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,5 7 5
$1 0 ,9 3 0
0 .7
1 .1
($2 ,9 4 5 )
$1 ,4 1 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 7 ,9 0 4
$1 1 ,0 2 5
1 .9
1 .2
$8 ,3 8 4
$1 ,5 0 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,7 6 8
$1 1 ,3 5 9
1 .1
1 .2
$1 ,2 4 8
$1 ,8 3 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,5 0 3
$1 1 ,3 5 9
0 .7
1 .2
($3 ,0 1 7 )
$1 ,8 3 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,8 8 9
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,6 2 2
$1 1 ,2 1 6
1 .1
1 .2
$1 ,1 0 2
$1 ,6 9 6
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
4 ,8 8 9
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,2 1 7
$1 1 ,2 1 6
0 .7
1 .2
($3 ,3 0 3 )
$1 ,6 9 6
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 1 ,2 8 0
$1 0 ,7 8 7
2 .2
1 .1
$1 1 ,7 6 0
$1 ,2 6 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,5 9 8
$1 0 ,7 8 7
1 .2
1 .1
$2 ,0 7 8
$1 ,2 6 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 0 1
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 9 ,8 6 9
$1 0 ,6 4 4
2 .1
1 .1
$1 0 ,3 4 9
$1 ,1 2 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 9 ,6 4 3
$1 0 ,6 4 4
2 .1
1 .1
$1 0 ,1 2 3
$1 ,1 2 3
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$8 ,0 0 5
$1 0 ,6 4 4
0 .8
1 .1
($1 ,5 1 5 )
$1 ,1 2 3
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,6 3 3
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 9 ,2 3 1
$1 0 ,2 6 2
2 .0
1 .1
$9 ,7 1 1
$7 4 2
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 8 ,7 8 9
$1 2 ,6 0 0
2 .0
1 .3
$9 ,2 6 9
$3 ,0 8 0
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,5 1 2
$1 2 ,6 0 0
1 .1
1 .3
$9 9 2
$3 ,0 8 0
C Z 1 5
S C E
5 ,0 9 9
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,1 0 9
$1 1 ,5 5 0
1 .1
1 .2
$5 8 9
$2 ,0 3 0
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,0 9 6
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 1 ,8 3 6
$1 0 ,8 8 2
2 .3
1 .1
$1 2 ,3 1 6
$1 ,3 6 2
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
5 ,0 9 6
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,5 0 1
$1 0 ,8 8 2
0 .7
1 .1
($3 ,0 1 9 )
$1 ,3 6 2
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 6
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 6 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – M i x e d F u e l + 1 3 5 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l +1 3 5 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 7 7 ,3 4 0
0
3 4 .3
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$5 2 6 ,3 5 2
$3 8 0 ,3 9 9
1 .7
1 .3
$2 2 3 ,4 9 7
$7 7 ,5 4 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 1 5 ,3 1 1
0
4 1 .5
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 6 6 ,0 5 0
$4 7 1 ,7 0 5
2 .2
1 .6
$3 6 3 ,1 9 4
$1 6 8 ,8 4 9
C Z 0 3
P G &E
2 0 9 ,7 1 7
0
4 0 .7
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 4 5 ,0 1 0
$4 4 9 ,7 9 7
2 .1
1 .5
$3 4 2 ,1 5 4
$1 4 6 ,9 4 2
C Z 0 4
P G &E
2 2 7 ,5 3 5
0
4 4 .0
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 8 6 ,4 3 4
$4 9 7 ,4 3 1
2 .3
1 .6
$3 8 3 ,5 7 8
$1 9 4 ,5 7 5
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
2 2 7 ,5 3 5
0
4 4 .0
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$5 3 7 ,5 2 1
$4 9 7 ,4 3 1
1 .8
1 .6
$2 3 4 ,6 6 5
$1 9 4 ,5 7 5
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 2 6 ,1 9 5
0
4 4 .1
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$7 5 3 ,2 3 0
$4 8 6 ,5 9 6
2 .5
1 .6
$4 5 0 ,3 7 4
$1 8 3 ,7 4 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 1 8 ,3 8 7
0
4 2 .3
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$4 0 1 ,6 4 5
$4 9 2 ,5 1 5
1 .3
1 .6
$9 8 ,7 8 9
$1 8 9 ,6 5 9
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
2 1 8 ,3 8 7
0
4 2 .3
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$2 3 3 ,9 0 9
$4 9 2 ,5 1 5
0 .8
1 .6
($6 8 ,9 4 7 )
$1 8 9 ,6 5 9
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 2 3 ,1 8 5
0
4 3 .3
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 2 3 ,0 7 8
$4 9 6 ,6 6 7
2 .1
1 .6
$3 2 0 ,2 2 3
$1 9 3 ,8 1 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 1 7 ,1 7 1
0
4 2 .0
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$3 8 9 ,4 3 5
$5 1 0 ,2 7 0
1 .3
1 .7
$8 6 ,5 7 9
$2 0 7 ,4 1 4
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
2 1 7 ,1 7 1
0
4 2 .0
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$2 2 2 ,0 6 6
$5 1 0 ,2 7 0
0 .7
1 .7
($8 0 ,7 9 0 )
$2 0 7 ,4 1 4
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 2 0 ,0 1 0
0
4 3 .2
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$3 8 7 ,9 7 7
$5 0 5 ,7 8 3
1 .3
1 .7
$8 5 ,1 2 2
$2 0 2 ,9 2 8
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
2 2 0 ,0 1 0
0
4 3 .2
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$2 2 6 ,5 1 6
$5 0 5 ,7 8 3
0 .7
1 .7
($7 6 ,3 4 0 )
$2 0 2 ,9 2 8
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
2 1 7 ,1 4 8
0
4 2 .5
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 3 2 ,7 2 6
$4 8 5 ,4 5 1
2 .1
1 .6
$3 2 9 ,8 7 0
$1 8 2 ,5 9 5
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 1 7 ,1 4 8
0
4 2 .5
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$3 9 4 ,8 8 4
$4 8 5 ,4 5 1
1 .3
1 .6
$9 2 ,0 2 8
$1 8 2 ,5 9 5
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 1 1 ,5 5 6
0
4 0 .9
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 7 1 ,6 9 1
$4 7 8 ,9 1 2
2 .2
1 .6
$3 6 8 ,8 3 5
$1 7 6 ,0 5 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 1 1 ,8 2 4
0
4 0 .9
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 5 3 ,2 4 2
$4 7 8 ,1 0 1
2 .2
1 .6
$3 5 0 ,3 8 6
$1 7 5 ,2 4 5
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 1 1 ,8 2 4
0
4 0 .9
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$3 4 5 ,2 5 5
$4 7 8 ,1 0 1
1 .1
1 .6
$4 2 ,3 9 9
$1 7 5 ,2 4 5
C Z 1 3
P G &E
2 0 8 ,4 6 5
0
4 0 .5
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 5 1 ,9 5 2
$4 6 2 ,7 3 2
2 .2
1 .5
$3 4 9 ,0 9 6
$1 5 9 ,8 7 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 4 1 ,9 6 5
0
4 6 .7
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$6 5 9 ,4 8 7
$5 6 6 ,3 5 1
2 .2
1 .9
$3 5 6 ,6 3 2
$2 6 3 ,4 9 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 4 1 ,9 6 5
0
4 6 .7
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$4 0 1 ,7 1 2
$5 6 6 ,3 5 1
1 .3
1 .9
$9 8 ,8 5 6
$2 6 3 ,4 9 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 2 9 ,4 5 6
0
4 3 .9
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$3 7 8 ,0 9 5
$5 2 0 ,1 0 2
1 .2
1 .7
$7 5 ,2 3 9
$2 1 7 ,2 4 6
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 2 9 ,3 1 7
0
4 4 .8
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$7 0 7 ,0 9 5
$4 8 9 ,5 0 8
2 .3
1 .6
$4 0 4 ,2 3 9
$1 8 6 ,6 5 2
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
2 2 9 ,3 1 7
0
4 4 .8
$3 0 2 ,8 5 6
$2 2 3 ,0 5 7
$4 8 9 ,5 0 8
0 .7
1 .6
($7 9 ,7 9 9 )
$1 8 6 ,6 5 2
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – M i x e d F u e l + 1 3 5 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 1 3 5 k W P V + 5 0 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 7 6 ,9 0 3
0
3 5 .3
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$5 2 5 ,9 4 8
$3 8 1 ,4 5 0
1 .6
1 .2
$1 9 5 ,1 9 2
$5 0 ,6 9 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
2 1 4 ,8 6 1
0
4 2 .6
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 6 5 ,8 6 4
$4 7 2 ,8 9 8
2 .0
1 .4
$3 3 5 ,1 0 8
$1 4 2 ,1 4 2
C Z 0 3
P G &E
2 0 9 ,2 5 5
0
4 1 .8
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 4 4 ,1 7 0
$4 5 1 ,6 1 1
1 .9
1 .4
$3 1 3 ,4 1 4
$1 2 0 ,8 5 5
C Z 0 4
P G &E
2 2 7 ,0 7 6
0
4 5 .0
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 8 5 ,6 0 5
$5 0 2 ,1 0 8
2 .1
1 .5
$3 5 4 ,8 4 9
$1 7 1 ,3 5 2
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
2 2 7 ,0 7 6
0
4 5 .0
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$5 3 6 ,4 6 3
$5 0 2 ,1 0 8
1 .6
1 .5
$2 0 5 ,7 0 7
$1 7 1 ,3 5 2
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 2 5 ,7 5 2
0
4 5 .1
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$7 5 3 ,5 5 8
$4 8 7 ,7 4 2
2 .3
1 .5
$4 2 2 ,8 0 3
$1 5 6 ,9 8 6
C Z 0 6
S C E
2 1 7 ,9 3 9
0
4 3 .4
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$4 0 1 ,3 5 6
$4 9 4 ,0 4 2
1 .2
1 .5
$7 0 ,6 0 1
$1 6 3 ,2 8 6
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
2 1 7 ,9 3 9
0
4 3 .4
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$2 3 3 ,6 7 3
$4 9 4 ,0 4 2
0 .7
1 .5
($9 7 ,0 8 3 )
$1 6 3 ,2 8 6
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 2 2 ,7 4 6
0
4 4 .4
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 2 8 ,3 8 3
$4 9 8 ,1 4 7
1 .9
1 .5
$2 9 7 ,6 2 7
$1 6 7 ,3 9 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 1 6 ,7 2 4
0
4 3 .1
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$3 8 9 ,1 8 4
$5 1 1 ,5 1 1
1 .2
1 .5
$5 8 ,4 2 8
$1 8 0 ,7 5 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
2 1 6 ,7 2 4
0
4 3 .1
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$2 2 1 ,8 3 9
$5 1 1 ,5 1 1
0 .7
1 .5
($1 0 8 ,9 1 7 )
$1 8 0 ,7 5 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 1 9 ,5 6 3
0
4 4 .2
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$3 8 7 ,7 2 8
$5 0 6 ,9 2 9
1 .2
1 .5
$5 6 ,9 7 2
$1 7 6 ,1 7 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
2 1 9 ,5 6 3
0
4 4 .2
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$2 2 6 ,3 0 3
$5 0 6 ,9 2 9
0 .7
1 .5
($1 0 4 ,4 5 3 )
$1 7 6 ,1 7 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
2 1 6 ,7 0 0
0
4 3 .5
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 3 8 ,0 4 0
$4 8 6 ,6 4 4
1 .9
1 .5
$3 0 7 ,2 8 4
$1 5 5 ,8 8 8
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 1 6 ,7 0 0
0
4 3 .5
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$3 9 4 ,6 3 3
$4 8 6 ,6 4 4
1 .2
1 .5
$6 3 ,8 7 7
$1 5 5 ,8 8 8
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 1 1 ,1 2 9
0
4 1 .9
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 7 0 ,9 3 2
$4 8 1 ,2 9 8
2 .0
1 .5
$3 4 0 ,1 7 7
$1 5 0 ,5 4 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 1 1 ,3 8 6
0
4 1 .9
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 5 2 ,4 6 5
$4 8 2 ,8 2 6
2 .0
1 .5
$3 2 1 ,7 0 9
$1 5 2 ,0 7 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 1 1 ,3 8 6
0
4 1 .9
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$3 4 4 ,6 6 8
$4 8 2 ,8 2 6
1 .0
1 .5
$1 3 ,9 1 3
$1 5 2 ,0 7 0
C Z 1 3
P G &E
2 0 8 ,0 4 5
0
4 1 .5
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 5 1 ,1 9 1
$4 7 3 ,2 8 0
2 .0
1 .4
$3 2 0 ,4 3 5
$1 4 2 ,5 2 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
2 4 1 ,5 0 2
0
4 7 .7
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$6 7 2 ,6 0 1
$5 6 9 ,4 5 4
2 .0
1 .7
$3 4 1 ,8 4 6
$2 3 8 ,6 9 8
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
2 4 1 ,5 0 2
0
4 7 .7
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$4 0 1 ,4 5 0
$5 6 9 ,4 5 4
1 .2
1 .7
$7 0 ,6 9 4
$2 3 8 ,6 9 8
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 2 9 ,0 6 2
0
4 4 .8
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$3 7 7 ,8 2 7
$5 2 1 ,9 6 3
1 .1
1 .6
$4 7 ,0 7 1
$1 9 1 ,2 0 8
C Z 1 6
P G &E
2 2 8 ,8 2 5
0
4 5 .9
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$7 0 6 ,2 0 1
$4 9 6 ,1 9 0
2 .1
1 .5
$3 7 5 ,4 4 5
$1 6 5 ,4 3 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
2 2 8 ,8 2 5
0
4 5 .9
$3 3 0 ,7 5 6
$2 2 2 ,8 0 2
$4 9 6 ,1 9 0
0 .7
1 .5
($1 0 7 ,9 5 3 )
$1 6 5 ,4 3 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 8
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 8 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-4 9 ,7 1 6
4 9 6 7
1 0 .9
($8 0 ,5 2 3 )
($8 4 ,7 6 5 )
($4 9 ,9 7 2 )
0 .9
1 .6
($4 ,2 4 2 )
$3 0 ,5 5 1
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-4 4 ,8 9 9
3 8 6 8
6 .0
($6 6 ,9 6 5 )
($8 3 ,1 1 5 )
($3 0 ,9 2 8 )
0 .8
2 .2
($1 6 ,1 5 0 )
$3 6 ,0 3 7
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-3 1 ,2 2 6
3 1 4 2
6 .5
($7 5 ,6 0 0 )
($3 9 ,4 4 1 )
($1 9 ,6 1 7 )
1 .9
3 .9
$3 6 ,1 5 9
$5 5 ,9 8 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-4 3 ,7 7 2
3 7 5 9
5 .7
($6 2 ,2 8 2 )
($7 0 ,9 9 9 )
($2 9 ,4 9 6 )
0 .9
2 .1
($8 ,7 1 7 )
$3 2 ,7 8 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-4 3 ,7 7 2
3 7 5 9
5 .7
($6 2 ,2 8 2 )
($8 ,0 5 0 )
($2 9 ,4 9 6 )
7 .7
2 .1
$5 4 ,2 3 2
$3 2 ,7 8 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-3 5 ,5 0 4
3 2 4 0
5 .5
($7 7 ,7 7 3 )
($4 2 ,5 5 9 )
($2 9 ,1 6 2 )
1 .8
2 .7
$3 5 ,2 1 4
$4 8 ,6 1 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 1 ,3 2 1
2 1 1 7
4 .0
($6 9 ,4 2 2 )
$3 5 ,8 6 2
($9 ,6 4 1 )
>1
7 .2
$1 0 5 ,2 8 4
$5 9 ,7 8 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-2 1 ,3 2 1
2 1 1 7
4 .0
($6 9 ,4 2 2 )
$3 2 ,9 3 6
($9 ,6 4 1 )
>1
7 .2
$1 0 2 ,3 5 8
$5 9 ,7 8 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-7 ,9 4 3
9 5 0
1 .9
($6 3 ,5 9 5 )
$6 4 ,7 8 1
($3 8 2 )
>1
1 6 6 .6
$1 2 8 ,3 7 6
$6 3 ,2 1 4
C Z 0 8
S C E
-1 0 ,8 5 4
1 2 1 9
2 .5
($6 2 ,0 4 3 )
$2 8 ,6 5 1
($1 ,2 8 9 )
>1
4 8 .1
$9 0 ,6 9 4
$6 0 ,7 5 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-1 0 ,8 5 4
1 2 1 9
2 .5
($6 2 ,0 4 3 )
$2 5 ,1 2 2
($1 ,2 8 9 )
>1
4 8 .1
$8 7 ,1 6 5
$6 0 ,7 5 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
-1 4 ,8 7 8
1 6 0 5
3 .3
($5 6 ,3 7 2 )
$3 1 ,5 4 2
($3 ,2 4 6 )
>1
1 7 .4
$8 7 ,9 1 3
$5 3 ,1 2 6
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-1 4 ,8 7 8
1 6 0 5
3 .3
($5 6 ,3 7 2 )
$2 8 ,1 4 5
($3 ,2 4 6 )
>1
1 7 .4
$8 4 ,5 1 7
$5 3 ,1 2 6
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-2 2 ,5 8 8
2 0 5 3
3 .1
($4 1 ,1 7 1 )
$5 9 ,7 5 2
($1 2 ,5 5 3 )
>1
3 .3
$1 0 0 ,9 2 4
$2 8 ,6 1 9
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-2 2 ,5 8 8
2 0 5 3
3 .1
($4 1 ,1 7 1 )
$3 2 ,0 3 9
($1 2 ,5 5 3 )
>1
3 .3
$7 3 ,2 1 1
$2 8 ,6 1 9
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-3 5 ,4 5 5
3 0 6 2
4 .5
($5 7 ,2 5 7 )
($5 3 ,7 7 6 )
($2 2 ,1 9 4 )
1 .1
2 .6
$3 ,4 8 1
$3 5 ,0 6 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-3 8 ,7 0 4
3 3 2 7
5 .0
($6 1 ,6 1 3 )
($6 6 ,8 0 8 )
($2 4 ,8 1 9 )
0 .9
2 .5
($5 ,1 9 5 )
$3 6 ,7 9 4
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-3 8 ,7 0 4
3 3 2 7
5 .0
($6 1 ,6 1 3 )
$2 ,8 9 7
($2 4 ,8 1 9 )
>1
2 .5
$6 4 ,5 1 0
$3 6 ,7 9 4
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-3 5 ,0 1 6
3 0 6 3
4 .7
($5 5 ,9 9 6 )
($5 2 ,1 5 9 )
($2 2 ,1 4 6 )
1 .1
2 .5
$3 ,8 3 6
$3 3 ,8 4 9
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-3 8 ,9 4 5
3 2 6 6
4 .5
($5 8 ,4 2 6 )
$2 4 ,8 6 7
($2 5 ,8 2 1 )
>1
2 .3
$8 3 ,2 9 3
$3 2 ,6 0 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-3 8 ,9 4 5
3 2 6 6
4 .5
($5 8 ,4 2 6 )
$1 5 ,3 3 8
($2 5 ,8 2 1 )
>1
2 .3
$7 3 ,7 6 4
$3 2 ,6 0 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
-1 4 ,8 1 8
1 5 3 7
2 .8
($2 9 ,4 4 5 )
$2 2 ,8 5 2
($3 ,9 1 4 )
>1
7 .5
$5 2 ,2 9 8
$2 5 ,5 3 2
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-8 8 ,9 6 6
6 1 8 5
6 .6
($5 7 ,3 6 6 )
($1 9 3 ,3 6 8 )
($1 3 9 ,9 8 9 )
0 .3
0 .4
($1 3 6 ,0 0 2 )
($8 2 ,6 2 3 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-8 8 ,9 6 6
6 1 8 5
6 .6
($5 7 ,3 6 6 )
$3 6 ,3 5 4
($1 3 9 ,9 8 9 )
>1
0 .4
$9 3 ,7 2 0
($8 2 ,6 2 3 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
6 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 5 9 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-4 9 ,7 1 6
4 9 6 7
1 0 .9
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($8 4 ,7 6 5 )
($4 9 ,9 7 2 )
0 .9
1 .6
($5 ,8 6 8 )
$2 8 ,9 2 5
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-4 4 ,8 9 9
3 8 6 8
6 .0
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($8 3 ,1 1 5 )
($3 0 ,9 2 8 )
0 .9
2 .6
($4 ,2 1 8 )
$4 7 ,9 6 9
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-3 1 ,2 2 6
3 1 4 2
6 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($3 9 ,4 4 1 )
($1 9 ,6 1 7 )
2 .0
4 .0
$3 9 ,4 5 6
$5 9 ,2 8 0
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-4 3 ,7 7 2
3 7 5 9
5 .7
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($7 0 ,9 9 9 )
($2 9 ,4 9 6 )
1 .1
2 .7
$7 ,8 9 8
$4 9 ,4 0 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-4 3 ,7 7 2
3 7 5 9
5 .7
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($8 ,0 5 0 )
($2 9 ,4 9 6 )
9 .8
2 .7
$7 0 ,8 4 7
$4 9 ,4 0 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-3 5 ,5 0 4
3 2 4 0
5 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($4 2 ,5 5 9 )
($2 9 ,1 6 2 )
1 .9
2 .7
$3 6 ,3 3 8
$4 9 ,7 3 5
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 1 ,3 2 1
2 1 1 7
4 .0
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$3 5 ,8 6 2
($9 ,6 4 1 )
>1
8 .2
$1 1 4 ,7 5 9
$6 9 ,2 5 6
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
-2 1 ,3 2 1
2 1 1 7
4 .0
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$3 2 ,9 3 6
($9 ,6 4 1 )
>1
8 .2
$1 1 1 ,8 3 3
$6 9 ,2 5 6
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-7 ,9 4 3
9 5 0
1 .9
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$6 4 ,7 8 1
($3 8 2 )
>1
2 0 6 .6
$1 4 3 ,6 7 8
$7 8 ,5 1 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
-1 0 ,8 5 4
1 2 1 9
2 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 8 ,6 5 1
($1 ,2 8 9 )
>1
6 1 .2
$1 0 7 ,5 4 8
$7 7 ,6 0 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
-1 0 ,8 5 4
1 2 1 9
2 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 5 ,1 2 2
($1 ,2 8 9 )
>1
6 1 .2
$1 0 4 ,0 1 9
$7 7 ,6 0 8
C Z 0 9
S C E
-1 4 ,8 7 8
1 6 0 5
3 .3
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$3 1 ,5 4 2
($3 ,2 4 6 )
>1
2 4 .3
$1 1 0 ,4 3 9
$7 5 ,6 5 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
-1 4 ,8 7 8
1 6 0 5
3 .3
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 8 ,1 4 5
($3 ,2 4 6 )
>1
2 4 .3
$1 0 7 ,0 4 2
$7 5 ,6 5 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-2 2 ,5 8 8
2 0 5 3
3 .1
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$5 9 ,7 5 2
($1 2 ,5 5 3 )
>1
6 .3
$1 3 8 ,6 4 9
$6 6 ,3 4 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-2 2 ,5 8 8
2 0 5 3
3 .1
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$3 2 ,0 3 9
($1 2 ,5 5 3 )
>1
6 .3
$1 1 0 ,9 3 6
$6 6 ,3 4 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-3 5 ,4 5 5
3 0 6 2
4 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($5 3 ,7 7 6 )
($2 2 ,1 9 4 )
1 .5
3 .6
$2 5 ,1 2 1
$5 6 ,7 0 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-3 8 ,7 0 4
3 3 2 7
5 .0
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($6 6 ,8 0 8 )
($2 4 ,8 1 9 )
1 .2
3 .2
$1 2 ,0 8 9
$5 4 ,0 7 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-3 8 ,7 0 4
3 3 2 7
5 .0
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 ,8 9 7
($2 4 ,8 1 9 )
>1
3 .2
$8 1 ,7 9 4
$5 4 ,0 7 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-3 5 ,0 1 6
3 0 6 3
4 .7
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($5 2 ,1 5 9 )
($2 2 ,1 4 6 )
1 .5
3 .6
$2 6 ,7 3 8
$5 6 ,7 5 1
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-3 8 ,9 4 5
3 2 6 6
4 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 4 ,8 6 7
($2 5 ,8 2 1 )
>1
3 .1
$1 0 3 ,7 6 4
$5 3 ,0 7 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-3 8 ,9 4 5
3 2 6 6
4 .5
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$1 5 ,3 3 8
($2 5 ,8 2 1 )
>1
3 .1
$9 4 ,2 3 5
$5 3 ,0 7 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
-1 4 ,8 1 8
1 5 3 7
2 .8
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$2 2 ,8 5 2
($3 ,9 1 4 )
>1
2 0 .2
$1 0 1 ,7 4 9
$7 4 ,9 8 3
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-8 8 ,9 6 6
6 1 8 5
6 .6
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
($1 9 3 ,3 6 8 )
($1 3 9 ,9 8 9 )
0 .4
0 .6
($1 1 4 ,4 7 2 )
($6 1 ,0 9 2 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
-8 8 ,9 6 6
6 1 8 5
6 .6
($7 8 ,8 9 7 )
$3 6 ,3 5 4
($1 3 9 ,9 8 9 )
>1
0 .6
$1 1 5 ,2 5 0
($6 1 ,0 9 2 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 0 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 3 5 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 3 5 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 2 3 ,6 8 3
4 9 6 7
4 4 .5
$1 6 3 ,2 1 7
$4 0 5 ,7 3 1
$3 2 1 ,9 7 9
2 .5
2 .0
$2 4 2 ,5 1 4
$1 5 8 ,7 6 2
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 6 5 ,6 2 7
3 8 6 8
4 6 .6
$1 7 6 ,7 7 5
$5 6 2 ,5 2 8
$4 3 0 ,2 7 6
3 .2
2 .4
$3 8 5 ,7 5 3
$2 5 3 ,5 0 1
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 7 3 ,8 3 1
3 1 4 2
4 6 .3
$1 6 8 ,1 4 0
$5 7 5 ,8 6 4
$4 2 0 ,2 0 5
3 .4
2 .5
$4 0 7 ,7 2 5
$2 5 2 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 7 8 ,7 0 6
3 7 5 9
4 8 .7
$1 8 1 ,4 5 8
$6 0 1 ,4 3 1
$4 5 6 ,8 6 1
3 .3
2 .5
$4 1 9 ,9 7 3
$2 7 5 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 7 8 ,7 0 6
3 7 5 9
4 8 .7
$1 8 1 ,4 5 8
$5 1 7 ,5 2 6
$4 5 6 ,8 6 1
2 .9
2 .5
$3 3 6 ,0 6 9
$2 7 5 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 8 5 ,6 6 4
3 2 4 0
4 8 .6
$1 6 5 ,9 6 7
$6 6 4 ,8 4 2
$4 4 6 ,6 0 0
4 .0
2 .7
$4 9 8 ,8 7 5
$2 8 0 ,6 3 3
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 9 2 ,2 1 4
2 1 1 7
4 5 .3
$1 7 4 ,3 1 7
$4 2 3 ,6 5 7
$4 7 1 ,9 4 4
2 .4
2 .7
$2 4 9 ,3 4 0
$2 9 7 ,6 2 6
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 9 2 ,2 1 4
2 1 1 7
4 5 .3
$1 7 4 ,3 1 7
$2 5 9 ,2 7 0
$4 7 1 ,9 4 4
1 .5
2 .7
$8 4 ,9 5 3
$2 9 7 ,6 2 6
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 1 0 ,2 8 2
9 5 0
4 4 .3
$1 8 0 ,1 4 5
$6 6 9 ,9 7 9
$4 8 5 ,2 6 0
3 .7
2 .7
$4 8 9 ,8 3 4
$3 0 5 ,1 1 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 0 1 ,4 9 1
1 2 1 9
4 3 .5
$1 8 1 ,6 9 6
$4 0 7 ,2 7 7
$4 9 7 ,6 2 2
2 .2
2 .7
$2 2 5 ,5 8 0
$3 1 5 ,9 2 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
2 0 1 ,4 9 1
1 2 1 9
4 3 .5
$1 8 1 ,6 9 6
$2 4 0 ,6 5 7
$4 9 7 ,6 2 2
1 .3
2 .7
$5 8 ,9 6 0
$3 1 5 ,9 2 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
2 0 0 ,2 4 2
1 6 0 5
4 5 .6
$1 8 7 ,3 6 8
$4 0 8 ,9 2 2
$4 9 1 ,3 2 2
2 .2
2 .6
$2 2 1 ,5 5 4
$3 0 3 ,9 5 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
2 0 0 ,2 4 2
1 6 0 5
4 5 .6
$1 8 7 ,3 6 8
$2 4 8 ,4 5 2
$4 9 1 ,3 2 2
1 .3
2 .6
$6 1 ,0 8 4
$3 0 3 ,9 5 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 8 9 ,7 3 4
2 0 5 3
4 4 .7
$2 0 2 ,5 6 8
$6 6 7 ,5 5 1
$4 6 2 ,1 1 1
3 .3
2 .3
$4 6 4 ,9 8 2
$2 5 9 ,5 4 3
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 8 9 ,7 3 4
2 0 5 3
4 4 .7
$2 0 2 ,5 6 8
$4 1 2 ,6 5 9
$4 6 2 ,1 1 1
2 .0
2 .3
$2 1 0 ,0 9 1
$2 5 9 ,5 4 3
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 7 1 ,3 9 9
3 0 6 2
4 4 .5
$1 8 6 ,4 8 3
$5 9 7 ,8 0 7
$4 4 6 ,0 7 4
3 .2
2 .4
$4 1 1 ,3 2 4
$2 5 9 ,5 9 2
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 6 8 ,4 1 3
3 3 2 7
4 5 .0
$1 8 2 ,1 2 7
$5 7 1 ,7 5 8
$4 4 2 ,6 3 8
3 .1
2 .4
$3 8 9 ,6 3 2
$2 6 0 ,5 1 1
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 6 8 ,4 1 3
3 3 2 7
4 5 .0
$1 8 2 ,1 2 7
$3 4 3 ,6 0 2
$4 4 2 ,6 3 8
1 .9
2 .4
$1 6 1 ,4 7 5
$2 6 0 ,5 1 1
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 6 8 ,8 1 7
3 0 6 3
4 4 .3
$1 8 7 ,7 4 4
$5 8 1 ,9 6 4
$4 3 0 ,3 2 4
3 .1
2 .3
$3 9 4 ,2 2 0
$2 4 2 ,5 8 0
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 9 7 ,6 4 3
3 2 6 6
5 0 .1
$1 8 5 ,3 1 4
$6 6 7 ,7 6 2
$5 2 7 ,9 3 0
3 .6
2 .8
$4 8 2 ,4 4 9
$3 4 2 ,6 1 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 9 7 ,6 4 3
3 2 6 6
5 0 .1
$1 8 5 ,3 1 4
$4 0 8 ,4 2 4
$5 2 7 ,9 3 0
2 .2
2 .8
$2 2 3 ,1 1 0
$3 4 2 ,6 1 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 0 9 ,5 3 9
1 5 3 7
4 5 .7
$2 1 4 ,2 9 4
$3 9 0 ,2 6 7
$5 0 4 ,6 3 8
1 .8
2 .4
$1 7 5 ,9 7 2
$2 9 0 ,3 4 3
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 3 5 ,2 5 5
6 1 8 5
5 0 .4
$1 8 6 ,3 7 4
$4 7 0 ,1 9 9
$3 3 8 ,6 3 7
2 .5
1 .8
$2 8 3 ,8 2 5
$1 5 2 ,2 6 3
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
1 3 5 ,2 5 5
6 1 8 5
5 0 .4
$1 8 6 ,3 7 4
$2 5 0 ,8 0 7
$3 3 8 ,6 3 7
1 .3
1 .8
$6 4 ,4 3 3
$1 5 2 ,2 6 3
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 1 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m O f f i c e – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 3 5 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 3 5 k W P V + 5 0 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 2 3 ,2 8 0
4 9 6 7
4 5 .4
$1 9 1 ,1 1 7
$4 0 4 ,9 9 4
$3 2 3 ,0 7 7
2 .1
1 .7
$2 1 3 ,8 7 7
$1 3 1 ,9 6 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 6 5 ,2 0 0
3 8 6 8
4 7 .7
$2 0 4 ,6 7 5
$5 6 1 ,7 4 7
$4 3 1 ,4 6 9
2 .7
2 .1
$3 5 7 ,0 7 2
$2 2 6 ,7 9 5
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 7 3 ,3 8 4
3 1 4 2
4 7 .4
$1 9 6 ,0 4 0
$5 7 5 ,0 4 3
$4 2 2 ,0 1 9
2 .9
2 .2
$3 7 9 ,0 0 3
$2 2 5 ,9 7 9
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 7 8 ,2 5 9
3 7 5 9
4 9 .8
$2 0 9 ,3 5 8
$6 0 0 ,6 2 1
$4 6 1 ,6 3 4
2 .9
2 .2
$3 9 1 ,2 6 3
$2 5 2 ,2 7 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 7 8 ,2 5 9
3 7 5 9
4 9 .8
$2 0 9 ,3 5 8
$5 1 6 ,4 9 5
$4 6 1 ,6 3 4
2 .5
2 .2
$3 0 7 ,1 3 7
$2 5 2 ,2 7 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 8 5 ,2 2 9
3 2 4 0
4 9 .7
$1 9 3 ,8 6 7
$6 6 4 ,0 4 6
$4 4 7 ,7 9 3
3 .4
2 .3
$4 7 0 ,1 7 9
$2 5 3 ,9 2 6
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 9 1 ,7 6 7
2 1 1 7
4 6 .5
$2 0 2 ,2 1 7
$4 2 3 ,3 6 9
$4 7 3 ,5 1 9
2 .1
2 .3
$2 2 1 ,1 5 2
$2 7 1 ,3 0 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A D W P
1 9 1 ,7 6 7
2 1 1 7
4 6 .5
$2 0 2 ,2 1 7
$2 5 9 ,0 3 3
$4 7 3 ,5 1 9
1 .3
2 .3
$5 6 ,8 1 6
$2 7 1 ,3 0 1
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
2 0 9 ,8 4 8
9 5 0
4 5 .4
$2 0 8 ,0 4 5
$6 7 5 ,3 0 7
$4 8 6 ,7 8 7
3 .2
2 .3
$4 6 7 ,2 6 2
$2 7 8 ,7 4 3
C Z 0 8
S C E
2 0 1 ,0 4 7
1 2 1 9
4 4 .7
$2 0 9 ,5 9 6
$4 0 7 ,0 2 7
$4 9 8 ,9 1 0
1 .9
2 .4
$1 9 7 ,4 3 0
$2 8 9 ,3 1 4
C Z 0 8 -2
L A D W P
2 0 1 ,0 4 7
1 2 1 9
4 4 .7
$2 0 9 ,5 9 6
$2 4 0 ,4 3 2
$4 9 8 ,9 1 0
1 .1
2 .4
$3 0 ,8 3 5
$2 8 9 ,3 1 4
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 9 9 ,8 0 2
1 6 0 5
4 6 .6
$2 1 5 ,2 6 8
$4 0 8 ,6 7 6
$4 9 2 ,5 1 5
1 .9
2 .3
$1 9 3 ,4 0 8
$2 7 7 ,2 4 6
C Z 0 9 -2
L A D W P
1 9 9 ,8 0 2
1 6 0 5
4 6 .6
$2 1 5 ,2 6 8
$2 4 8 ,2 4 2
$4 9 2 ,5 1 5
1 .2
2 .3
$3 2 ,9 7 4
$2 7 7 ,2 4 6
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 8 9 ,2 9 3
2 0 5 3
4 5 .7
$2 3 0 ,4 6 8
$6 7 2 ,8 6 7
$4 6 3 ,3 5 2
2 .9
2 .0
$4 4 2 ,3 9 9
$2 3 2 ,8 8 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 8 9 ,2 9 3
2 0 5 3
4 5 .7
$2 3 0 ,4 6 8
$4 1 2 ,4 1 2
$4 6 3 ,3 5 2
1 .8
2 .0
$1 8 1 ,9 4 4
$2 3 2 ,8 8 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 7 0 ,9 8 7
3 0 6 2
4 5 .5
$2 1 4 ,3 8 3
$5 9 7 ,0 6 2
$4 4 8 ,5 0 9
2 .8
2 .1
$3 8 2 ,6 8 0
$2 3 4 ,1 2 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 6 7 ,9 9 5
3 3 2 7
4 6 .0
$2 1 0 ,0 2 7
$5 7 1 ,0 0 2
$4 4 7 ,4 1 1
2 .7
2 .1
$3 6 0 ,9 7 5
$2 3 7 ,3 8 4
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 6 7 ,9 9 5
3 3 2 7
4 6 .0
$2 1 0 ,0 2 7
$3 4 3 ,0 4 3
$4 4 7 ,4 1 1
1 .6
2 .1
$1 3 3 ,0 1 7
$2 3 7 ,3 8 4
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 6 8 ,4 0 8
3 0 6 3
4 5 .3
$2 1 5 ,6 4 4
$5 8 1 ,2 2 5
$4 4 0 ,9 2 0
2 .7
2 .0
$3 6 5 ,5 8 0
$2 2 5 ,2 7 5
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 9 7 ,1 8 8
3 2 6 6
5 1 .2
$2 1 3 ,2 1 4
$6 8 0 ,8 9 3
$5 3 1 ,0 8 0
3 .2
2 .5
$4 6 7 ,6 7 9
$3 1 7 ,8 6 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 9 7 ,1 8 8
3 2 6 6
5 1 .2
$2 1 3 ,2 1 4
$4 0 8 ,1 6 6
$5 3 1 ,0 8 0
1 .9
2 .5
$1 9 4 ,9 5 2
$3 1 7 ,8 6 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 0 9 ,1 4 8
1 5 3 7
4 6 .6
$2 4 2 ,1 9 4
$3 9 0 ,0 0 0
$5 0 6 ,4 9 9
1 .6
2 .1
$1 4 7 ,8 0 6
$2 6 4 ,3 0 5
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 3 4 ,8 0 9
6 1 8 5
5 1 .4
$2 1 4 ,2 7 4
$4 6 9 ,3 7 8
$3 4 1 ,9 7 8
2 .2
1 .6
$2 5 5 ,1 0 5
$1 2 7 ,7 0 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A D W P
1 3 4 ,8 0 9
6 1 8 5
5 1 .4
$2 1 4 ,2 7 4
$2 5 0 ,5 8 0
$3 4 1 ,9 7 8
1 .2
1 .6
$3 6 ,3 0 6
$1 2 7 ,7 0 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
6 .7 .2
C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s u l t s – M e d i u m R e t a i l
F i g u r e 6 2
t h r o u g h F i g u r e 6 9
c o n t a i n t h e c o s t -e f f e c t i v e n e s s f i n d i n g s f o r t h e M e d i u m R e t a i l p a c k a g e s . N o t a b l e f i n d i n g s f o r e a c h p a c k a g e i n c l u d e :
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W
P V : P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s .
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W
P V
+ 5 k W h
B a t t e r y :
T h e p a c k a g e s a r e l e s s c o s t e f f e c t i v e
a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e 3 k W
P V o n l y p a c k a g e a n d n o t c o s t
e f f e c t i v e f o r L A D W P a n d S M U D
s e r v i c e a r e a .
M i x e d -F u e l + P V o n l y : P a c k a g e s a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e e n e r g y c o s t s a v i n g s a n d a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s
e x c e p t f o r L A D W P t e r r i t o r y (C Z s 6 , 8 , 9 a n d 1 6 ). P a c k a g e s a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e s a v i n g s a n d a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e T D V a p p r o a c h f o r a l l
c l i m a t e z o n e s .
M i x e d F u e l + P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y : A d d i n g b a t t e r y s l i g h t l y r e d u c e s O n -B i l l B /C r a t i o s b u t i s s t i l l c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t
f o r L A D W P t e r r i t o r y . P a c k a g e s a c h i e v e s a v i n g s a n d c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e T D V a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W
P V : P a c k a g e s a r e
c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t f o r C Z 1 6 u n d e r P G &E
s e r v i c e .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W
P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y :
S i m i l a r t o m i n i m a l P V
o n l y p a c k a g e , a d d i n g b a t t e r y i s
c o s t e f f e c t i v e a s w e l l u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a n d
T D V a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t f o r C Z 1 6 u n d e r P G &E s e r v i c e .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V
o n l y :
P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s i n a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s f o r b o t h t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y : A d d i n g b a t t e r y s l i g h t l y r e d u c e s
B /C r a t i o s f o r b o t h t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s . P a c k a g e s a r e n o t
c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s
e x c e p t C Z 6 , C Z 8 a n d C Z 9 u n d e r L A D W P s e r v i c e a r e a .
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 2 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V
(O n -b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .7 6
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 2 ,6 1 6
$8 ,4 6 0
2 .3
1 .5
$7 ,0 5 0
$2 ,8 9 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,6 8 5
0
0 .9 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 7 ,6 3 5
$1 0 ,2 6 2
3 .2
1 .8
$1 2 ,0 6 9
$4 ,6 9 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,7 3 3
0
0 .9 2
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,1 4 6
$1 0 ,1 5 2
2 .7
1 .8
$9 ,5 8 0
$4 ,5 8 6
C Z 0 4
P G &E
4 ,8 3 4
0
0 .9 4
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 8 ,5 1 9
$1 0 ,6 1 4
3 .3
1 .9
$1 2 ,9 5 3
$5 ,0 4 8
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 ,8 3 4
0
0 .9 4
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,5 0 7
$1 0 ,6 1 4
2 .1
1 .9
$5 ,9 4 1
$5 ,0 4 8
C Z 0 5
P G &E
4 ,9 1 0
0
0 .9 5
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,6 4 1
$1 0 ,5 4 8
2 .8
1 .9
$1 0 ,0 7 5
$4 ,9 8 2
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9 3
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,3 7 4
$1 0 ,7 2 4
2 .0
1 .9
$5 ,8 0 8
$5 ,1 5 8
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9 3
$5 ,5 6 6
$7 ,0 6 9
$1 0 ,7 2 4
1 .3
1 .9
$1 ,5 0 3
$5 ,1 5 8
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
0 .9 6
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 2 ,4 5 2
$1 1 ,0 3 1
4 .0
2 .0
$1 6 ,8 8 6
$5 ,4 6 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9 3
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,8 3 8
$1 1 ,3 3 9
2 .1
2 .0
$6 ,2 7 2
$5 ,7 7 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9 3
$5 ,5 6 6
$7 ,3 4 2
$1 1 ,3 3 9
1 .3
2 .0
$1 ,7 7 6
$5 ,7 7 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,8 8 9
0
0 .9 6
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,1 8 7
$1 1 ,2 2 9
2 .0
2 .0
$5 ,6 2 1
$5 ,6 6 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
4 ,8 8 9
0
0 .9 6
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,7 2 8
$1 1 ,2 2 9
1 .2
2 .0
$1 ,1 6 2
$5 ,6 6 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,9 4 8
0
0 .9 7
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 0 ,9 9 9
$1 0 ,9 8 7
3 .8
2 .0
$1 5 ,4 3 3
$5 ,4 2 1
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,9 4 8
0
0 .9 7
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,3 8 4
$1 0 ,9 8 7
2 .0
2 .0
$5 ,8 1 8
$5 ,4 2 1
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 1 8
0
0 .9 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,3 8 1
$1 0 ,6 8 0
2 .8
1 .9
$9 ,8 1 5
$5 ,1 1 4
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 6 ,4 4 2
$1 0 ,6 1 4
3 .0
1 .9
$1 0 ,8 7 6
$5 ,0 4 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$8 ,2 4 7
$1 0 ,6 1 4
1 .5
1 .9
$2 ,6 8 1
$5 ,0 4 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,7 5 0
0
0 .9 2
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 6 ,6 3 8
$1 0 ,5 9 2
3 .0
1 .9
$1 1 ,0 7 2
$5 ,0 2 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,2 5 8
0
1 .0 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 9 ,5 7 6
$1 2 ,2 1 8
3 .5
2 .2
$1 4 ,0 1 0
$6 ,6 5 2
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,2 5 8
0
1 .0 1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,2 2 7
$1 2 ,2 1 8
1 .8
2 .2
$4 ,6 6 1
$6 ,6 5 2
C Z 1 5
S C E
4 ,9 9 7
0
0 .9 6
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,4 7 6
$1 1 ,3 3 9
1 .9
2 .0
$4 ,9 1 0
$5 ,7 7 3
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,3 3 6
0
1 .0 4
$5 ,5 6 6
$2 0 ,4 1 8
$1 1 ,3 6 1
3 .7
2 .0
$1 4 ,8 5 2
$5 ,7 9 5
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
5 ,3 3 6
0
1 .0 4
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,9 8 7
$1 1 ,3 6 1
1 .3
2 .0
$1 ,4 2 1
$5 ,7 9 5
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 3 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .7 6
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 2 ,6 1 6
$8 ,4 6 0
1 .3
0 .9
$3 ,0 9 6
($1 ,0 6 0 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,6 8 5
0
0 .9 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 7 ,6 3 5
$1 0 ,2 6 2
1 .9
1 .1
$8 ,1 1 5
$7 4 2
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,7 3 3
0
0 .9 2
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,1 4 6
$1 0 ,1 5 2
1 .6
1 .1
$5 ,6 2 6
$6 3 2
C Z 0 4
P G &E
4 ,8 3 4
0
0 .9 4
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 8 ,5 1 9
$1 0 ,6 1 4
1 .9
1 .1
$8 ,9 9 9
$1 ,0 9 4
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 ,8 3 4
0
0 .9 4
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,5 0 7
$1 0 ,6 1 4
1 .2
1 .1
$1 ,9 8 7
$1 ,0 9 4
C Z 0 5
P G &E
4 ,9 1 0
0
0 .9 5
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,6 4 1
$1 0 ,5 4 8
1 .6
1 .1
$6 ,1 2 0
$1 ,0 2 8
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
4 ,9 1 0
0
0 .9 5
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,6 4 1
$1 0 ,5 4 8
1 .6
1 .1
$6 ,1 2 0
$1 ,0 2 8
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9 3
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,3 7 4
$1 0 ,7 2 4
1 .2
1 .1
$1 ,8 5 4
$1 ,2 0 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9 3
$9 ,5 2 0
$7 ,0 6 9
$1 0 ,7 2 4
0 .7
1 .1
($2 ,4 5 2 )
$1 ,2 0 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
0 .9 6
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 2 ,4 5 2
$1 1 ,0 3 1
2 .4
1 .2
$1 2 ,9 3 2
$1 ,5 1 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9 3
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,8 3 8
$1 1 ,3 3 9
1 .2
1 .2
$2 ,3 1 7
$1 ,8 1 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
4 ,8 2 6
0
0 .9 3
$9 ,5 2 0
$7 ,3 4 2
$1 1 ,3 3 9
0 .8
1 .2
($2 ,1 7 8 )
$1 ,8 1 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,8 8 9
0
0 .9 6
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,1 8 7
$1 1 ,2 2 9
1 .2
1 .2
$1 ,6 6 7
$1 ,7 0 9
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
4 ,8 8 9
0
0 .9 6
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,7 2 8
$1 1 ,2 2 9
0 .7
1 .2
($2 ,7 9 2 )
$1 ,7 0 9
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,9 4 8
0
0 .9 7
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 0 ,9 9 9
$1 0 ,9 8 7
2 .2
1 .2
$1 1 ,4 7 9
$1 ,4 6 7
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,9 4 8
0
0 .9 7
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,3 8 4
$1 0 ,9 8 7
1 .2
1 .2
$1 ,8 6 3
$1 ,4 6 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 1 8
0
0 .9 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,3 8 1
$1 0 ,6 8 0
1 .6
1 .1
$5 ,8 6 1
$1 ,1 6 0
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,4 4 2
$1 0 ,6 1 4
1 .7
1 .1
$6 ,9 2 2
$1 ,0 9 4
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 0 7
0
0 .9 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$8 ,2 4 7
$1 0 ,6 1 4
0 .9
1 .1
($1 ,2 7 3 )
$1 ,0 9 4
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,7 5 0
0
0 .9 2
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,6 3 8
$1 0 ,5 9 2
1 .7
1 .1
$7 ,1 1 7
$1 ,0 7 2
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,2 5 8
0
1 .0 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 9 ,5 7 6
$1 2 ,2 1 8
2 .1
1 .3
$1 0 ,0 5 6
$2 ,6 9 8
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,2 5 8
0
1 .0 1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,2 2 7
$1 2 ,2 1 8
1 .1
1 .3
$7 0 7
$2 ,6 9 8
C Z 1 5
S C E
4 ,9 9 7
0
0 .9 6
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,4 7 6
$1 1 ,3 3 9
1 .1
1 .2
$9 5 6
$1 ,8 1 9
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,3 3 6
0
1 .0 4
$9 ,5 2 0
$2 0 ,4 1 8
$1 1 ,3 6 1
2 .1
1 .2
$1 0 ,8 9 8
$1 ,8 4 1
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
5 ,3 3 6
0
1 .0 4
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,9 8 7
$1 1 ,3 6 1
0 .7
1 .2
($2 ,5 3 3 )
$1 ,8 4 1
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 4 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – M i x e d -F u e l + 1 1 0 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 1 1 0 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 4 4 ,4 9 9
0
2 7 .9 7
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 5 4 ,4 6 2
$3 0 9 ,9 3 5
2 .3
1 .5
$2 5 2 ,5 5 8
$1 0 8 ,0 3 1
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 7 1 ,7 9 0
0
3 3 .3 1
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 7 7 ,5 8 4
$3 7 6 ,3 0 0
2 .4
1 .9
$2 7 5 ,6 8 1
$1 7 4 ,3 9 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 7 3 ,5 3 4
0
3 3 .5 5
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$5 3 8 ,5 3 0
$3 7 2 ,1 4 6
2 .7
1 .8
$3 3 6 ,6 2 6
$1 7 0 ,2 4 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 7 7 ,2 2 9
0
3 4 .4 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 8 9 ,9 3 4
$3 8 9 ,0 6 7
2 .4
1 .9
$2 8 8 ,0 3 0
$1 8 7 ,1 6 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 7 7 ,2 2 9
0
3 4 .4 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 1 8 ,1 7 3
$3 8 9 ,0 6 7
2 .1
1 .9
$2 1 6 ,2 6 9
$1 8 7 ,1 6 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 8 0 ,0 4 4
0
3 4 .8 4
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$5 5 6 ,7 8 7
$3 8 6 ,9 5 8
2 .8
1 .9
$3 5 4 ,8 8 3
$1 8 5 ,0 5 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 7 4 ,8 5 5
0
3 3 .9 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 8 8 ,1 8 8
$3 9 3 ,1 9 8
1 .4
1 .9
$8 6 ,2 8 4
$1 9 1 ,2 9 5
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 7 4 ,8 5 5
0
3 3 .9 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$1 6 5 ,5 3 8
$3 9 3 ,1 9 8
0 .8
1 .9
($3 6 ,3 6 6 )
$1 9 1 ,2 9 5
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 8 1 ,8 5 4
0
3 5 .3 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$3 7 3 ,9 7 4
$4 0 4 ,7 1 3
1 .9
2 .0
$1 7 2 ,0 7 0
$2 0 2 ,8 0 9
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 7 6 ,9 5 4
0
3 4 .2 3
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 8 4 ,4 8 1
$4 1 5 ,7 8 9
1 .4
2 .1
$8 2 ,5 7 7
$2 1 3 ,8 8 5
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 7 6 ,9 5 4
0
3 4 .2 3
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$1 6 1 ,3 6 6
$4 1 5 ,7 8 9
0 .8
2 .1
($4 0 ,5 3 8 )
$2 1 3 ,8 8 5
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 7 9 ,2 6 7
0
3 5 .1 8
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 8 9 ,0 5 0
$4 1 2 ,0 9 7
1 .4
2 .0
$8 7 ,1 4 6
$2 1 0 ,1 9 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 7 9 ,2 6 7
0
3 5 .1 8
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$1 6 8 ,8 2 2
$4 1 2 ,0 9 7
0 .8
2 .0
($3 3 ,0 8 2 )
$2 1 0 ,1 9 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 8 1 ,4 4 3
0
3 5 .4 1
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 1 0 ,3 1 0
$4 0 2 ,9 9 9
2 .0
2 .0
$2 0 8 ,4 0 6
$2 0 1 ,0 9 5
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 8 1 ,4 4 3
0
3 5 .4 1
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 9 1 ,2 3 6
$4 0 2 ,9 9 9
1 .4
2 .0
$8 9 ,3 3 2
$2 0 1 ,0 9 5
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 7 2 ,9 8 3
0
3 3 .4 6
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 6 4 ,7 7 6
$3 9 1 ,5 5 0
2 .3
1 .9
$2 6 2 ,8 7 2
$1 8 9 ,6 4 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 7 2 ,5 9 7
0
3 3 .3 3
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 6 7 ,8 7 0
$3 8 9 ,5 7 3
2 .3
1 .9
$2 6 5 ,9 6 6
$1 8 7 ,6 6 9
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 7 2 ,5 9 7
0
3 3 .3 3
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 6 7 ,0 8 6
$3 8 9 ,5 7 3
1 .3
1 .9
$6 5 ,1 8 2
$1 8 7 ,6 6 9
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 7 4 ,1 5 1
0
3 3 .8 1
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$4 7 8 ,8 5 7
$3 8 7 ,9 6 8
2 .4
1 .9
$2 7 6 ,9 5 3
$1 8 6 ,0 6 5
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 9 2 ,7 8 9
0
3 6 .9 7
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$3 9 6 ,1 8 1
$4 4 8 ,2 6 8
2 .0
2 .2
$1 9 4 ,2 7 7
$2 4 6 ,3 6 4
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 9 2 ,7 8 9
0
3 6 .9 7
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 8 8 ,7 8 2
$4 4 8 ,2 6 8
1 .4
2 .2
$8 6 ,8 7 8
$2 4 6 ,3 6 4
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 8 3 ,2 1 4
0
3 5 .1 2
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$2 7 7 ,8 6 7
$4 1 5 ,7 8 9
1 .4
2 .1
$7 5 ,9 6 3
$2 1 3 ,8 8 5
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 9 5 ,6 6 5
0
3 7 .9 7
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$5 2 2 ,3 5 2
$4 1 6 ,5 5 8
2 .6
2 .1
$3 2 0 ,4 4 8
$2 1 4 ,6 5 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 9 5 ,6 6 5
0
3 7 .9 7
$2 0 1 ,9 0 4
$1 7 1 ,8 0 2
$4 1 6 ,5 5 8
0 .9
2 .1
($3 0 ,1 0 1 )
$2 1 4 ,6 5 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 6
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 5 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – M i x e d -F u e l + 1 1 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 1 1 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 4 3 ,4 2 3
0
2 9 .4 8
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 5 2 ,1 1 9
$3 2 4 ,3 7 3
2 .0
1 .4
$2 2 2 ,3 1 5
$9 4 ,5 6 9
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 7 0 ,5 4 2
0
3 5 .1 4
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 8 6 ,7 0 4
$3 9 8 ,3 6 3
2 .1
1 .7
$2 5 6 ,9 0 0
$1 6 8 ,5 5 9
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 7 2 ,2 6 6
0
3 5 .6 6
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$5 3 5 ,9 7 4
$3 9 5 ,3 7 4
2 .3
1 .7
$3 0 6 ,1 7 0
$1 6 5 ,5 7 0
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 7 5 ,9 4 0
0
3 6 .3 2
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$5 2 5 ,7 8 8
$4 2 2 ,5 7 9
2 .3
1 .8
$2 9 5 ,9 8 4
$1 9 2 ,7 7 5
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 7 5 ,9 4 0
0
3 6 .3 2
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 1 6 ,0 1 9
$4 2 2 ,5 7 9
1 .8
1 .8
$1 8 6 ,2 1 6
$1 9 2 ,7 7 5
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 7 8 ,7 2 8
0
3 6 .9 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$5 5 4 ,9 6 8
$4 0 9 ,0 8 6
2 .4
1 .8
$3 2 5 ,1 6 4
$1 7 9 ,2 8 3
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 7 3 ,5 6 7
0
3 5 .9 9
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$2 9 0 ,5 9 9
$4 1 2 ,6 9 0
1 .3
1 .8
$6 0 ,7 9 5
$1 8 2 ,8 8 6
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 7 3 ,5 6 7
0
3 5 .9 9
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$1 6 9 ,7 8 6
$4 1 2 ,6 9 0
0 .7
1 .8
($6 0 ,0 1 8 )
$1 8 2 ,8 8 6
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 8 0 ,5 0 8
0
3 7 .6 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 2 5 ,7 9 3
$4 2 7 ,0 4 0
1 .9
1 .9
$1 9 5 ,9 8 9
$1 9 7 ,2 3 6
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 7 5 ,6 1 6
0
3 6 .2 9
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$2 9 6 ,3 1 8
$4 3 4 ,6 8 7
1 .3
1 .9
$6 6 ,5 1 4
$2 0 4 ,8 8 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 7 5 ,6 1 6
0
3 6 .2 9
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$1 7 0 ,4 8 9
$4 3 4 ,6 8 7
0 .7
1 .9
($5 9 ,3 1 5 )
$2 0 4 ,8 8 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 7 7 ,9 6 6
0
3 6 .7 4
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$3 0 0 ,5 4 0
$4 2 1 ,1 9 5
1 .3
1 .8
$7 0 ,7 3 6
$1 9 1 ,3 9 1
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 7 7 ,9 6 6
0
3 6 .7 4
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$1 7 8 ,8 5 2
$4 2 1 ,1 9 5
0 .8
1 .8
($5 0 ,9 5 2 )
$1 9 1 ,3 9 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 8 0 ,2 4 8
0
3 6 .9 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 5 9 ,4 8 6
$4 1 0 ,5 3 7
2 .0
1 .8
$2 2 9 ,6 8 3
$1 8 0 ,7 3 3
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 8 0 ,2 4 8
0
3 6 .9 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$3 0 1 ,2 1 9
$4 1 0 ,5 3 7
1 .3
1 .8
$7 1 ,4 1 5
$1 8 0 ,7 3 3
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 7 1 ,7 7 9
0
3 4 .8 5
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 9 0 ,2 4 5
$4 1 7 ,6 7 9
2 .1
1 .8
$2 6 0 ,4 4 2
$1 8 7 ,8 7 5
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 7 1 ,3 9 2
0
3 4 .7 7
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 9 7 ,3 6 3
$4 1 7 ,3 7 1
2 .2
1 .8
$2 6 7 ,5 5 9
$1 8 7 ,5 6 7
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 7 1 ,3 9 2
0
3 4 .7 7
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$2 7 3 ,7 8 3
$4 1 7 ,3 7 1
1 .2
1 .8
$4 3 ,9 7 9
$1 8 7 ,5 6 7
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 7 3 ,0 5 2
0
3 4 .9 7
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 8 8 ,1 9 6
$3 9 7 ,7 9 1
2 .1
1 .7
$2 5 8 ,3 9 2
$1 6 7 ,9 8 7
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 9 1 ,7 0 3
0
3 8 .3 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$4 2 0 ,2 4 1
$4 5 2 ,6 4 1
1 .8
2 .0
$1 9 0 ,4 3 7
$2 2 2 ,8 3 7
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 9 1 ,7 0 3
0
3 8 .3 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$2 9 4 ,0 1 0
$4 5 2 ,6 4 1
1 .3
2 .0
$6 4 ,2 0 6
$2 2 2 ,8 3 7
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 8 2 ,2 9 9
0
3 6 .0 1
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$2 7 9 ,0 3 6
$4 1 6 ,3 8 2
1 .2
1 .8
$4 9 ,2 3 2
$1 8 6 ,5 7 8
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 9 4 ,2 9 3
0
4 0 .0 0
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$5 3 5 ,1 3 7
$4 3 2 ,9 5 1
2 .3
1 .9
$3 0 5 ,3 3 3
$2 0 3 ,1 4 7
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 9 4 ,2 9 3
0
4 0 .0 0
$2 2 9 ,8 0 4
$1 7 5 ,5 7 3
$4 3 2 ,9 5 1
0 .8
1 .9
($5 4 ,2 3 1 )
$2 0 3 ,1 4 7
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 6 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-2 5 ,2 1 4
3 8 9 3
1 4 .6 1
($1 6 ,3 1 8 )
$4 ,2 8 8
($5 ,4 5 0 )
>1
3 .0
$2 0 ,6 0 6
$1 0 ,8 6 8
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 7 ,1 0 1
2 4 4 8
8 .4 0
($2 0 ,7 3 4 )
$8 5 9
$5 ,7 7 9
>1
>1
$2 1 ,5 9 3
$2 6 ,5 1 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-9 ,8 5 1
1 8 6 8
7 .1 8
($1 7 ,3 8 1 )
$1 5 ,4 1 8
$8 ,7 0 2
>1
>1
$3 2 ,7 9 9
$2 6 ,0 8 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-9 ,3 5 3
1 7 0 6
6 .2 4
($1 6 ,1 6 6 )
$9 ,1 1 0
$1 0 ,3 9 4
>1
>1
$2 5 ,2 7 6
$2 6 ,5 6 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-9 ,3 5 3
1 7 0 6
6 .2 4
($1 6 ,1 6 6 )
$2 4 ,0 0 0
$1 0 ,3 9 4
>1
>1
$4 0 ,1 6 6
$2 6 ,5 6 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-9 ,4 2 3
1 7 4 6
6 .4 2
($1 8 ,7 7 6 )
$1 4 ,0 7 6
$6 ,3 5 1
>1
>1
$3 2 ,8 5 2
$2 5 ,1 2 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 ,7 5 9
1 0 0 2
4 .2 4
($1 5 ,0 3 2 )
$2 9 ,7 1 0
$1 2 ,5 9 2
>1
>1
$4 4 ,7 4 1
$2 7 ,6 2 3
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
-2 ,7 5 9
1 0 0 2
4 .2 4
($1 5 ,0 3 2 )
$2 6 ,2 9 2
$1 2 ,5 9 2
>1
>1
$4 1 ,3 2 4
$2 7 ,6 2 3
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 ,1 4 8
5 2 2
2 .7 2
($1 7 ,0 3 2 )
$7 6 ,8 1 0
$1 2 ,3 5 0
>1
>1
$9 3 ,8 4 2
$2 9 ,3 8 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
-9 7 9
7 9 3
3 .6 4
($2 0 ,1 9 2 )
$2 8 ,5 7 6
$1 3 ,1 8 5
>1
>1
$4 8 ,7 6 8
$3 3 ,3 7 7
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
-9 7 9
7 9 3
3 .6 4
($2 0 ,1 9 2 )
$2 4 ,4 7 5
$1 3 ,1 8 5
>1
>1
$4 4 ,6 6 7
$3 3 ,3 7 7
C Z 0 9
S C E
-2 ,3 5 2
9 7 0
4 .2 8
($2 5 ,3 8 3 )
$2 9 ,7 7 6
$1 3 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$5 5 ,1 5 9
$3 8 ,5 9 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
-2 ,3 5 2
9 7 0
4 .2 8
($2 5 ,3 8 3 )
$2 5 ,8 2 3
$1 3 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$5 1 ,2 0 7
$3 8 ,5 9 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-5 ,3 8 8
1 2 6 2
4 .9 5
($2 0 ,5 4 1 )
$7 5 ,4 5 8
$1 1 ,4 9 3
>1
>1
$9 5 ,9 9 9
$3 2 ,0 3 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-5 ,3 8 8
1 2 6 2
4 .9 5
($2 0 ,5 4 1 )
$3 2 ,3 9 4
$1 1 ,4 9 3
>1
>1
$5 2 ,9 3 6
$3 2 ,0 3 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-1 4 ,5 3 3
2 4 1 5
8 .8 6
($2 5 ,4 7 1 )
$7 ,6 1 8
$1 3 ,2 9 5
>1
>1
$3 3 ,0 9 0
$3 8 ,7 6 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-1 4 ,7 6 4
2 3 0 9
8 .1 9
($2 5 ,7 7 4 )
$2 ,2 1 0
$1 0 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$2 7 ,9 8 4
$3 5 ,9 2 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-1 4 ,7 6 4
2 3 0 9
8 .1 9
($2 5 ,7 7 4 )
$2 1 ,2 1 5
$1 0 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$4 6 ,9 8 8
$3 5 ,9 2 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-1 2 ,0 6 9
1 9 8 3
7 .0 8
($2 1 ,4 2 8 )
$5 ,6 4 7
$8 ,5 7 0
>1
>1
$2 7 ,0 7 5
$2 9 ,9 9 8
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-7 ,9 5 0
1 6 7 2
6 .4 5
($1 9 ,9 2 6 )
$6 0 ,4 1 2
$1 6 ,6 7 9
>1
>1
$8 0 ,3 3 8
$3 6 ,6 0 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-7 ,9 5 0
1 6 7 2
6 .4 5
($1 9 ,9 2 6 )
$2 8 ,6 3 1
$1 6 ,6 7 9
>1
>1
$4 8 ,5 5 7
$3 6 ,6 0 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 ,5 3 4
5 1 8
3 .1 0
($2 2 ,8 1 3 )
$2 7 ,2 7 1
$1 7 ,1 6 2
>1
>1
$5 0 ,0 8 4
$3 9 ,9 7 6
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-3 6 ,0 8 1
4 3 0 4
1 4 .2 6
($1 9 ,0 4 1 )
($3 0 ,1 1 1 )
($4 1 ,1 8 1 )
0 .6
0 .5
($1 1 ,0 7 0 )
($2 2 ,1 4 0 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-3 6 ,0 8 1
4 3 0 4
1 4 .2 6
($1 9 ,0 4 1 )
$4 5 ,7 0 6
($4 1 ,1 8 1 )
>1
0 .5
$6 4 ,7 4 7
($2 2 ,1 4 0 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 8
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-2 5 ,2 1 4
3 8 9 3
1 4 .6 1
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$4 ,2 8 8
($5 ,4 5 0 )
>1
2 .7
$1 8 ,9 8 0
$9 ,2 4 2
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 7 ,1 0 1
2 4 4 8
8 .4 0
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$8 5 9
$5 ,7 7 9
>1
>1
$1 5 ,5 5 1
$2 0 ,4 7 2
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-9 ,8 5 1
1 8 6 8
7 .1 8
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$1 5 ,4 1 8
$8 ,7 0 2
>1
>1
$3 0 ,1 1 0
$2 3 ,3 9 4
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-9 ,3 5 3
1 7 0 6
6 .2 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$9 ,1 1 0
$1 0 ,3 9 4
>1
>1
$2 3 ,8 0 2
$2 5 ,0 8 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-9 ,3 5 3
1 7 0 6
6 .2 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 4 ,0 0 0
$1 0 ,3 9 4
>1
>1
$3 8 ,6 9 3
$2 5 ,0 8 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-9 ,4 2 3
1 7 4 6
6 .4 2
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$1 4 ,0 7 6
$6 ,3 5 1
>1
>1
$2 8 ,7 6 8
$2 1 ,0 4 3
C Z 0 6
S C E
-2 ,7 5 9
1 0 0 2
4 .2 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 9 ,7 1 0
$1 2 ,5 9 2
>1
>1
$4 4 ,4 0 2
$2 7 ,2 8 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
-2 ,7 5 9
1 0 0 2
4 .2 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 6 ,2 9 2
$1 2 ,5 9 2
>1
>1
$4 0 ,9 8 4
$2 7 ,2 8 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 ,1 4 8
5 2 2
2 .7 2
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$7 6 ,8 1 0
$1 2 ,3 5 0
>1
>1
$9 1 ,5 0 2
$2 7 ,0 4 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
-9 7 9
7 9 3
3 .6 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 8 ,5 7 6
$1 3 ,1 8 5
>1
>1
$4 3 ,2 6 8
$2 7 ,8 7 7
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
-9 7 9
7 9 3
3 .6 4
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 4 ,4 7 5
$1 3 ,1 8 5
>1
>1
$3 9 ,1 6 7
$2 7 ,8 7 7
C Z 0 9
S C E
-2 ,3 5 2
9 7 0
4 .2 8
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 9 ,7 7 6
$1 3 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$4 4 ,4 6 8
$2 7 ,8 9 9
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
-2 ,3 5 2
9 7 0
4 .2 8
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 5 ,8 2 3
$1 3 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$4 0 ,5 1 6
$2 7 ,8 9 9
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-5 ,3 8 8
1 2 6 2
4 .9 5
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$7 5 ,4 5 8
$1 1 ,4 9 3
>1
>1
$9 0 ,1 5 0
$2 6 ,1 8 5
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-5 ,3 8 8
1 2 6 2
4 .9 5
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$3 2 ,3 9 4
$1 1 ,4 9 3
>1
>1
$4 7 ,0 8 6
$2 6 ,1 8 5
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-1 4 ,5 3 3
2 4 1 5
8 .8 6
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$7 ,6 1 8
$1 3 ,2 9 5
>1
>1
$2 2 ,3 1 0
$2 7 ,9 8 7
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-1 4 ,7 6 4
2 3 0 9
8 .1 9
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 ,2 1 0
$1 0 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$1 6 ,9 0 2
$2 4 ,8 4 5
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-1 4 ,7 6 4
2 3 0 9
8 .1 9
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 1 ,2 1 5
$1 0 ,1 5 2
>1
>1
$3 5 ,9 0 7
$2 4 ,8 4 5
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-1 2 ,0 6 9
1 9 8 3
7 .0 8
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$5 ,6 4 7
$8 ,5 7 0
>1
>1
$2 0 ,3 3 9
$2 3 ,2 6 2
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-7 ,9 5 0
1 6 7 2
6 .4 5
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$6 0 ,4 1 2
$1 6 ,6 7 9
>1
>1
$7 5 ,1 0 4
$3 1 ,3 7 1
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-7 ,9 5 0
1 6 7 2
6 .4 5
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 8 ,6 3 1
$1 6 ,6 7 9
>1
>1
$4 3 ,3 2 3
$3 1 ,3 7 1
C Z 1 5
S C E
2 ,5 3 4
5 1 8
3 .1 0
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$2 7 ,2 7 1
$1 7 ,1 6 2
>1
>1
$4 1 ,9 6 3
$3 1 ,8 5 5
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-3 6 ,0 8 1
4 3 0 4
1 4 .2 6
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
($3 0 ,1 1 1 )
($4 1 ,1 8 1 )
0 .5
0 .4
($1 5 ,4 1 9 )
($2 6 ,4 8 9 )
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-3 6 ,0 8 1
4 3 0 4
1 4 .2 6
($1 4 ,6 9 2 )
$4 5 ,7 0 6
($4 1 ,1 8 1 )
>1
0 .4
$6 0 ,3 9 8
($2 6 ,4 8 9 )
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
7 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 8 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 1 0 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 1 0 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 1 5 ,3 4 4
3 8 9 3
4 1 .8 2
$1 4 3 ,9 3 2
$4 5 4 ,2 7 7
$2 9 6 ,0 2 5
3 .2
2 .1
$3 1 0 ,3 4 5
$1 5 2 ,0 9 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 5 0 ,0 0 4
2 4 4 8
4 0 .8 0
$1 3 9 ,5 1 6
$4 7 0 ,2 3 6
$3 7 1 ,8 1 7
3 .4
2 .7
$3 3 0 ,7 2 0
$2 3 2 ,3 0 1
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 5 8 ,9 5 1
1 8 6 8
3 9 .8 2
$1 4 2 ,8 6 9
$5 4 4 ,0 9 5
$3 7 0 ,6 9 6
3 .8
2 .6
$4 0 1 ,2 2 6
$2 2 7 ,8 2 7
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 6 3 ,0 4 3
1 7 0 6
3 9 .7 3
$1 4 4 ,0 8 4
$4 8 8 ,6 1 9
$3 8 8 ,8 4 7
3 .4
2 .7
$3 4 4 ,5 3 4
$2 4 4 ,7 6 3
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 6 3 ,0 4 3
1 7 0 6
3 9 .7 3
$1 4 4 ,0 8 4
$4 3 2 ,9 0 5
$3 8 8 ,8 4 7
3 .0
2 .7
$2 8 8 ,8 2 1
$2 4 4 ,7 6 3
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 6 5 ,7 1 1
1 7 4 6
4 0 .3 0
$1 4 1 ,4 7 3
$5 6 5 ,5 2 5
$3 8 2 ,7 6 0
4 .0
2 .7
$4 2 4 ,0 5 1
$2 4 1 ,2 8 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 6 7 ,3 2 8
1 0 0 2
3 7 .2 4
$1 4 5 ,2 1 8
$3 0 6 ,6 7 0
$3 9 5 ,0 6 6
2 .1
2 .7
$1 6 1 ,4 5 2
$2 4 9 ,8 4 8
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 6 7 ,3 2 8
1 0 0 2
3 7 .2 4
$1 4 5 ,2 1 8
$1 8 4 ,7 9 7
$3 9 5 ,0 6 6
1 .3
2 .7
$3 9 ,5 7 9
$2 4 9 ,8 4 8
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 7 8 ,0 4 2
5 2 2
3 7 .0 7
$1 4 3 ,2 1 8
$4 2 8 ,3 3 2
$4 0 6 ,0 3 2
3 .0
2 .8
$2 8 5 ,1 1 4
$2 6 2 ,8 1 4
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 7 1 ,1 4 9
7 9 3
3 6 .9 4
$1 4 0 ,0 5 8
$3 0 1 ,2 1 9
$4 1 7 ,6 3 5
2 .2
3 .0
$1 6 1 ,1 6 1
$2 7 7 ,5 7 7
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 7 1 ,1 4 9
7 9 3
3 6 .9 4
$1 4 0 ,0 5 8
$1 7 8 ,4 1 9
$4 1 7 ,6 3 5
1 .3
3 .0
$3 8 ,3 6 1
$2 7 7 ,5 7 7
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 7 2 ,0 2 7
9 7 0
3 8 .5 0
$1 3 4 ,8 6 7
$3 0 7 ,6 4 0
$4 1 4 ,0 7 5
2 .3
3 .1
$1 7 2 ,7 7 3
$2 7 9 ,2 0 8
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 7 2 ,0 2 7
9 7 0
3 8 .5 0
$1 3 4 ,8 6 7
$1 8 7 ,8 1 3
$4 1 4 ,0 7 5
1 .4
3 .1
$5 2 ,9 4 6
$2 7 9 ,2 0 8
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 7 1 ,1 0 7
1 2 6 2
3 9 .4 0
$1 3 9 ,7 0 8
$4 6 3 ,6 9 2
$4 0 3 ,5 0 5
3 .3
2 .9
$3 2 3 ,9 8 4
$2 6 3 ,7 9 6
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 7 1 ,1 0 7
1 2 6 2
3 9 .4 0
$1 3 9 ,7 0 8
$3 1 1 ,4 6 4
$4 0 3 ,5 0 5
2 .2
2 .9
$1 7 1 ,7 5 5
$2 6 3 ,7 9 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 5 3 ,7 3 2
2 4 1 5
4 1 .4 1
$1 3 4 ,7 7 8
$4 6 7 ,3 5 6
$3 9 4 ,1 6 5
3 .5
2 .9
$3 3 2 ,5 7 8
$2 5 9 ,3 8 7
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 5 3 ,1 2 6
2 3 0 9
4 0 .6 1
$1 3 4 ,4 7 6
$4 6 7 ,1 0 6
$3 8 9 ,1 1 1
3 .5
2 .9
$3 3 2 ,6 3 0
$2 5 4 ,6 3 5
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 5 3 ,1 2 6
2 3 0 9
4 0 .6 1
$1 3 4 ,4 7 6
$2 8 3 ,3 4 3
$3 8 9 ,1 1 1
2 .1
2 .9
$1 4 8 ,8 6 7
$2 5 4 ,6 3 5
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 5 7 ,3 3 2
1 9 8 3
3 9 .9 7
$1 3 8 ,8 2 2
$4 7 7 ,8 3 1
$3 8 5 ,9 4 7
3 .4
2 .8
$3 3 9 ,0 0 8
$2 4 7 ,1 2 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 7 9 ,5 8 2
1 6 7 2
4 2 .4 2
$1 4 0 ,3 2 4
$4 3 7 ,5 7 5
$4 5 2 ,7 2 9
3 .1
3 .2
$2 9 7 ,2 5 1
$3 1 2 ,4 0 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 7 9 ,5 8 2
1 6 7 2
4 2 .4 2
$1 4 0 ,3 2 4
$3 0 9 ,0 6 4
$4 5 2 ,7 2 9
2 .2
3 .2
$1 6 8 ,7 4 0
$3 1 2 ,4 0 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 8 0 ,7 5 1
5 1 8
3 7 .2 6
$1 3 7 ,4 3 6
$2 9 4 ,8 7 7
$4 2 1 ,6 1 2
2 .1
3 .1
$1 5 7 ,4 4 0
$2 8 4 ,1 7 6
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 5 4 ,2 4 8
4 3 0 4
5 1 .2 0
$1 4 1 ,2 0 9
$4 7 3 ,8 9 2
$3 6 4 ,0 1 6
3 .4
2 .6
$3 3 2 ,6 8 2
$2 2 2 ,8 0 7
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 5 4 ,2 4 8
4 3 0 4
5 1 .2 0
$1 4 1 ,2 0 9
$2 1 1 ,6 7 7
$3 6 4 ,0 1 6
1 .5
2 .6
$7 0 ,4 6 7
$2 2 2 ,8 0 7
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 6 9 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r M e d i u m R e t a i l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 1 1 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 9 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 1 4 ,3 5 6
3 8 9 3
4 3 .5 2
$1 7 1 ,8 3 2
$4 5 1 ,0 4 3
$3 1 0 ,2 6 5
2 .6
1 .8
$2 7 9 ,2 1 1
$1 3 8 ,4 3 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 4 8 ,7 9 3
2 4 4 8
4 2 .8 9
$1 6 7 ,4 1 6
$4 7 5 ,0 8 1
$3 9 4 ,0 9 9
2 .8
2 .4
$3 0 7 ,6 6 4
$2 2 6 ,6 8 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 5 7 ,7 0 7
1 8 6 8
4 2 .1 2
$1 7 0 ,7 6 9
$5 4 1 ,4 1 8
$3 9 4 ,0 3 4
3 .2
2 .3
$3 7 0 ,6 4 9
$2 2 3 ,2 6 5
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 6 1 ,7 6 9
1 7 0 6
4 1 .8 2
$1 7 1 ,9 8 4
$5 2 3 ,6 0 3
$4 2 2 ,5 3 5
3 .0
2 .5
$3 5 1 ,6 1 8
$2 5 0 ,5 5 1
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 6 1 ,7 6 9
1 7 0 6
4 1 .8 2
$1 7 1 ,9 8 4
$4 3 0 ,5 6 7
$4 2 2 ,5 3 5
2 .5
2 .5
$2 5 8 ,5 8 2
$2 5 0 ,5 5 1
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 6 4 ,4 0 8
1 7 4 6
4 2 .6 8
$1 6 9 ,3 7 3
$5 6 1 ,9 6 6
$4 0 5 ,0 8 7
3 .3
2 .4
$3 9 2 ,5 9 2
$2 3 5 ,7 1 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 6 6 ,0 5 2
1 0 0 2
3 9 .4 8
$1 7 3 ,1 1 8
$3 0 6 ,6 9 7
$4 1 4 ,7 5 6
1 .8
2 .4
$1 3 3 ,5 7 9
$2 4 1 ,6 3 8
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 6 6 ,0 5 2
1 0 0 2
3 9 .4 8
$1 7 3 ,1 1 8
$1 8 7 ,9 4 1
$4 1 4 ,7 5 6
1 .1
2 .4
$1 4 ,8 2 3
$2 4 1 ,6 3 8
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 7 6 ,7 0 5
5 2 2
3 9 .4 7
$1 7 1 ,1 1 8
$4 7 9 ,0 3 8
$4 2 8 ,4 9 0
2 .8
2 .5
$3 0 7 ,9 2 0
$2 5 7 ,3 7 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 6 9 ,8 2 5
7 9 3
3 9 .1 4
$1 6 7 ,9 5 8
$3 1 2 ,6 0 2
$4 3 6 ,7 0 9
1 .9
2 .6
$1 4 4 ,6 4 5
$2 6 8 ,7 5 1
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 6 9 ,8 2 5
7 9 3
3 9 .1 4
$1 6 7 ,9 5 8
$1 8 7 ,1 4 2
$4 3 6 ,7 0 9
1 .1
2 .6
$1 9 ,1 8 5
$2 6 8 ,7 5 1
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 7 0 ,7 4 7
9 7 0
4 0 .2 3
$1 6 2 ,7 6 7
$3 1 8 ,1 1 3
$4 2 3 ,3 7 0
2 .0
2 .6
$1 5 5 ,3 4 6
$2 6 0 ,6 0 4
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 7 0 ,7 4 7
9 7 0
4 0 .2 3
$1 6 2 ,7 6 7
$1 9 7 ,0 0 6
$4 2 3 ,3 7 0
1 .2
2 .6
$3 4 ,2 4 0
$2 6 0 ,6 0 4
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 6 9 ,9 3 5
1 2 6 2
4 1 .0 8
$1 6 7 ,6 0 8
$5 0 3 ,5 0 4
$4 1 1 ,2 8 4
3 .0
2 .5
$3 3 5 ,8 9 6
$2 4 3 ,6 7 5
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 6 9 ,9 3 5
1 2 6 2
4 1 .0 8
$1 6 7 ,6 0 8
$3 1 7 ,9 2 7
$4 1 1 ,2 8 4
1 .9
2 .5
$1 5 0 ,3 1 9
$2 4 3 ,6 7 5
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 5 2 ,5 5 9
2 4 1 5
4 2 .9 9
$1 6 2 ,6 7 8
$4 9 1 ,7 7 5
$4 2 0 ,6 6 7
3 .0
2 .6
$3 2 9 ,0 9 6
$2 5 7 ,9 8 9
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 5 1 ,9 5 6
2 3 0 9
4 2 .2 1
$1 6 2 ,3 7 6
$4 9 4 ,7 0 3
$4 1 7 ,0 6 3
3 .0
2 .6
$3 3 2 ,3 2 7
$2 5 4 ,6 8 7
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 5 1 ,9 5 6
2 3 0 9
4 2 .2 1
$1 6 2 ,3 7 6
$2 8 8 ,9 5 0
$4 1 7 ,0 6 3
1 .8
2 .6
$1 2 6 ,5 7 3
$2 5 4 ,6 8 7
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 5 6 ,2 7 1
1 9 8 3
4 1 .2 5
$1 6 6 ,7 2 2
$4 8 5 ,4 2 2
$3 9 5 ,7 7 0
2 .9
2 .4
$3 1 8 ,6 9 9
$2 2 9 ,0 4 7
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 7 8 ,5 0 5
1 6 7 2
4 3 .9 4
$1 6 8 ,2 2 4
$4 5 2 ,4 5 6
$4 5 7 ,3 8 7
2 .7
2 .7
$2 8 4 ,2 3 2
$2 8 9 ,1 6 3
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 7 8 ,5 0 5
1 6 7 2
4 3 .9 4
$1 6 8 ,2 2 4
$3 1 1 ,5 2 0
$4 5 7 ,3 8 7
1 .9
2 .7
$1 4 3 ,2 9 6
$2 8 9 ,1 6 3
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 7 9 ,8 4 0
5 1 8
3 8 .2 3
$1 6 5 ,3 3 6
$2 9 6 ,0 0 4
$4 2 2 ,2 9 3
1 .8
2 .6
$1 3 0 ,6 6 8
$2 5 6 ,9 5 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 5 2 ,9 6 5
4 3 0 4
5 3 .5 3
$1 6 9 ,1 0 9
$4 8 3 ,2 0 5
$3 7 8 ,2 9 9
2 .9
2 .2
$3 1 4 ,0 9 6
$2 0 9 ,1 9 0
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 5 2 ,9 6 5
4 3 0 4
5 3 .5 3
$1 6 9 ,1 0 9
$2 1 5 ,3 4 1
$3 7 8 ,2 9 9
1 .3
2 .2
$4 6 ,2 3 1
$2 0 9 ,1 9 0
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
6 .7 .3
C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s u l t s – S m a l l H o t e l
F i g u r e 7 0
t h r o u g h F i g u r e 7 7
c o n t a i n t h e c o s t -e f f e c t i v e n e s s f i n d i n g s f o r t h e S m a l l H o t e l p a c k a g e s . N o t a b l e f i n d i n g s f o r e a c h p a c k a g e i n c l u d e :
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W
P V : P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s f o r b o t h t h e O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s .
M i x e d -F u e l + 3 k W
P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y : T h e p a c k a g e s a r e l e s s c o s t e f f e c t i v e
a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e p r e v i o u s m i n i m a l P V o n l y p a c k a g e a n d
n o t c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r L A D W P a n d S M U D s e r v i c e a r e a .
T h e a d d i t i o n o f b a t t e r y r e d u c e s t h e c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p a c k a g e s .
M i x e d -F u e l + P V o n l y : P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s f o r t h e O n -B i l l a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s e x c e p t f o r L A D W P
t e r r i t o r y . P a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d a c h i e v e s a v i n g s f o r t h e T D V a p p r o a c h f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s .
M i x e d -F u e l + P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y : A d d i n g b a t t e r y s l i g h t l y r e d u c e s O n -B i l l B /C r a t i o s . P a c k a g e s a r e
n o t
c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r L A D W P t e r r i t o r y ,
S M U D t e r r i t o r y
a s w e l l
a s f o r c l i m a t e z o n e s 6 ,8 ,9
u n d e r P G &E s e r v i c e a r e a .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W
P V :
A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a p p r o a c h . A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e T D V a p p r o a c h
b u t d o n o t a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e e n e r g y c o s t s a v i n g s .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W
P V
+ 5 k W h
B a t t e r y :
S i m i l a r t o m i n i m a l P V o n l y p a c k a g e , a l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e O n -B i l l a p p r o a c h . A l l
p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e u s i n g t h e T D V a p p r o a c h b u t d o n o t a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e e n e r g y c o s t s a v i n g s .
A l l -E l e c t r i c +
P V o n l y : A l l p a c k a g e s a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r b o t h O n -B i l l a n d T D V a p p r o a c h e s . P a c k a g e s a c h i e v e o n -b i l l s a v i n g s f o r a l l
c l i m a t e
z o n e s .
A l l -E l e c t r i c + P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y : A d d i n g b a t t e r y s l i g h t l y r e d u c e s O n -B i l l B /C r a t i o s b u t i s s t i l l c o s t e f f e c t i v e f o r a l l c l i m a t e z o n e s .
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 0 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e $-
T D V S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V
(O n -b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .8
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 2 ,6 1 6
$8 ,3 2 6
2 .3
1 .5
$7 ,0 5 0
$2 ,7 6 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,7 8 5
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 2 ,6 3 9
$1 0 ,3 3 2
2 .3
1 .9
$7 ,0 7 3
$4 ,7 6 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,7 3 3
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,1 4 6
$9 ,9 9 1
2 .7
1 .8
$9 ,5 8 0
$4 ,4 2 5
C Z 0 4
P G &E
4 ,8 3 4
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 3 ,2 6 6
$1 0 ,4 4 5
2 .4
1 .9
$7 ,7 0 0
$4 ,8 7 9
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 ,8 3 4
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 1 ,5 0 7
$1 0 ,4 4 5
2 .1
1 .9
$5 ,9 4 1
$4 ,8 7 9
C Z 0 5
P G &E
5 ,0 2 7
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 6 ,0 4 8
$1 0 ,6 3 4
2 .9
1 .9
$1 0 ,4 8 2
$5 ,0 6 8
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,2 7 6
$1 0 ,5 5 9
1 .8
1 .9
$4 ,7 1 0
$4 ,9 9 3
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,3 0 7
$1 0 ,5 5 9
1 .1
1 .9
$7 4 1
$4 ,9 9 3
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 4 ,5 7 6
$1 0 ,8 6 1
2 .6
2 .0
$9 ,0 1 0
$5 ,2 9 5
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 4
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,8 3 7
$1 1 ,2 0 2
1 .9
2 .0
$5 ,2 7 1
$5 ,6 3 6
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
4 ,8 2 4
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,5 0 5
$1 1 ,2 0 2
1 .2
2 .0
$9 3 9
$5 ,6 3 6
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,7 7 9
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,2 9 8
$1 0 ,8 2 4
1 .9
1 .9
$4 ,7 3 2
$5 ,2 5 8
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
4 ,7 7 9
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$6 ,2 0 1
$1 0 ,8 2 4
1 .1
1 .9
$6 3 5
$5 ,2 5 8
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,9 0 5
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 6 ,3 0 2
$1 0 ,7 1 0
2 .9
1 .9
$1 0 ,7 3 6
$5 ,1 4 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,9 0 5
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$9 ,4 6 8
$1 0 ,7 1 0
1 .7
1 .9
$3 ,9 0 2
$5 ,1 4 4
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 0 1
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 4 ,1 9 3
$1 0 ,4 8 3
2 .6
1 .9
$8 ,6 2 7
$4 ,9 1 7
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 7 0
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 5 ,2 6 2
$1 0 ,5 9 6
2 .7
1 .9
$9 ,6 9 6
$5 ,0 3 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 7 0
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$7 ,8 4 8
$1 0 ,5 9 6
1 .4
1 .9
$2 ,2 8 2
$5 ,0 3 0
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,6 3 3
0
0 .9
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 4 ,6 7 4
$1 0 ,1 0 5
2 .6
1 .8
$9 ,1 0 8
$4 ,5 3 9
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 6 ,6 1 5
$1 2 ,3 7 5
3 .0
2 .2
$1 1 ,0 4 9
$6 ,8 0 9
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .1
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 0 ,0 2 1
$1 2 ,3 7 5
1 .8
2 .2
$4 ,4 5 5
$6 ,8 0 9
C Z 1 5
S C E
4 ,9 9 7
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$9 ,5 4 2
$1 1 ,1 6 4
1 .7
2 .0
$3 ,9 7 6
$5 ,5 9 8
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,2 4 0
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$1 4 ,9 6 1
$1 0 ,9 7 5
2 .7
2 .0
$9 ,3 9 5
$5 ,4 0 9
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
5 ,2 4 0
0
1 .0
$5 ,5 6 6
$5 ,6 7 0
$1 0 ,9 7 5
1 .0
2 .0
$1 0 4
$5 ,4 0 9
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 1 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
3 ,9 4 1
0
0 .8
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 2 ,6 1 6
$8 ,3 2 6
1 .3
0 .9
$3 ,0 9 6
($1 ,1 9 4 )
C Z 0 2
P G &E
4 ,7 8 5
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 2 ,6 3 9
$1 0 ,3 3 2
1 .3
1 .1
$3 ,1 1 9
$8 1 1
C Z 0 3
P G &E
4 ,7 3 3
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,1 4 6
$9 ,9 9 1
1 .6
1 .0
$5 ,6 2 6
$4 7 1
C Z 0 4
P G &E
4 ,8 3 4
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 3 ,2 6 6
$1 0 ,4 4 5
1 .4
1 .1
$3 ,7 4 6
$9 2 5
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
4 ,8 3 4
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 1 ,5 0 7
$1 0 ,4 4 5
1 .2
1 .1
$1 ,9 8 7
$9 2 5
C Z 0 5
P G &E
5 ,0 2 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,0 4 8
$1 0 ,6 3 4
1 .7
1 .1
$6 ,5 2 8
$1 ,1 1 4
C Z 0 5 -2
S C G
5 ,0 2 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,0 4 8
$1 0 ,6 3 4
1 .7
1 .1
$6 ,5 2 8
$1 ,1 1 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,2 7 6
$1 0 ,5 5 9
1 .1
1 .1
$7 5 6
$1 ,0 3 9
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
4 ,7 6 9
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,3 0 7
$1 0 ,5 5 9
0 .7
1 .1
($3 ,2 1 3 )
$1 ,0 3 9
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
4 ,9 6 0
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 4 ,5 7 6
$1 0 ,8 6 1
1 .5
1 .1
$5 ,0 5 6
$1 ,3 4 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
4 ,8 2 4
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,8 3 7
$1 1 ,2 0 2
1 .1
1 .2
$1 ,3 1 7
$1 ,6 8 2
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
4 ,8 2 4
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,5 0 5
$1 1 ,2 0 2
0 .7
1 .2
($3 ,0 1 5 )
$1 ,6 8 2
C Z 0 9
S C E
4 ,7 7 9
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,2 9 8
$1 0 ,8 2 4
1 .1
1 .1
$7 7 8
$1 ,3 0 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
4 ,7 7 9
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$6 ,2 0 1
$1 0 ,8 2 4
0 .7
1 .1
($3 ,3 1 9 )
$1 ,3 0 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 ,9 0 5
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,3 0 2
$1 0 ,7 1 0
1 .7
1 .1
$6 ,7 8 2
$1 ,1 9 0
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
4 ,9 0 5
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$9 ,4 6 8
$1 0 ,7 1 0
0 .9 9
1 .1
($5 2 )
$1 ,1 9 0
C Z 1 1
P G &E
4 ,7 0 1
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 4 ,1 9 3
$1 0 ,4 8 3
1 .5
1 .1
$4 ,6 7 3
$9 6 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
4 ,7 7 0
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 5 ,2 6 2
$1 0 ,5 9 6
1 .6
1 .1
$5 ,7 4 2
$1 ,0 7 6
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
4 ,7 7 0
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$7 ,8 4 8
$1 0 ,5 9 6
0 .8
1 .1
($1 ,6 7 2 )
$1 ,0 7 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 ,6 3 3
0
0 .9
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 4 ,6 7 4
$1 0 ,1 0 5
1 .5
1 .1
$5 ,1 5 4
$5 8 4
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 6 ,6 1 5
$1 2 ,3 7 5
1 .7
1 .3
$7 ,0 9 5
$2 ,8 5 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
5 ,3 7 7
0
1 .1
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 0 ,0 2 1
$1 2 ,3 7 5
1 .1
1 .3
$5 0 1
$2 ,8 5 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
4 ,9 9 7
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$9 ,5 4 2
$1 1 ,1 6 4
1 .0
1 .2
$2 2
$1 ,6 4 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
5 ,2 4 0
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$1 4 ,9 6 1
$1 0 ,9 7 5
1 .6
1 .2
$5 ,4 4 1
$1 ,4 5 5
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
5 ,2 4 0
0
1 .0
$9 ,5 2 0
$5 ,6 7 0
$1 0 ,9 7 5
0 .6
1 .2
($3 ,8 5 1 )
$1 ,4 5 5
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 2 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l - M i x e d F u e l +8 0 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 8 0 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 0 5 ,0 9 0
0
2 0 .6
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 3 6 ,4 4 0
$2 2 1 ,8 8 3
1 .9
1 .2
$1 5 6 ,9 7 0
$4 2 ,4 1 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 2 7 ,5 9 2
0
2 5 .0
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 2 0 ,0 0 9
$2 7 5 ,1 3 0
1 .8
1 .5
$1 4 0 ,5 3 9
$9 5 ,6 6 0
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 2 6 ,2 0 6
0
2 4 .8
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$4 0 3 ,9 0 0
$2 6 6 ,4 2 6
2 .3
1 .5
$2 2 4 ,4 3 0
$8 6 ,9 5 6
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 2 8 ,8 9 4
0
2 5 .4
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 2 2 ,7 8 2
$2 7 8 ,5 3 6
1 .8
1 .6
$1 4 3 ,3 1 2
$9 9 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 2 8 ,8 9 4
0
2 5 .4
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 0 6 ,8 6 2
$2 7 8 ,5 3 6
1 .7
1 .6
$1 2 7 ,3 9 2
$9 9 ,0 6 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 3 4 ,0 4 1
0
2 6 .5
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$4 2 7 ,9 3 5
$2 8 3 ,8 3 4
2 .4
1 .6
$2 4 8 ,4 6 5
$1 0 4 ,3 6 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 2 7 ,1 6 8
0
2 5 .0
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 0 0 ,4 2 5
$2 8 1 ,4 8 8
1 .1
1 .6
$2 0 ,9 5 5
$1 0 2 ,0 1 8
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 2 7 ,1 6 8
0
2 5 .0
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$1 1 9 ,3 5 7
$2 8 1 ,4 8 8
0 .7
1 .6
($6 0 ,1 1 3 )
$1 0 2 ,0 1 8
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 3 2 ,2 5 8
0
2 6 .1
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 4 7 ,6 4 6
$2 8 9 ,7 0 0
1 .4
1 .6
$6 8 ,1 7 6
$1 1 0 ,2 3 0
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 2 8 ,6 4 1
0
2 5 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 0 7 ,9 9 3
$2 9 8 ,5 9 4
1 .2
1 .7
$2 8 ,5 2 3
$1 1 9 ,1 2 4
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 2 8 ,6 4 1
0
2 5 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$1 2 2 ,5 9 1
$2 9 8 ,5 9 4
0 .7
1 .7
($5 6 ,8 7 9 )
$1 1 9 ,1 2 4
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 2 7 ,4 4 7
0
2 5 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 1 1 ,5 6 7
$2 8 8 ,8 3 0
1 .2
1 .6
$3 2 ,0 9 6
$1 0 9 ,3 6 0
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 2 7 ,4 4 7
0
2 5 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$1 2 3 ,4 8 6
$2 8 8 ,8 3 0
0 .7
1 .6
($5 5 ,9 8 4 )
$1 0 9 ,3 6 0
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 3 0 ,7 9 2
0
2 5 .8
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 7 4 ,8 3 2
$2 8 5 ,3 8 6
1 .5
1 .6
$9 5 ,3 6 1
$1 0 5 ,9 1 6
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 3 0 ,7 9 2
0
2 5 .8
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 0 6 ,8 6 5
$2 8 5 ,3 8 6
1 .2
1 .6
$2 7 ,3 9 5
$1 0 5 ,9 1 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 2 5 ,3 6 6
0
2 4 .6
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 1 6 ,7 8 1
$2 7 9 ,3 3 1
1 .8
1 .6
$1 3 7 ,3 1 1
$9 9 ,8 6 1
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 2 7 ,2 0 3
0
2 5 .0
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$4 0 6 ,9 7 7
$2 8 2 ,3 5 8
2 .3
1 .6
$2 2 7 ,5 0 7
$1 0 2 ,8 8 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 2 7 ,2 0 3
0
2 5 .0
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$1 9 8 ,2 5 4
$2 8 2 ,3 5 8
1 .1
1 .6
$1 8 ,7 8 4
$1 0 2 ,8 8 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 2 3 ,5 3 5
0
2 4 .4
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 1 7 ,2 6 1
$2 6 9 ,9 0 8
1 .8
1 .5
$1 3 7 ,7 9 1
$9 0 ,4 3 7
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 4 3 ,3 8 7
0
2 8 .1
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 0 9 ,5 2 1
$3 3 0 ,3 4 5
1 .7
1 .8
$1 3 0 ,0 5 1
$1 5 0 ,8 7 5
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 4 3 ,3 8 7
0
2 8 .1
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 2 5 ,0 8 3
$3 3 0 ,3 4 5
1 .3
1 .8
$4 5 ,6 1 2
$1 5 0 ,8 7 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 3 3 ,2 4 6
0
2 5 .9
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$2 0 7 ,2 7 7
$2 9 7 ,6 4 8
1 .2
1 .7
$2 7 ,8 0 7
$1 1 8 ,1 7 7
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 3 9 ,7 3 8
0
2 7 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$3 4 1 ,7 2 4
$2 9 2 ,7 2 8
1 .9
1 .6
$1 6 2 ,2 5 4
$1 1 3 ,2 5 8
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 3 9 ,7 3 8
0
2 7 .3
$1 7 9 ,4 7 0
$1 1 4 ,2 1 5
$2 9 2 ,7 2 8
0 .6
1 .6
($6 5 ,2 5 5 )
$1 1 3 ,2 5 8
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 5
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 3 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – M i x e d F u e l + 8 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V
(T D V )
M i x e d F u e l + 8 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
1 0 4 ,0 2 6
0
2 3 .2
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 3 2 ,5 9 6
$2 3 7 ,7 4 0
1 .6
1 .1
$1 2 5 ,2 2 6
$3 0 ,3 7 0
C Z 0 2
P G &E
1 2 6 ,3 3 2
0
2 8 .1
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 3 6 ,1 7 9
$2 9 6 ,0 5 8
1 .6
1 .4
$1 2 8 ,8 0 9
$8 8 ,6 8 8
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 2 4 ,9 3 4
0
2 8 .0
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 9 9 ,2 2 0
$2 8 9 ,3 6 0
1 .9
1 .4
$1 9 1 ,8 5 0
$8 1 ,9 9 0
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 2 7 ,6 0 2
0
2 8 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 3 2 ,1 6 1
$3 0 8 ,8 8 7
1 .6
1 .5
$1 2 4 ,7 9 0
$1 0 1 ,5 1 7
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 2 7 ,6 0 2
0
2 8 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 0 3 ,8 2 8
$3 0 8 ,8 8 7
1 .5
1 .5
$9 6 ,4 5 8
$1 0 1 ,5 1 7
C Z 0 5
P G &E
1 3 2 ,7 2 5
0
2 9 .8
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$4 2 3 ,1 2 9
$3 0 3 ,6 2 7
2 .0
1 .5
$2 1 5 ,7 5 8
$9 6 ,2 5 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
1 2 5 ,8 8 0
0
2 8 .4
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 9 3 ,8 1 4
$2 9 7 ,9 5 0
0 .9
1 .4
($1 3 ,5 5 6 )
$9 0 ,5 8 0
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
1 2 5 ,8 8 0
0
2 8 .4
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 2 3 ,0 8 3
$2 9 7 ,9 5 0
0 .6
1 .4
($8 4 ,2 8 7 )
$9 0 ,5 8 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
1 3 0 ,9 4 0
0
2 9 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 7 4 ,3 1 3
$3 0 9 ,6 8 2
1 .3
1 .5
$6 6 ,9 4 3
$1 0 2 ,3 1 2
C Z 0 8
S C E
1 2 7 ,3 3 2
0
2 8 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 9 9 ,7 8 6
$3 1 2 ,8 9 9
1 .0
1 .5
($7 ,5 8 4 )
$1 0 5 ,5 2 9
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
1 2 7 ,3 3 2
0
2 8 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 2 4 ,6 5 1
$3 1 2 ,8 9 9
0 .6
1 .5
($8 2 ,7 1 9 )
$1 0 5 ,5 2 9
C Z 0 9
S C E
1 2 6 ,2 3 2
0
2 8 .2
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 0 6 ,7 0 6
$2 9 2 ,8 0 4
1 .0
1 .4
($6 6 4 )
$8 5 ,4 3 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
1 2 6 ,2 3 2
0
2 8 .2
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 2 6 ,7 1 0
$2 9 2 ,8 0 4
0 .6
1 .4
($8 0 ,6 6 0 )
$8 5 ,4 3 3
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
1 2 9 ,6 8 3
0
2 8 .4
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 9 2 ,2 0 2
$2 8 7 ,2 7 8
1 .4
1 .4
$8 4 ,8 3 2
$7 9 ,9 0 8
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
1 2 9 ,6 8 3
0
2 8 .4
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 0 6 ,1 7 1
$2 8 7 ,2 7 8
1 .0
1 .4
($1 ,1 9 9 )
$7 9 ,9 0 8
C Z 1 1
P G &E
1 2 4 ,3 3 7
0
2 6 .9
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 1 5 ,3 3 0
$2 8 3 ,6 8 3
1 .5
1 .4
$1 0 7 ,9 6 0
$7 6 ,3 1 3
C Z 1 2
P G &E
1 2 6 ,0 1 3
0
2 7 .8
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$4 0 3 ,1 2 7
$2 9 7 ,1 1 8
1 .9
1 .4
$1 9 5 ,7 5 7
$8 9 ,7 4 8
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
1 2 6 ,0 1 3
0
2 7 .8
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 9 8 ,0 0 7
$2 9 7 ,1 1 8
1 .0
1 .4
($9 ,3 6 3 )
$8 9 ,7 4 8
C Z 1 3
P G &E
1 2 2 ,5 9 1
0
2 6 .5
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 1 5 ,5 4 1
$2 8 0 ,9 9 6
1 .5
1 .4
$1 0 8 ,1 7 1
$7 3 ,6 2 6
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
1 4 2 ,2 5 7
0
3 0 .7
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 1 7 ,5 6 5
$3 3 4 ,6 9 7
1 .5
1 .6
$1 1 0 ,1 9 5
$1 2 7 ,3 2 7
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
1 4 2 ,2 5 7
0
3 0 .7
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 2 4 ,1 9 5
$3 3 4 ,6 9 7
1 .1
1 .6
$1 6 ,8 2 4
$1 2 7 ,3 2 7
C Z 1 5
S C E
1 3 2 ,4 1 8
0
2 7 .8
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$2 0 8 ,0 4 4
$2 9 9 ,1 9 9
1 .0
1 .4
$6 7 4
$9 1 ,8 2 9
C Z 1 6
P G &E
1 3 8 ,4 0 2
0
3 0 .7
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$3 5 8 ,5 8 2
$3 1 5 ,6 9 9
1 .7
1 .5
$1 5 1 ,2 1 2
$1 0 8 ,3 2 9
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
1 3 8 ,4 0 2
0
3 0 .7
$2 0 7 ,3 7 0
$1 1 8 ,7 7 0
$3 1 5 ,6 9 9
0 .6
1 .5
($8 8 ,6 0 0 )
$1 0 8 ,3 2 9
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 6
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 4 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t *
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
L i f e c y c l e
T D V S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 5 5 ,8 6 1
1 6 9 1 7
5 4 .7
($1 ,2 6 5 ,1 3 9 )
($5 6 8 ,8 9 2 )
($1 0 6 ,8 3 5 )
2 .2
1 1 .8
$6 9 6 ,2 4 6
$1 ,1 5 8 ,3 0 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 1 3 ,9 5 4
1 2 6 7 7
4 0 .9
($1 ,2 6 6 ,1 1 1 )
($2 2 9 ,4 3 3 )
($4 1 ,2 8 8 )
5 .5
3 0 .7
$1 ,0 3 6 ,6 7 9
$1 ,2 2 4 ,8 2 3
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 0 5 ,8 6 2
1 2 3 2 2
4 1 .4
($1 ,2 6 8 ,3 8 3 )
($3 0 9 ,8 7 4 )
($4 1 ,1 7 5 )
4 .1
3 0 .8
$9 5 8 ,5 1 0
$1 ,2 2 7 ,2 0 8
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 0 8 ,5 7 0
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .5
($1 ,2 6 8 ,2 1 8 )
($2 0 8 ,2 3 9 )
($4 2 ,6 8 9 )
6 .1
2 9 .7
$1 ,0 5 9 ,9 8 0
$1 ,2 2 5 ,5 3 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 0 8 ,5 7 0
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .5
($1 ,2 6 8 ,2 1 8 )
($6 ,2 6 1 )
($4 2 ,6 8 9 )
2 0 2 .6
2 9 .7
$1 ,2 6 1 ,9 5 8
$1 ,2 2 5 ,5 3 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 0 3 ,5 7 9
1 1 9 6 0
3 9 .3
($1 ,2 6 8 ,2 7 2 )
($3 3 2 ,8 7 9 )
($4 4 ,0 5 1 )
3 .8
2 8 .8
$9 3 5 ,3 9 3
$1 ,2 2 4 ,2 2 1
C Z 0 6
S C E
-7 3 ,5 2 4
8 9 1 2
3 0 .3
($1 ,2 6 8 ,4 1 3 )
$4 8 ,8 9 8
($1 7 ,4 8 4 )
>1
7 2 .5
$1 ,3 1 7 ,3 1 1
$1 ,2 5 0 ,9 2 9
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
-6 4 ,8 5 9
8 1 8 8
2 9 .0
($1 ,2 6 6 ,7 6 0 )
($1 2 0 ,8 4 2 )
($1 2 ,3 3 7 )
1 0 .5
1 0 2 .7
$1 ,1 4 5 ,9 1 8
$1 ,2 5 4 ,4 2 3
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-6 7 ,0 9 0
8 3 5 3
2 9 .2
($1 ,2 6 4 ,7 3 1 )
($4 3 ,9 6 4 )
($1 1 ,6 1 8 )
2 8 .8
1 0 8 .9
$1 ,2 2 0 ,7 6 7
$1 ,2 5 3 ,1 1 3
C Z 0 8
S C E
-6 7 ,0 9 0
8 3 5 3
2 9 .2
($1 ,2 6 4 ,7 3 1 )
$4 8 ,7 3 6
($1 1 ,6 1 8 )
>1
1 0 8 .9
$1 ,3 1 3 ,4 6 7
$1 ,2 5 3 ,1 1 3
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
-6 7 ,4 8 3
8 4 0 2
2 9 .3
($1 ,2 6 6 ,5 2 9 )
($3 5 ,5 4 7 )
($1 1 ,1 2 6 )
3 5 .6
1 1 3 .8
$1 ,2 3 0 ,9 8 2
$1 ,2 5 5 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 9
S C E
-6 7 ,4 8 3
8 4 0 2
2 9 .3
($1 ,2 6 6 ,5 2 9 )
$5 2 ,4 1 0
($1 1 ,1 2 6 )
>1
1 1 3 .8
$1 ,3 1 8 ,9 3 9
$1 ,2 5 5 ,4 0 3
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
-7 5 ,1 5 7
8 4 1 8
2 7 .2
($1 ,2 6 3 ,5 3 1 )
($1 5 6 ,9 7 3 )
($2 5 ,4 6 9 )
8 .0
4 9 .6
$1 ,1 0 6 ,5 5 8
$1 ,2 3 8 ,0 6 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-7 5 ,1 5 7
8 4 1 8
2 7 .2
($1 ,2 6 3 ,5 3 1 )
($5 4 ,7 1 1 )
($2 5 ,4 6 9 )
2 3 .1
4 9 .6
$1 ,2 0 8 ,8 2 0
$1 ,2 3 8 ,0 6 1
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-9 4 ,7 8 3
1 0 2 5 2
3 1 .9
($1 ,2 6 4 ,3 4 0 )
($1 6 9 ,8 4 7 )
($3 8 ,9 0 4 )
7 .4
3 2 .5
$1 ,0 9 4 ,4 9 3
$1 ,2 2 5 ,4 3 6
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-9 4 ,7 0 2
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .0
($1 ,2 6 5 ,7 7 9 )
($3 2 4 ,9 0 8 )
($3 4 ,9 6 8 )
3 .9
3 6 .2
$9 4 0 ,8 7 2
$1 ,2 3 0 ,8 1 1
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-9 4 ,2 9 7
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .1
($1 ,2 6 5 ,7 7 9 )
$1 3 ,6 0 3
($3 3 ,7 5 7 )
>1
3 7 .5
$1 ,2 7 9 ,3 8 2
$1 ,2 3 2 ,0 2 2
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-9 2 ,1 9 6
1 0 0 2 9
3 1 .5
($1 ,2 6 4 ,1 5 2 )
($1 6 8 ,3 5 8 )
($4 0 ,2 2 9 )
7 .5
3 1 .4
$1 ,0 9 5 ,7 9 4
$1 ,2 2 3 ,9 2 3
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-9 6 ,0 2 1
1 0 0 5 6
3 0 .7
($1 ,2 6 4 ,5 1 0 )
($3 0 8 ,5 4 2 )
($4 4 ,2 0 2 )
4 .1
2 8 .6
$9 5 5 ,9 6 9
$1 ,2 2 0 ,3 0 8
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-9 6 ,0 2 1
1 0 0 5 6
3 0 .7
($1 ,2 6 4 ,5 1 0 )
($1 1 0 ,7 3 0 )
($4 4 ,2 0 2 )
1 1 .4
2 8 .6
$1 ,1 5 3 ,7 8 0
$1 ,2 2 0 ,3 0 8
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-4 4 ,8 5 6
5 5 7 9
1 9 .0
($1 ,2 6 2 ,6 3 1 )
$8 ,9 9 6
($1 0 ,2 5 6 )
>1
1 2 3 .1
$1 ,2 7 1 ,6 2 7
$1 ,2 5 2 ,3 7 5
C Z 1 5
S C E
-2 1 1 ,4 6 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 2 .9
($1 ,2 6 8 ,9 0 7 )
($6 2 5 ,6 7 1 )
($2 2 8 ,2 0 3 )
2 .0
5 .6
$6 4 3 ,2 3 6
$1 ,0 4 0 ,7 0 4
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-2 1 1 ,4 6 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 2 .9
($1 ,2 6 8 ,9 0 7 )
$3 7 ,1 4 2
($2 2 8 ,2 0 3 )
>1
5 .6
$1 ,3 0 6 ,0 4 9
$1 ,0 4 0 ,7 0 4
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-1 5 5 ,8 6 1
1 6 9 1 7
5 4 .7
($1 ,2 6 5 ,1 3 9 )
($5 6 8 ,8 9 2 )
($1 0 6 ,8 3 5 )
2 .2
1 1 .8
$6 9 6 ,2 4 6
$1 ,1 5 8 ,3 0 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 7
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 5 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 3 k W P V + 5 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-1 5 5 ,8 6 1
1 6 9 1 7
5 4 .7
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($5 6 8 ,8 9 2 )
($1 0 6 ,8 3 5 )
2 .3
1 2 .1
$7 1 9 ,5 3 6
$1 ,1 8 1 ,5 9 3
C Z 0 2
P G &E
-1 1 3 ,9 5 4
1 2 6 7 7
4 0 .9
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($2 2 9 ,4 3 3 )
($4 1 ,2 8 8 )
5 .6
3 1 .2
$1 ,0 5 8 ,9 9 6
$1 ,2 4 7 ,1 4 0
C Z 0 3
P G &E
-1 0 5 ,8 6 2
1 2 3 2 2
4 1 .4
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($3 0 9 ,8 7 4 )
($4 1 ,1 7 5 )
4 .2
3 1 .3
$9 7 8 ,5 5 4
$1 ,2 4 7 ,2 5 3
C Z 0 4
P G &E
-1 0 8 ,5 7 0
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .5
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($2 0 8 ,2 3 9 )
($4 2 ,6 8 9 )
6 .2
3 0 .2
$1 ,0 8 0 ,1 9 0
$1 ,2 4 5 ,7 4 0
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
-1 0 8 ,5 7 0
1 1 9 2 7
3 7 .5
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($6 ,2 6 1 )
($4 2 ,6 8 9 )
2 0 5 .8
3 0 .2
$1 ,2 8 2 ,1 6 7
$1 ,2 4 5 ,7 4 0
C Z 0 5
P G &E
-1 0 3 ,5 7 9
1 1 9 6 0
3 9 .3
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($3 3 2 ,8 7 9 )
($4 4 ,0 5 1 )
3 .9
2 9 .2
$9 5 5 ,5 4 9
$1 ,2 4 4 ,3 7 7
C Z 0 6
S C E
-7 3 ,5 2 4
8 9 1 2
3 0 .3
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($5 2 ,3 4 1 )
($1 7 ,4 8 4 )
2 4 .6
7 3 .7
$1 ,2 3 6 ,0 8 7
$1 ,2 7 0 ,9 4 4
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
-7 3 ,5 2 4
8 9 1 2
3 0 .3
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$4 8 ,8 9 8
($1 7 ,4 8 4 )
>1
7 3 .7
$1 ,3 3 7 ,3 2 6
$1 ,2 7 0 ,9 4 4
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
-6 4 ,8 5 9
8 1 8 8
2 9 .0
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($1 2 0 ,8 4 2 )
($1 2 ,3 3 7 )
1 0 .7
1 0 4 .4
$1 ,1 6 7 ,5 8 6
$1 ,2 7 6 ,0 9 1
C Z 0 8
S C E
-6 7 ,0 9 0
8 3 5 3
2 9 .2
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($4 3 ,9 6 4 )
($1 1 ,6 1 8 )
2 9 .3
1 1 0 .9
$1 ,2 4 4 ,4 6 4
$1 ,2 7 6 ,8 1 0
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
-6 7 ,0 9 0
8 3 5 3
2 9 .2
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$4 8 ,7 3 6
($1 1 ,6 1 8 )
>1
1 1 0 .9
$1 ,3 3 7 ,1 6 4
$1 ,2 7 6 ,8 1 0
C Z 0 9
S C E
-6 7 ,4 8 3
8 4 0 2
2 9 .3
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($3 5 ,5 4 7 )
($1 1 ,1 2 6 )
3 6 .2
1 1 5 .8
$1 ,2 5 2 ,8 8 1
$1 ,2 7 7 ,3 0 2
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
-6 7 ,4 8 3
8 4 0 2
2 9 .3
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$5 2 ,4 1 0
($1 1 ,1 2 6 )
>1
1 1 5 .8
$1 ,3 4 0 ,8 3 8
$1 ,2 7 7 ,3 0 2
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
-7 5 ,1 5 7
8 4 1 8
2 7 .2
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($1 5 6 ,9 7 3 )
($2 5 ,4 6 9 )
8 .2
5 0 .6
$1 ,1 3 1 ,4 5 5
$1 ,2 6 2 ,9 5 9
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
-7 5 ,1 5 7
8 4 1 8
2 7 .2
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($5 4 ,7 1 1 )
($2 5 ,4 6 9 )
2 3 .5
5 0 .6
$1 ,2 3 3 ,7 1 8
$1 ,2 6 2 ,9 5 9
C Z 1 1
P G &E
-9 4 ,7 8 3
1 0 2 5 2
3 1 .9
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($1 6 9 ,8 4 7 )
($3 8 ,9 0 4 )
7 .6
3 3 .1
$1 ,1 1 8 ,5 8 2
$1 ,2 4 9 ,5 2 4
C Z 1 2
P G &E
-9 4 ,7 0 2
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .0
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($3 2 4 ,9 0 8 )
($3 4 ,9 6 8 )
4 .0
3 6 .8
$9 6 3 ,5 2 0
$1 ,2 5 3 ,4 6 0
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
-9 4 ,2 9 7
1 0 4 0 3
3 3 .1
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$1 3 ,6 0 3
($3 3 ,7 5 7 )
>1
3 8 .2
$1 ,3 0 2 ,0 3 1
$1 ,2 5 4 ,6 7 1
C Z 1 3
P G &E
-9 2 ,1 9 6
1 0 0 2 9
3 1 .5
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($1 6 8 ,3 5 8 )
($4 0 ,2 2 9 )
7 .7
3 2 .0
$1 ,1 2 0 ,0 7 1
$1 ,2 4 8 ,1 9 9
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
-9 6 ,0 2 1
1 0 0 5 6
3 0 .7
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($3 0 8 ,5 4 2 )
($4 4 ,2 0 2 )
4 .2
2 9 .1
$9 7 9 ,8 8 7
$1 ,2 4 4 ,2 2 6
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
-9 6 ,0 2 1
1 0 0 5 6
3 0 .7
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($1 1 0 ,7 3 0 )
($4 4 ,2 0 2 )
1 1 .6
2 9 .1
$1 ,1 7 7 ,6 9 8
$1 ,2 4 4 ,2 2 6
C Z 1 5
S C E
-4 4 ,8 5 6
5 5 7 9
1 9 .0
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$8 ,9 9 6
($1 0 ,2 5 6 )
>1
1 2 5 .6
$1 ,2 9 7 ,4 2 5
$1 ,2 7 8 ,1 7 2
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-2 1 1 ,4 6 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 2 .9
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
($6 2 5 ,6 7 1 )
($2 2 8 ,2 0 3 )
2 .1
5 .6
$6 6 2 ,7 5 7
$1 ,0 6 0 ,2 2 5
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-2 1 1 ,4 6 8
1 7 5 9 9
4 2 .9
($1 ,2 8 8 ,4 2 8 )
$3 7 ,1 4 2
($2 2 8 ,2 0 3 )
>1
5 .6
$1 ,3 2 5 ,5 7 0
$1 ,0 6 0 ,2 2 5
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 8
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 6 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 8 0 k W P V
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 8 0 k W P V
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-5 4 ,7 1 2
1 6 9 1 7
7 4 .6
($1 ,1 2 3 ,4 4 2 )
($2 4 0 ,1 7 0 )
$1 0 6 ,7 2 2
4 .7
>1
$8 8 3 ,2 7 2
$1 ,2 3 0 ,1 6 4
C Z 0 2
P G &E
8 ,8 5 3
1 2 6 7 7
6 5 .0
($1 ,1 2 4 ,4 1 5 )
$1 2 8 ,6 4 9
$2 2 3 ,5 1 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 5 3 ,0 6 3
$1 ,3 4 7 ,9 2 5
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 5 ,6 1 2
1 2 3 2 2
6 5 .3
($1 ,1 2 6 ,6 8 7 )
$4 4 ,5 3 2
$2 1 5 ,2 6 0
>1
>1
$1 ,1 7 1 ,2 1 9
$1 ,3 4 1 ,9 4 7
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 5 ,4 9 0
1 1 9 2 7
6 2 .0
($1 ,1 2 6 ,5 2 2 )
$1 4 5 ,7 7 8
$2 2 5 ,4 0 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 7 2 ,3 0 0
$1 ,3 5 1 ,9 2 4
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 5 ,4 9 0
1 1 9 2 7
6 2 .0
($1 ,1 2 6 ,5 2 2 )
$2 8 9 ,0 9 4
$2 2 5 ,4 0 2
>1
>1
$1 ,4 1 5 ,6 1 6
$1 ,3 5 1 ,9 2 4
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 5 ,4 3 6
1 1 9 6 0
6 4 .8
($1 ,1 2 6 ,5 7 5 )
$5 6 ,0 1 9
$2 2 9 ,1 4 9
>1
>1
$1 ,1 8 2 ,5 9 4
$1 ,3 5 5 ,7 2 4
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 8 ,8 7 5
8 9 1 2
5 4 .4
($1 ,1 2 6 ,7 1 6 )
$1 6 3 ,3 4 3
$2 5 3 ,4 4 5
>1
>1
$1 ,2 9 0 ,0 6 0
$1 ,3 8 0 ,1 6 1
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
6 2 ,4 3 9
8 1 8 8
5 4 .1
($1 ,1 2 5 ,0 6 4 )
$1 1 5 ,8 2 2
$2 6 6 ,5 0 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 0 ,8 8 6
$1 ,3 9 1 ,5 6 5
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
5 6 ,7 2 7
8 3 5 3
5 3 .5
($1 ,1 2 3 ,0 3 4 )
$1 4 7 ,9 8 7
$2 7 5 ,7 7 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 7 1 ,0 2 2
$1 ,3 9 8 ,8 0 8
C Z 0 8
S C E
5 6 ,7 2 7
8 3 5 3
5 3 .5
($1 ,1 2 3 ,0 3 4 )
$1 6 3 ,9 7 1
$2 7 5 ,7 7 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 8 7 ,0 0 5
$1 ,3 9 8 ,8 0 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
5 5 ,1 8 5
8 4 0 2
5 3 .7
($1 ,1 2 4 ,8 3 2 )
$1 5 5 ,1 0 1
$2 6 6 ,8 8 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 7 9 ,9 3 3
$1 ,3 9 1 ,7 1 2
C Z 0 9
S C E
5 5 ,1 8 5
8 4 0 2
5 3 .7
($1 ,1 2 4 ,8 3 2 )
$1 6 9 ,0 1 0
$2 6 6 ,8 8 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 9 3 ,8 4 3
$1 ,3 9 1 ,7 1 2
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
5 0 ,7 3 1
8 4 1 8
5 2 .0
($1 ,1 2 1 ,8 3 4 )
$1 1 3 ,9 3 6
$2 4 9 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 5 ,7 7 0
$1 ,3 7 1 ,0 4 1
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
5 0 ,7 3 1
8 4 1 8
5 2 .0
($1 ,1 2 1 ,8 3 4 )
$1 3 8 ,2 6 5
$2 4 9 ,2 0 7
>1
>1
$1 ,2 6 0 ,0 9 9
$1 ,3 7 1 ,0 4 1
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 5 ,8 8 2
1 0 2 5 2
5 5 .6
($1 ,1 2 2 ,6 4 3 )
$1 6 2 ,6 2 6
$2 2 9 ,9 4 4
>1
>1
$1 ,2 8 5 ,2 6 9
$1 ,3 5 2 ,5 8 7
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 7 ,7 3 1
1 0 4 0 3
5 7 .1
($1 ,1 2 4 ,0 8 3 )
$1 2 ,9 5 4
$2 3 6 ,7 9 4
>1
>1
$1 ,1 3 7 ,0 3 7
$1 ,3 6 0 ,8 7 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 8 ,1 3 6
1 0 4 0 3
5 7 .2
($1 ,1 2 4 ,0 8 3 )
$2 0 6 ,7 5 6
$2 3 8 ,0 0 5
>1
>1
$1 ,3 3 0 ,8 3 9
$1 ,3 6 2 ,0 8 7
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 6 ,7 0 6
1 0 0 2 9
5 5 .0
($1 ,1 2 2 ,4 5 5 )
$1 6 5 ,9 9 1
$2 1 9 ,5 7 4
>1
>1
$1 ,2 8 8 ,4 4 6
$1 ,3 4 2 ,0 3 0
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 1 ,9 8 9
1 0 0 5 6
5 7 .8
($1 ,1 2 2 ,8 1 4 )
$2 2 ,3 3 3
$2 7 3 ,7 6 8
>1
>1
$1 ,1 4 5 ,1 4 7
$1 ,3 9 6 ,5 8 2
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
4 1 ,9 8 9
1 0 0 5 6
5 7 .8
($1 ,1 2 2 ,8 1 4 )
$1 2 0 ,9 4 3
$2 7 3 ,7 6 8
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 3 ,7 5 7
$1 ,3 9 6 ,5 8 2
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
8 3 ,3 9 3
5 5 7 9
4 4 .0
($1 ,1 2 0 ,9 3 4 )
$2 1 0 ,5 1 1
$2 7 6 ,2 2 8
>1
>1
$1 ,3 3 1 ,4 4 5
$1 ,3 9 7 ,1 6 2
C Z 1 5
S C E
-7 6 ,9 7 1
1 7 5 9 9
6 9 .2
($1 ,1 2 7 ,2 1 0 )
($1 9 9 ,3 0 8 )
$5 3 ,5 5 0
5 .7
>1
$9 2 7 ,9 0 2
$1 ,1 8 0 ,7 6 0
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-7 6 ,9 7 1
1 7 5 9 9
6 9 .2
($1 ,1 2 7 ,2 1 0 )
$1 7 2 ,7 8 7
$5 3 ,5 5 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 9 9 ,9 9 7
$1 ,1 8 0 ,7 6 0
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-5 4 ,7 1 2
1 6 9 1 7
7 4 .6
($1 ,1 2 3 ,4 4 2 )
($2 4 0 ,1 7 0 )
$1 0 6 ,7 2 2
4 .7
>1
$8 8 3 ,2 7 2
$1 ,2 3 0 ,1 6 4
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
8 9
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
F i g u r e 7 7 . C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r S m a l l H o t e l – A l l -E l e c t r i c + 8 0 k W P V + 5 0 k W h B a t t e r y
C Z
I O U t e r r i t o r y
E l e c
S a v i n g s
(k W h )
G a s
S a v i n g s
(t h e r m s )
G H G
s a v i n g s
(t o n s )
I n c r e m e n t a l
P a c k a g e C o s t
L i f e c y c l e
E n e r g y C o s t
S a v i n g s
$-T D V
S a v i n g s
B /C
R a t i o
(O n -
b i l l )
B /C
R a t i o
(T D V )
N P V (O n -
b i l l )
N P V (T D V )
A l l -E l e c t r i c + 8 0 k W P V +
5 0 k W h
B a t t e r y
C Z 0 1
P G &E
-5 5 ,3 2 3
1 6 9 1 7
7 5 .7
($1 ,0 9 5 ,5 4 2 )
($2 3 8 ,3 5 1 )
$1 1 8 ,6 0 5
4 .6
>1
$8 5 7 ,1 9 1
$1 ,2 1 4 ,1 4 7
C Z 0 2
P G &E
7 ,8 4 9
1 2 6 7 7
6 7 .4
($1 ,0 9 6 ,5 1 5 )
$1 2 9 ,7 9 4
$2 3 9 ,6 3 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 2 6 ,3 0 9
$1 ,3 3 6 ,1 4 6
C Z 0 3
P G &E
1 4 ,5 9 4
1 2 3 2 2
6 7 .7
($1 ,0 9 8 ,7 8 7 )
$4 3 ,1 6 6
$2 3 5 ,2 8 0
>1
>1
$1 ,1 4 1 ,9 5 3
$1 ,3 3 4 ,0 6 7
C Z 0 4
P G &E
1 4 ,4 5 9
1 1 9 2 7
6 4 .4
($1 ,0 9 8 ,6 2 2 )
$1 4 8 ,6 9 8
$2 4 9 ,2 4 4
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 7 ,3 2 0
$1 ,3 4 7 ,8 6 6
C Z 0 4 -2
C P A U
1 4 ,4 5 9
1 1 9 2 7
6 4 .4
($1 ,0 9 8 ,6 2 2 )
$2 8 6 ,5 7 3
$2 4 9 ,2 4 4
>1
>1
$1 ,3 8 5 ,1 9 5
$1 ,3 4 7 ,8 6 6
C Z 0 5
P G &E
2 4 ,2 9 2
1 1 9 6 0
6 7 .6
($1 ,0 9 8 ,6 7 5 )
$5 3 ,7 1 9
$2 4 4 ,5 1 4
>1
>1
$1 ,1 5 2 ,3 9 4
$1 ,3 4 3 ,1 8 9
C Z 0 6
S C E
4 7 ,7 6 2
8 9 1 2
5 7 .2
($1 ,0 9 8 ,8 1 6 )
$1 6 5 ,7 6 3
$2 6 7 ,2 2 1
>1
>1
$1 ,2 6 4 ,5 7 9
$1 ,3 6 6 ,0 3 7
C Z 0 6 -2
L A
6 1 ,2 5 2
8 1 8 8
5 7 .1
($1 ,0 9 7 ,1 6 4 )
$1 3 8 ,0 6 0
$2 8 3 ,7 9 7
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 5 ,2 2 3
$1 ,3 8 0 ,9 6 0
C Z 0 7
S D G &E
5 5 ,5 8 8
8 3 5 3
5 6 .2
($1 ,0 9 5 ,1 3 4 )
$1 3 8 ,7 1 8
$2 8 6 ,4 8 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 3 ,8 5 2
$1 ,3 8 1 ,6 1 8
C Z 0 8
S C E
5 5 ,5 8 8
8 3 5 3
5 6 .2
($1 ,0 9 5 ,1 3 4 )
$1 6 5 ,9 3 2
$2 8 6 ,4 8 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 6 1 ,0 6 6
$1 ,3 8 1 ,6 1 8
C Z 0 8 -2
L A
5 4 ,1 6 2
8 4 0 2
5 6 .1
($1 ,0 9 6 ,9 3 2 )
$1 4 9 ,6 1 5
$2 6 9 ,4 5 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 4 6 ,5 4 8
$1 ,3 6 6 ,3 8 6
C Z 0 9
S C E
5 4 ,1 6 2
8 4 0 2
5 6 .1
($1 ,0 9 6 ,9 3 2 )
$1 7 1 ,1 6 8
$2 6 9 ,4 5 3
>1
>1
$1 ,2 6 8 ,1 0 1
$1 ,3 6 6 ,3 8 6
C Z 0 9 -2
L A
4 9 ,8 3 2
8 4 1 8
5 4 .1
($1 ,0 9 3 ,9 3 4 )
$1 2 0 ,6 2 7
$2 5 0 ,7 2 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 4 ,5 6 1
$1 ,3 4 4 ,6 5 4
C Z 1 0
S D G &E
4 9 ,8 3 2
8 4 1 8
5 4 .1
($1 ,0 9 3 ,9 3 4 )
$1 3 6 ,1 4 4
$2 5 0 ,7 2 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 3 0 ,0 7 8
$1 ,3 4 4 ,6 5 4
C Z 1 0 -2
S C E
2 5 ,1 4 8
1 0 2 5 2
5 7 .3
($1 ,0 9 4 ,7 4 3 )
$1 6 0 ,7 4 4
$2 3 3 ,8 4 2
>1
>1
$1 ,2 5 5 ,4 8 7
$1 ,3 2 8 ,5 8 5
C Z 1 1
P G &E
2 6 ,8 1 3
1 0 4 0 3
5 9 .2
($1 ,0 9 6 ,1 8 3 )
$1 0 ,3 1 4
$2 4 7 ,5 0 4
>1
>1
$1 ,1 0 6 ,4 9 7
$1 ,3 4 3 ,6 8 6
C Z 1 2
P G &E
2 7 ,2 1 7
1 0 4 0 3
5 9 .3
($1 ,0 9 6 ,1 8 3 )
$2 0 6 ,7 4 9
$2 4 8 ,7 9 0
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 2 ,9 3 1
$1 ,3 4 4 ,9 7 3
C Z 1 2 -2
S M U D
2 6 ,0 2 7
1 0 0 2 9
5 6 .5
($1 ,0 9 4 ,5 5 5 )
$1 6 4 ,5 0 6
$2 2 9 ,3 0 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 5 9 ,0 6 1
$1 ,3 2 3 ,8 5 6
C Z 1 3
P G &E
4 1 ,1 2 3
1 0 0 5 6
5 9 .7
($1 ,0 9 4 ,9 1 4 )
$2 5 ,7 0 7
$2 7 6 ,9 4 7
>1
>1
$1 ,1 2 0 ,6 2 1
$1 ,3 7 1 ,8 6 0
C Z 1 4
S D G &E
4 1 ,1 2 3
1 0 0 5 6
5 9 .7
($1 ,0 9 4 ,9 1 4 )
$1 1 9 ,3 8 2
$2 7 6 ,9 4 7
>1
>1
$1 ,2 1 4 ,2 9 6
$1 ,3 7 1 ,8 6 0
C Z 1 4 -2
S C E
8 2 ,6 9 7
5 5 7 9
4 5 .5
($1 ,0 9 3 ,0 3 4 )
$2 0 9 ,8 3 7
$2 7 7 ,2 8 7
>1
>1
$1 ,3 0 2 ,8 7 1
$1 ,3 7 0 ,3 2 1
C Z 1 5
S C E
-7 7 ,8 1 5
1 7 5 9 9
7 1 .1
($1 ,0 9 9 ,3 1 0 )
($1 9 3 ,7 5 8 )
$6 5 ,8 5 0
5 .7
>1
$9 0 5 ,5 5 2
$1 ,1 6 5 ,1 6 0
C Z 1 6
P G &E
-7 7 ,8 1 5
1 7 5 9 9
7 1 .1
($1 ,0 9 9 ,3 1 0 )
$1 7 5 ,8 7 2
$6 5 ,8 5 0
>1
>1
$1 ,2 7 5 ,1 8 2
$1 ,1 6 5 ,1 6 0
C Z 1 6 -2
L A
-5 5 ,3 2 3
1 6 9 1 7
7 5 .7
($1 ,0 9 5 ,5 4 2 )
($2 3 8 ,3 5 1 )
$1 1 8 ,6 0 5
4 .6
>1
$8 5 7 ,1 9 1
$1 ,2 1 4 ,1 4 7
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
9 0
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
6 .8
L i s t o f R e l e v a n t E f f i c i e n c y M e a s u r e s E x p l o r e d
T h e R e a c h C o d e T e a m s t a r t e d w i t h a p o t e n t i a l l i s t o f e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y m e a s u r e s p r o p o s e d f o r 2 0 2 2 T i t l e 2 4 c o d e s a n d s t a n d a r d s e n h a n c e m e n t
m e a s u r e s , a s w e l l a s
m e a s u r e s f r o m t h e 2 0 1 8 I n t e r n a t i o n a l G r e e n C o n s t r u c t i o n C o d e , w h i c h i s b a s e d o n
A S H R A E S t a n d a r d 1 8 9 .1 -2 0 1 7 . T h e t e a m
a l s o d e v e l o p e d n e w m e a s u r e s b a s e d o n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s
o r i g i n a l
l i s t w a s o v e r 1 0 0 m e a s u r e s l o n g . T h e m e a s u r e s w e r e f i l t e r e d
b a s e d o n
a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h e p r o t o t y p e s
i n t h i s s t u d y , a b i l i t y t o m o d e l i n s i m u l a t i o n s o f t w a r e , p r e v i o u s l y d e m o n s t r a t e d e n e r g y s a v i n g s p o t e n t i a l , a n d m a r k e t
r e a d i n e s s . T h e l i s t o f 2 8
m e a s u r e s b e l o w r e p r e s e n t t h e l i s t o f e f f i c i e n c y m e a s u r e s t h a t m e e t t h e s e c r i t e r i a
a n d w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d t o s o m e d e g r e e .
T h e c o l u m n t o t h e f a r r i g h t i n d i c a t e s w h e t h e r t h e
m e a s u r e w a s u l t i m a t e l y i n c l u d e d i n a n a l y s i s o r n o t .
F i g u r e 7 8 . L i s t o f R e l e v a n t E f f i c i e n c y M e a s u r e s E x p l o r e d
B u i l d i n g C o m p o n e n t
M e a s u r e N a m e
M e a s u r e D e s c r i p t i o n
N o t e s
I n c l u d e ?
W a t e r
H e a t i n g
D r a i n w a t e r
H e a t R e c o v e r y
A d d d r a i n w a t e r h e a t r e c o v e r y i n h o t e l p r o t o t y p e
R e q u i r e s c a l c u l a t i o n s o u t s i d e o f m o d e l i n g s o f t w a r e .
Y
E n v e l o p e
H i g h p e r f o r m a n c e f e n e s t r a t i o n
I m p r o v e d f e n e s t r a t i o n S H G C (r e d u c e t o 0 .2 2 ).
Y
E n v e l o p e
H i g h S H G C f o r c o l d
c l i m a t e s
R a i s e p r e s c r i p t i v e f e n e s t r a t i o n S H G C (t o 0 .4 5 ) i n c o l d
c l i m a t e s w h e r e a d d i t i o n a l h e a t i s b e n e f i c i a l .
Y
E n v e l o p e
A l l o w a b l e f e n e s t r a t i o n b y
o r i e n t a t i o n
L i m i t a m o u n t o f f e n e s t r a t i o n a s a f u n c t i o n o f o r i e n t a t i o n
Y
E n v e l o p e
H i g h T h e r m a l M a s s B u i l d i n g s
I n c r e a s e b u i l d i n g t h e r m a l m a s s . T h e r m a l m a s s s l o w s t h e
c h a n g e i n i n t e r n a l t e m p e r a t u r e o f b u i l d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e o u t d o o r t e m p e r a t u r e , a l l o w i n g t h e p e a k c o o l i n g
l o a d d u r i n g s u m m e r t o b e p u s h e d t o t h e e v e n i n g ,
r e s u l t i n g i n l o w e r o v e r a l l c o o l i n g l o a d s .
I n i t i a l e n e r g y m o d e l i n g r e s u l t s s h o w e d m a r g i n a l
c o o l i n g s a v i n g s , n e g a t i v e h e a t i n g s a v i n g s .
N
E n v e l o p e
O p a q u e I n s u l a t i o n
I n c r e a s e s t h e i n s u l a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t f o r o p a q u e
e n v e l o p e s (i .e ., r o o f a n d a b o v e -g r a d e w a l l ).
I n i t i a l e n e r g y m o d e l i n g r e s u l t s s h o w e d m a r g i n a l
e n e r g y s a v i n g s a t s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t s w h i c h w o u l d n o t
m e e t c /e c r i t e r i a .
N
E n v e l o p e
T r i p l e p a n e w i n d o w s
U -f a c t o r o f 0 .2 0 f o r a l l w i n d o w s
I n i t i a l e n e r g y m o d e l i n g r e s u l t s s h o w e d o n l y m a r g i n a l
e n e r g y s a v i n g s a n d , i n s o m e c a s e s ,
i n c r e a s e d e n e r g y
u s e .
N
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
9 1
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
B u i l d i n g C o m p o n e n t
M e a s u r e N a m e
M e a s u r e D e s c r i p t i o n
N o t e s
I n c l u d e ?
E n v e l o p e
D u c t L e a k a g e T e s t i n g
E x p a n d d u c t l e a k a g e t e s t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s b a s e d
o n
A S H R A E S t a n d a r d 2 1 5 -2 0 1 8 :
M e t h o d o f T e s t t o
D e t e r m i n e L e a k a g e o f O p e r a t i n g H V A C A i r D i s t r i b u t i o n
S y s t e m s (A N S I A p p r o v e d ).
M o r e r e s e a r c h n e e d s t o b e d o n e o n c u r r e n t d u c t
l e a k a g e a n d h o w i t c a n b e a d d r e s s e d .
N
E n v e l o p e
F e n e s t r a t i o n a r e a
R e d u c e m a x i m u m a l l o w a b l e f e n e s t r a t i o n a r e a t o 3 0 %.
I n s t e a d o f t h i s m e a s u r e , a n a l y z e d m e a s u r e w h i c h
l o o k e d a t l i m i t i n g f e n e s t r a t i o n b a s e d o n w a l l
o r i e n t a t i o n .
N
E n v e l o p e
S k i n n y t r i p l e p a n e w i n d o w s
U -f a c t o r o f 0 .2 0 f o r a l l w i n d o w s , w i t h n o c h a n g e s t o
e x i s t i n g f r a m i n g o r b u i l d i n g s t r u c t u r e .
M a r k e t n o t r e a d y . N o c o m m e r c i a l l y -a v a i l a b l e
p r o d u c t s f o r c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g s .
N
E n v e l o p e
P e r m a n e n t p r o j e c t i o n s
D e t a i l e d p r e s c r i p t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s h a d i n g b a s e d o n
A S H R A E 1 8 9 . P F >0 .5 0 f o r f i r s t s t o r y a n d >0 .2 5 f o r o t h e r
f l o o r s . M a n y e x c e p t i o n s . C o r r e s p o n d i n g S H G C m u l t i p l i e r s
t o b e u s e d .
T i t l e 2 4 a l r e a d y a l l o w s o w n e r t o t r a d e o f f S H G C w i t h
p e r m a n e n t p r o j e c t i o n s . A l s o , a d d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r
p e r m a n e n t p r o j e c t i o n s w o u l d r a i s e c o n c e r n s .
N
E n v e l o p e
R e d u c e d i n f i l t r a t i o n
R e d u c e i n f i l t r a t i o n r a t e s b y i m p r o v i n g b u i l d i n g s e a l i n g .
I n f i l t r a t i o n r a t e s a r e a f i x e d A C M i n p u t a n d c a n n o t b e
c h a n g e d . A w o r k a r o u n d a t t e m p t w o u l d n o t b e
p r e c i s e , a n d t h e p r a c t i c a l i t y o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n b y
d e v e l o p e r s i s l o w g i v e n t h e m o d e l i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s a n d
t h e f a c t t h a t i n -f i e l d v e r i f i c a t i o n i s c h a l l e n g i n g .
B e n e f i t s w o u l d p r e d o m i n a n t l y b e f o r a i r q u a l i t y r a t h e r
t h a n e n e r g y .
N
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
9 2
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
B u i l d i n g C o m p o n e n t
M e a s u r e N a m e
M e a s u r e D e s c r i p t i o n
N o t e s
I n c l u d e ?
H V A C
H e a t r e c o v e r y v e n t i l a t i o n
F o r t h e h o t e l , r e c o v e r a n d t r a n s f e r h e a t f r o m e x h a u s t e d
a i r t o v e n t i l a t i o n a i r .
F o r s m a l l h o t e l s , t h e v e n t i l a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t c o u l d b e
m e t b y v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s , a n d t h e m o s t c o m m o n
o n e s a r e :
a .
E x h a u s t o n l y s y s t e m , a n d v e n t i l a t i o n i s m e t b y
i n f i l t r a t i o n o r w i n d o w o p e r a t i o n .
b .
T h r o u g h a Z -d u c t t h a t c o n n e c t s t h e z o n e A C
u n i t ’s i n t a k e t o a n o u t s i d e a i r i n t a k e l o u v e r .
c .
C e n t r a l i z e d v e n t i l a t i o n s y s t e m (D O A S )
T h e p r o t o t y p e d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e s m a l l h o t e l i s u s i n g
T y p e 2 a b o v e .
T h e m a j o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t
c u r r e n t l y , H R V + P T A C s c a n n o t b e m o d e l e d a t e a c h
g u e s t r o o m , o n l y a t t h e r o o f t o p s y s t e m . O p t i o n 1
w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e s a m e t y p e o f H R V i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
a s O p t i o n 2 . O p t i o n 3 m a y b e p u r s u a b l e , b u t w o u l d
r e q u i r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d e s i g n o f t h e s y s t e m , w i t h
q u e s t i o n a b l e i m p a c t s . P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d
h e a t r e c o v e r y a s c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n C a l i f o r n i a o n l y i n
b u i l d i n g s w i t h h i g h l o a d s o r h i g h a i r e x c h a n g e r a t e s ,
g i v e n t h e r e l a t i v e l y m i l d c l i m a t e .
N
H V A C
R e q u i r e E c o n o m i z e r s i n S m a l l e r
C a p a c i t y S y s t e m s
L o w e r t h e c a p a c i t y t r i g g e r f o r a i r e c o n o m i z e r s .
P r e v i o u s
s t u d i e s h a v e s h o w n c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r s y s t e m s a s l o w
a s 3 t o n s .
Y
H V A C
R e d u c e V A V m i n i m u m f l o w l i m i t
C u r r e n t T 2 4 a n d 9 0 .1 r e q u i r e m e n t s l i m i t V A V m i n i m u m
f l o w r a t e s t o n o m o r e t h a n 2 0 % o f m a x i m u m f l o w .
P r o p o s a l b a s e d o n A S H R A E G u i d e l i n e 3 6
w h i c h i n c l u d e s
s e q u e n c e s t h a t r e m o v e t e c h n i c a l b a r r i e r s t h a t p r e v i o u s l y
e x i s t e d . A l s o , m o s t n e w D D C c o n t r o l l e r s a r e n o w c a p a b l e
o f l o w e r l i m i t s . T h e n e w l i m i t m a y b e a s l o w a s t h e
r e q u i r e d v e n t i l a t i o n r a t e . A n o n -e n e r g y b e n e f i t o f t h i s
m e a s u r e i s a r e d u c t i o n i n o v e r -c o o l i n g , t h u s i m p r o v i n g
c o m f o r t .
Y
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
9 3
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
B u i l d i n g C o m p o n e n t
M e a s u r e N a m e
M e a s u r e D e s c r i p t i o n
N o t e s
I n c l u d e ?
H V A C
B u i l d i n g A u t o m a t i o n S y s t e m (B A S )
i m p r o v e m e n t s
W i t h a d o p t i o n o f A S H R A E G u i d e l i n e 3 6 (G D L -3 6 ), t h e r e i s
n o w a n a t i o n a l c o n s e n s u s s t a n d a r d f o r t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f
h i g h -p e r f o r m a n c e s e q u e n c e s o f o p e r a t i o n . T h i s m e a s u r e
w i l l u p d a t e B A S c o n t r o l r e q u i r e m e n t s t o i m p r o v e
u s a b i l i t y a n d e n f o r c e m e n t a n d t o i n c r e a s e e n e r g y
e f f i c i e n c y . B A S c o n t r o l r e q u i r e m e n t l a n g u a g e w i l l b e
i m p r o v e d e i t h e r b y a d o p t i o n o f s i m i l a r l a n g u a g e t o G D L -
3 6 , o r r e f e r e n c e t o G D L -3 6 . S p e c i f i c T 2 4 B A S c o n t r o l
t o p i c s t h a t w i l l b e a d d r e s s e d i n c l u d e a t a m i n i m u m : D C V ,
d e m a n d -b a s e d r e s e t o f S A T , d e m a n d -b a s e d
r e s e t o f S P ,
d u a l -m a x i m u m z o n e s e q u e n c e s , a n d z o n e g r o u p s f o r
s c h e d u l i n g .
I n o r d e r t o r e a l i z e a n y s a v i n g s i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e , w e
w o u l d n e e d
a v e r y d e t a i l e d e n e r g y m o d e l w i t h s p a c e -
b y -s p a c e l o a d /o c c u p a n t d i v e r s i t y , e t c . W e w o u l d a l s o
n e e d m o r e m o d e l i n g c a p a b i l i t y t h a n i s c u r r e n t l y
a v a i l a b l e i n C B E C C -C o m .
N
H V A C
F a u l t D e t e c t i o n D e v i c e s (F D D )
E x p a n d F D D r e q u i r e m e n t s t o a w i d e r r a n g e o f A H U f a u l t s
b e y o n d t h e e c o n o m i z e r . F a u l t r e q u i r e m e n t s w i l l b e b a s e d
o n N I S T f i e l d r e s e a r c h , w h i c h h a s c o n s e q u e n t l y b e e n
i n t e g r a t e d i n t o A S H R A E G u i d e l i n e 3 6 B e s t i n C l a s s
S e q u e n c e s o f O p e r a t i o n s . C o s t s a r e s o l e l y t o d e v e l o p t h e
s e q u e n c e s , w h i c h i s l i k e l y m i n i m a l , a n d m u c h o f t h e
h a r d w a r e r e q u i r e d f o r e c o n o m i z e r F D D i s a l s o u s e d t o
d e t e c t o t h e r f a u l t s .
M a r k e t n o t r e a d y .
N
H V A C
S m a l l c i r c u l a t o r p u m p s E C M , t r i m
t o f l o w r a t e
C i r c u l a t o r p u m p s f o r i n d u s t r y a n d c o m m e r c i a l .
H o t w a t e r p u m p e n e r g y u s e i s s m a l l
a l r e a d y (<1 %
b u i l d i n g e l e c t r i c i t y u s a g e ) s o n o t m u c h s a v i n g s
p o t e n t i a l . M o r e s a v i n g s f o r C H W p u m p s . M o d e l i n g
l i m i t a t i o n s a s w e l l .
N
H V A C
H i g h P e r f o r m a n c e D u c t s t o
R e d u c e S t a t i c P r e s s u r e
R e v i s e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d u c t s i z i n g t o r e d u c e s t a t i c
p r e s s u r e .
P r e l i m i n a r y e n e r g y m o d e l i n g r e s u l t s s h o w e d o n l y
m a r g i n a l e n e r g y s a v i n g s c o m p a r e d t o m e a s u r e c o s t .
N
H V A C
P a r a l l e l f a n -p o w e r e d b o x e s
U s e o f p a r a l l e l f a n -p o w e r e d b o x e s
U n a b l e t o m o d e l P F P B w i t h v a r i a b l e s p e e d f a n s i n
m o d e l i n g s o f t w a r e .
N
L i g h t i n g
D a y l i g h t D i m m i n g P l u s O F F
A u t o m a t i c d a y l i g h t d i m m i n g c o n t r o l s r e q u i r e m e n t s
i n c l u d e t h e O F F s t e p .
Y
L i g h t i n g
O c c u p a n t S e n s i n g i n O p e n P l a n
O f f i c e s
T a k e t h e P A F w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g f o r i n c r e a s e d d e s i g n
w a t t a g e
Y
L i g h t i n g
I n s t i t u t i o n a l t u n i n g
T a k e t h e P A F w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g f o r i n c r e a s e d d e s i g n
w a t t a g e
Y
2 0 1 9 N o n r e s i d e n t i a l N e w C o n s t r u c t i o n R e a c h C o d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t u d y
9 4
2 0 1 9 -0 7 -1 5
B u i l d i n g C o m p o n e n t
M e a s u r e N a m e
M e a s u r e D e s c r i p t i o n
N o t e s
I n c l u d e ?
L i g h t i n g
R e d u c e d I n t e r i o r L i g h t i n g P o w e r
D e n s i t y
R e d u c e d i n t e r i o r L P D v a l u e s .
Y
L i g h t i n g
S h i f t f r o m g e n e r a l t o t a s k
i l l u m i n a t i o n
L o w l e v e l s o f g e n e r a l i l l u m i n a t i o n w i t h t a s k a n d a c c e n t
l i g h t i n g a d d e d t o l o c a t i o n s w h e r e h i g h e r l i g h t l e v e l s a r e
r e q u i r e d . T h e s h i f t f r o m g e n e r a l t o t a s k i l l u m i n a t i o n
m e a s u r e i s b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t p r o p e r l i g h t i n g
o f a d e s k s u r f a c e w i t h h i g h e f f i c a c y l i g h t i n g c a n a l l o w f o r
t h e s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n o f a m b i e n t g e n e r a l l i g h t i n g .
T h i s i s a t o u g h m e a s u r e t o r e q u i r e a s t h e L P D s
d e c r e a s e .
N
L i g h t i n g
F u t u r e -p r o o f l i g h t i n g c o n t r o l s
F i l l a n y h o l e s i n t h e c u r r e n t c o d e t h a t c o u l d l e a d t o t h e
s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e T L E D S o r L E D f i x t u r e s t h a t a r e n o t
d i m m a b l e o r u p g r a d a b l e i n t h e f u t u r e , o r a n y o t h e r i s s u e s
w i t h c o d e t h a t m a k e i t h a r d t o t r a n s i t i o n t o A L C S /I o T
l i g h t i n g i n t h e f u t u r e
M a j o r l i g h t i n g c o n t r o l s a l r e a d y c o v e r e d i n o t h e r
m e a s u r e s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d
N
L i g h t i n g
I n t e g r a t e d c o n t r o l o f l i g h t i n g a n d
H V A C s y s t e m s
F o r m a l i z e t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "l i g h t i n g a n d H V A C c o n t r o l
i n t e g r a t i o n " b y d e f i n i n g t h e l e v e l o f d a t a s h a r i n g r e q u i r e d
b e t w e e n s y s t e m s a n d t h e m e c h a n i s m n e e d e d t o s h a r e
s u c h d a t a . T h e h i g h e s t s a v i n g s p o t e n t i a l w o u l d l i k e l y b e
g e n e r a t e d f r o m V A V
H V A C s y s t e m s b y c l o s i n g t h e
d a m p e r i n u n o c c u p i e d z o n e s b a s e d o n t h e o c c u p a n c y
s e n s o r i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e l i g h t i n g s y s t e m s .
N o t m a r k e t r e a d y e n o u g h .
N
O t h e r
N R P l u g L o a d C o n t r o l s
E n e r g y s a v i n g s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p l u g l o a d s , w h i c h m a y
i n c l u d e : e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t e q u i p m e n t , e q u i p m e n t p o w e r
m a n a g e m e n t , o c c u p a n c y s e n s o r c o n t r o l , a n d o c c u p a n t
a w a r e n e s s p r o g r a m s . T h e p r o p o s a l c o u l d b e e x t e n d i n g
c o n t r o l l e d r e c e p t a c l e s r e q u i r e m e n t s i n S e c t i o n 1 3 0 .5 (d )
t o m o r e o c c u p a n c y t y p e s . I t w o u l d a l s o c o n s i d e r c i r c u i t -
l e v e l c o n t r o l s .
O f f i c e e q u i p m e n t n o w a l l h a v e t h e i r o w n s t a n d b y
p o w e r m o d e s t h a t u s e v e r y l i t t l e p o w e r , m a k i n g p l u g
l o a d c o n t r o l s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o b e c o s t -e f f e c t i v e .
N
Margin?
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Cost-effectiveness Study:
Low-Rise Residential New Construction
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc.
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: July 17, 2019
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility
customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may
be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method,
product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any
privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
Table of Contents
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Methodology and Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Building Prototypes .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Measure Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Federal Preemption ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Energy Design Rating .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Package Development ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries) .................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Incremental Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Cost-effectiveness .................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost ........................................................................................................ 13
2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.6 Electrification Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 18
3 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing ................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Single Family Results ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................ 26
3.3 Multifamily Results ................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................ 32
3.4 Electrification Results ............................................................................................................................... 32
3.4.1 Single Family ..................................................................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Multifamily ....................................................................................................................................... 33
4 Conclusions & Summary ................................................................................................................................... 41
5 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 44
Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map .............................................................................................................. 46
Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details............................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results ............................................................................................................ 57
Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary ....................................................................................................... 61
Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results .............................................................................................................. 68
Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary .......................................................................................................... 72
Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone ..................................................................................................................... 79
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
List of Tables
Table 1: Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................2
Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype ..........................................................................3
Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures .....................................................9
Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 14
Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Compared to a Mixed Fuel Home ........................................................... 16
Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type ............................................................................................. 20
Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs .................................................................................... 22
Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2 .......................................... 23
Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 ......................................... 24
Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Apartment ......................................................................... 28
Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2 ........................................... 29
Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 ............................................ 30
Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results ....................................................................................................... 34
Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV ............................. 36
Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results .......................................................................................................... 38
Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV ................................ 39
Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins ....................................................................................... 43
Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins ......................................................................................... 43
Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 48
Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .................................................................................................. 51
Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ......................................................................................... 53
Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 54
Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ........................................................................................ 56
Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 57
Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .......................... 58
Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 59
Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ..................... 60
Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ............................. 61
Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 62
Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ..................................... 63
Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary .............................. 64
Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 65
Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ................................................... 66
Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ...................................... 67
Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .................................................. 68
Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ............................ 69
Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................... 70
Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ....................... 71
Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ................................ 72
Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................... 73
Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ....................................... 74
Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ................................. 75
Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary ..................... 76
Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ...................................................... 77
Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ........................................ 78
Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 80
Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 81
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 82
Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 83
Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 84
Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 85
Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 86
Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 87
Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary ............................................................................ 88
Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary............................................................................... 89
Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................ 90
Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary .............................................................. 91
Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 92
Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 93
Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 94
Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 95
Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 96
Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 97
Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 98
Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ......................................................................................... 99
Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 100
Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 101
Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 102
Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 103
Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary .................................................................................. 104
Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary ..................................................................................... 105
Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary .................................................................................. 106
Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary ..................................................................................... 107
Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary .................................................................................. 108
Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary ..................................................................................... 109
Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 110
Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 111
Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 112
Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 113
Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary .................................................................................. 114
Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary ..................................................................................... 115
Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary .................................................................................. 116
Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary ..................................................................................... 117
List of Figures
Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace) ..........................................................5
Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing ....................................................................................... 20
Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison ......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and
the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 25
Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison............................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison ........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and
the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 31
Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison ................................................................................ 32
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant
home ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code
compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code
compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code
compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code
compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code
compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission) ............................... 46
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
Acronyms
2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020
ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential
ACM Alternative Calculation Method
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC Building Standards Commission
CAHP California Advanced Homes Program
CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating
compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CFI California Flexible Installation
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CMFNH California Multifamily New Homes
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPC California Plumbing Code
CZ California Climate Zone
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DOE Department of Energy
DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR Energy Design Rating
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF Energy Factor
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA High Performance Attic
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IOU Investor Owned Utility
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt Hour
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
LCC Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
VLLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
MF Multifamily
NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SCE Southern California Edison
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF Single Family
CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6
TOU Time-Of-Use
UEF Uniform Energy Factor
ZNE Zero-net Energy
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
1 2019-07-17
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is
maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy
Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions
have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum
standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106
of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the
proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted
by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance
with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements,
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new single family and low-rise (one-
to three-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed fuel and all-
electric homes, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design.
Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) are
presented (see Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations).
All proposed package options include a combination of efficiency measures and on-site renewable energy.
2 Methodology and Assumptions
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and
quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main
difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of
reduced or avoided energy use.
• Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based
upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility
rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation.
• Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture
the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of
providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for
carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use
differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.
Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved)
during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in
evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
2.1 Building Prototypes
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed
changes to Title 24 requirements. At the time that this report was written, there are two single family
prototypes and one low-rise multifamily prototype. All three are used in this analysis in development of the
above-code packages. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional details on the
prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (Energy Commission,
2018a). The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
2 2019-07-17
Table 1: Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story Multifamily
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2
6,960 ft2:
(4) 780 ft2 &
(4) 960 ft2 units
Num. of Stories 1 2 2
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 (4) 1-bed &
(4) 2-bed units
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15%
Source: 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018a).
The Energy Commission’s protocol for single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a
factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide, assuming 45
percent single-story and 55 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this
ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430-square foot (ft2) house.1
The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that
precisely meets the minimum 2019 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the
2019 Standards (Energy Commission, 2018b) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design
in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual
(Energy Commission, 2019), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each
prototype building has the following features:
• Slab-on-grade foundation.
• Vented attic.
• High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation
installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2019
Standards.)
• Ductwork located in the attic for single family and within conditioned space for multifamily.
Both mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are evaluated in this study. While in past code cycles an all-electric
home was compared to a home with gas for certain end-uses, the 2019 code includes separate prescriptive and
performance paths for mixed-fuel and all-electric homes. The fuel specific characteristics of the mixed fuel and
all-electric prototypes are defined according to the 2019 ACM Reference Manual and described in Table 2.2
1 2,430 ft2 = (45% x 2,100 ft2) + (55% x 2,700 ft2)
2 Standards Section 150.1(c)8.A.iv.a specifies that compact hot water distribution design and a drain water heat
recovery system or extra PV capacity are required when a heat pump water heater is installed prescriptively. The
efficiency of the distribution and the drain water heat recovery systems as well as the location of the water
heater applied in this analysis are based on the Standard Design assumptions in CBECC-Res which result in a
zero-compliance margin for the 2019 basecase model.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
3 2019-07-17
Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype
Characteristic Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Space Heating/Cooling1 Gas furnace 80 AFUE
Split A/C 14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Split heat pump 8.2 HSPF,
14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Water Heater1,2, 3, 4 Gas tankless UEF = 0.81
50gal HPWH UEF = 2.0
SF: located in the garage
MF CZ 2,4,6-16: located in living space
MF CZ 1,3,5: located in exterior closet
Hot Water Distribution Code minimum. All hot water
lines insulated
Basic compact distribution credit,
(CZ 6-8,15)
Expanded compact distribution credit,
compactness factor = 0.6
(CZ 1-5,9-14,16)
Drain Water Heat
Recovery
Efficiency
None
CZ 1: unequal flow to shower = 42%
CZ 16: equal flow to shower & water
heater = 65%
None in other CZs
Cooking Gas Electric
Clothes Drying Gas Electric
1Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards.
2The multifamily prototype is evaluated with individual water heaters. HPWHs located in the living
space do not have ducting for either inlet or exhaust air; CBECC-Res does not have the capability to
model ducted HPWHs.
3UEF = uniform energy factor. HPWH = heat pump water heater. SF = single family. MF =
multifamily.
4CBECC-Res applies a 50gal water heater when specifying a storage water heater. Hot water draws
differ between the prototypes based on number of bedrooms.
2.2 Measure Analysis
The California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-RES 2019.1.0, was used to evaluate
energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. TDV
is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance
with the Title 24 standards.
Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and
modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance
impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of
measures that exceed minimum code performance. The analysis utilizes a parametric tool based on Micropas3 to
automate and manage the generation of CBECC-Res input files. This allows for quick evaluation of various
efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improves quality control. The batch
process functionality of CBECC-Res is utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once. Annual utility costs
were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Res and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the
investor owned utilities (IOUs).
3 Developed by Ken Nittler of Enercomp, Inc.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
4 2019-07-17
The Reach Codes Team selected packages and measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of
experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative
acceptance of many measures.
2.2.1 Federal Preemption
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are
federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling,
and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that
mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify
and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this study is limited
by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the
performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most
affordable measures to increase energy performance.
2.2.2 Energy Design Rating
The 2019 Title 24 code introduces California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate
compliance with the energy code. EDR is still based on TDV but it uses a building that is compliant with the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the reference building. The reference building has an EDR
score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero (Energy Commission, 2018d). See
Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this. While the Reference Building is used to determine the rating, the
Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the prescriptive baseline assumptions to
determine compliance.
The EDR is calculated by CBECC-Res and has two components:
1. An “Efficiency EDR” which represents the building’s energy use without solar generation.4
2. A “Total EDR” that represents the final energy use of the building based on the combined impact of
efficiency measures, PV generation and demand flexibility.
For a building to comply, two criteria are required:
(1) the proposed Efficiency EDR must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR of the Standard Design, and
(2) the proposed Total EDR must be equal to or less than the Total EDR of the Standard Design.
Single family prototypes used in this analysis that are minimally compliant with the 2019 Title 24 code achieve a
Total EDR between 20 and 35 in most climates.
This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable
generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR before PV is credited but allows for PV to be
traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR. A project may improve on building efficiency
beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity required to achieve the
required Total EDR but may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of
efficiency measures. Figure 1 graphically summarizes how both Efficiency EDR and PV / demand flexibility EDR
are used to calculate the Total EDR used in the 2019 code and in this analysis.
4 While there is no compliance credit for solar PV as there is under the 2016 Standards, the credit for installing
electric storage battery systems that meet minimum qualifications can be applied to the Efficiency EDR.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
5 2019-07-17
Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace5)
Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard
Design. EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute
values vary, based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with
how compliance is determined for the 2019 Title 24 code, as well as utility incentive programs, such as the
California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP) & California Multifamily New Homes (CMFNH), which require
minimum performance criteria based on an EDR Margin for low-rise residential projects. The EDR Margin is
calculated according to Equation 1 for the two efficiency packages and Equation 2 for the Efficiency & PV and
Efficiency & PV/Battery packages (see Section 2.3).
Equation 1
𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅
Equation 2
𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 & 𝑷𝑽=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅
2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures
Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated under this analysis. Because not all of
the measures described below were found to be cost-effective and cost-effectiveness varied by climate zone,
not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final
package. For a list of measures included in each efficiency package by climate zone, see Appendix D – Single
Family Measure Summary and Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary.
Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption
of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50)6 by 40 to 60 percent to either 3 ACH50 or 2 ACH50. HERS
5 https://energycodeace.com/
6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
6 2019-07-17
rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the
2019 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (Energy Commission, 2018c). This measure was not applied to multifamily
homes because CBECC-Res does not allow reduced infiltration credit for multifamily buildings.
Improved Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates. In
climate zones 1, 3, 5, and 16 where heating loads dominate, an increase in solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
from the default assumption of 0.35 to 0.50 was evaluated in addition to the reduction in U-factor.
Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar
reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. Title 24 specifies a
prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15 and assumes 0.10 in other climate zones.
Exterior Wall Insulation: Decrease wall U-factor in 2x6 walls to 0.043 from the prescriptive requirement of 0.048
by increasing exterior insulation from one-inch R-5 to 1-1/2 inch R-7.5. This was evaluated for single family
buildings only in all climate zones except 6 and 7 where the prescriptive requirement is higher (U-factor of
0.065) and improving beyond the prescriptive value has little impact.
High Performance Attics (HPA): HPA with R-38 ceiling insulation and R-30 insulation under the roof deck. In
climates where HPA is already required prescriptively this measure requires an incremental increase in roof
insulation from R-19 or R-13 to R-30. In climates where HPA is not currently required (Climate Zones 1 through
3, and 5 through 7), this measure adds roof insulation to an uninsulated roof as well as increasing ceiling
insulation from R-30 to R-38 in Climate Zones 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. For climate zone 16, where slab
insulation is required, prescriptively this measure increases that insulation from R-7 to R-10.
Duct Location (Ducts in Conditioned Space): Move the ductwork and equipment from the attic to inside the
conditioned space in one of the three following ways.
1. Locate ductwork in conditioned space. The air handler may remain in the attic provided that 12 linear
feet or less of duct is located outside the conditioned space including the air handler and plenum. Meet
the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.2. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
2. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space meeting the requirements of 2019
Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
3. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space with ducts tested to have less than or
equal to 25 cfm leakage to outside. Meet the requirements of Verified Low Leakage Ducts in
Conditioned Space (VLLDCS) in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.3.8. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
Option 1 and 2 above apply to single family only since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within
conditioned space. Option 3 applies to both single family and multifamily cases.
Reduced Distribution System (Duct) Leakage: Reduce duct leakage from 5% to 2% and install a low leakage air
handler unit (LLAHU). This is only applicable to single family homes since the basecase for multifamily assumes
ducts are within conditioned space and additional duct leakage credit is not available.
Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a
maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm for gas furnaces and 0.45 Watts per cfm for heat pumps operating
at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting
low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the
procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (Energy Commission, 2018c). New federal
regulations that went into effect July 3, 2019 require higher fan efficiency for gas furnaces than for heat pumps
and air handlers, which is why the recommended specification is different for mixed fuel and all-electric homes.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
7 2019-07-17
HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on
all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS rater verification of pipe insulation requirements
according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
Compact Hot Water Distribution: Two credits for compact hot water distribution were evaluated.
1. Basic Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic
compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference
Appendices RA4.4.6 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In many single family homes this may require moving
the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. Multifamily homes with individual water
heaters are expected to easily meet this credit with little or no alteration to plumbing design. CBECC-Res
software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit.
2. Expanded Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the
expanded compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019
Reference Appendices RA3.6.5 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In addition to requiring HERS verification
that the minimum requirements for the basic compact distribution credit are met, this credit also
imposes limitations on pipe location, maximum pipe diameter, and recirculation system controls
allowed.
Drain Water Heat Recovery (DWHR): For multifamily buildings add DWHR that serves the showers in an unequal
flow configuration (pre-heated water is piped directly to the shower) with 50% efficiency. This upgrade assumes
all apartments are served by a DWHR with one unit serving each apartment individually. For a slab-on-grade
building this requires a horizontal unit for the first-floor apartments.
Federally Preempted Measures:
The following additional measures were evaluated. Because these measures require upgrading appliances that
are federally regulated to high efficiency models, they cannot be used to show cost-effectiveness in a local
ordinance. The measures and packages are presented here to show that there are several options for builders
to meet the performance targets. Heating and cooling capacities are autosized by CBECC-Res in all cases.
High Efficiency Furnace: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade natural gas furnace to one of two condensing
furnace options with an efficiency of 92% or 96% AFUE.
High Efficiency Air Conditioner: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade the air conditioner to either single-stage
SEER 16 / EER 13 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 equipment.
High Efficiency Heat Pump: For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the heat pump to either single-stage SEER
16 / EER 13 / HSPF 9 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 / HSPF 10 equipment.
High Efficiency Tankless Water Heater: For the mixed-fuel prototype, upgrade tankless water heater to a
condensing unit with a rated Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) of 0.96.
High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH): For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the federal minimum
heat pump water heater to a HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)7 Tier 3 rating.
The evaluated NEEA water heater is an 80gal unit and is applied to all three building prototypes. Using the same
7 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly
installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires an Energy Factor
equal to the ENERGY STAR performance level and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat
pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
8 2019-07-17
water heater provides consistency in performance across all the equipment upgrade cases, even though hot
water draws differ across the prototypes.
2.3 Package Development
Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.
1) Efficiency – Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal
preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures.
2) Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and
water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team
considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice.
3) Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package as a starting point8, PV capacity is added
to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the all-electric case, since for the
mixed fuel cases, 100% of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title
24, Part 6.
4) Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as
well as a battery system.
2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV)
Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2019 residential code. The PV sizing methodology in each package
was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy
metering (NEM) rules.9 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation
(CFI) assumptions.
The Reach Code Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described
below. Analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate sizing method for each package which is
described in the results.
• Standard Design PV – the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case10
• Specify PV System Scaling – a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated
electricity use of the Proposed Design case
2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries)
A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Time of Use” and with default
efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Time of Use” option assumes batteries are charged
anytime PV generation is greater than the house load but controls when the battery storage system discharges.
During the summer months (July – September) the battery begins to discharge at the beginning of the peak
period at a maximum rate until fully discharged. During discharge the battery first serves the house load but will
8 In cases where there was no cost-effective Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package, the most cost-effective
efficiency measures for that climate zone were also included in the Efficiency & PV Package in order to provide a
combination of both efficiency and PV beyond code minimum.
9 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
10 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically
electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and
cooking.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
9 2019-07-17
discharge to the electric grid if there is excess energy available. During other months the battery discharges
whenever the PV system does not cover the entire house load and does not discharge to the electric grid. This
control option is considered to be most reflective of the current products on the market. This control option
requires an input for the “First Hour of the Summer Peak” and the Statewide CASE Team applied the default
hour in CBECC-Res which differs by climate zone (either a 6pm or 7pm start). The Self Utilization Credit was
taken when the battery system was modeled.
2.4 Incremental Costs
Table 4 below summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study. Incremental
costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures
relative to the base case.11 Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment, PV inverters, and
battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC,
or DHW measures since there should not be any additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the
same system type as the baseline. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were
obtained from a source that didn’t already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was
added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air
conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis.
Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures
Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 20
Air Conditioner 20
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Source: City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-
effectiveness Analysis Draft (TRC, 2018) which is based on the
Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).12
11 Interest costs due to financing are not included in the incremental costs presented in the Table 4 but are
accounted for in the lifetime cost analysis. All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage, see Section
2.5 for details.
12 http://www.deeresources.com
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
10 2019-07-17
Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Non-Preempted Measures
Reduced
Infiltration
3.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $391 n/a NREL’s BEopt cost database ($0.115/ft2 for 3 ACH50 & $0.207/ft2 for 2 ACH50) + $100 HERS
rater verification. 2.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $613 n/a
Window U-
factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,261 $607 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles
(Statewide CASE Team, 2018).
Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0
Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher
SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017d). Applies
to CZ 1,3,5,16.
Cool Roof -
Aged Solar
Reflectance
0.25 vs 0.20 $237 $58 Costs based on 2016 Cost-effectiveness Study for Cool Roofs reach code analysis for 0.28 solar
reflectance product. (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2017b). 0.20 vs 0.10 $0 $0
Exterior Wall
Insulation R-7.5 vs R-5 $818 n/a Based on increasing exterior insulation from 1” R-5 to 1.5” R-7.5 in a 2x6 wall (Statewide CASE
Team, 2017c). Applies to single family only in all climates except CZ 6, 7.
Under-Deck
Roof
Insulation
(HPA)
R-13 vs R-0 $1,338 $334 Costs for R-13 ($0.64/ft2), R-19 ($0.78/ft2) and R-30 ($1.61/ft2) based on data presented in the
2019 HPA CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b) along with data collected directly from
builders during the 2019 CASE process. The R-30 costs include additional labor costs for
cabling. Costs for R-38 from NREL’s BEopt cost database.
R-19 vs R-13 $282 $70
R-30 vs R-19 $1,831 $457
R-38 vs R-30 $585 $146
Attic Floor
Insulation R-38 vs R-30 $584 $146 NREL’s BEopt cost database: $0.34/ft2 ceiling area
Slab Edge
Insulation
R-10 vs R-0 $553 $121 $4/linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth.
R-10 vs R-7 $157 $21 $1.58/linear foot of slab perimeter based on NREL’s BEopt cost database. This applies to CZ 16
only where R-7 slab edge insulation is required prescriptively. Assumes 16in depth.
Duct Location
<12 feet in attic $358 n/a
Costs based on a 2015 report on the Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New
California Homes (Davis Energy Group, 2015). HERS verification cost of $100 for the Verified
Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space credit.
Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
$658 n/a
Verified Low
Leakage Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
$768 $110
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
11 2019-07-17
Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Distribution
System
Leakage
2% vs 5% $96 n/a
1-hour labor. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and
includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities & 10% for overhead and
profit. Applies to single family only since ducts are assumed to be in conditioned space for
multifamily
Low Leakage Air
Handler $0 n/a
Negligible cost based on review of available products. There are more than 6,000 Energy
Commission certified units and the list includes many furnace and heat pump air handler
product lines from the major manufacturers, including minimum efficiency, low cost product
lines.
Low Pressure
Drop Ducts
(Fan W/cfm)
0.35 vs 0.45 $96 $48 Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour per multifamily apartment. Labor
rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average
City Cost Index for labor for California cities. 0.45 vs 0.58 $96 $48
Hot Water
Pipe Insulation HERS verified $110 $83 Cost for HERS verification only, based on feedback from HERS raters. $100 per single family
home and $75 per multifamily unit before markup.
Compact Hot
Water
Distribution
Basic credit $150 $0
For single family add 20-feet venting at $12/ft to locate water heater on interior garage wall,
less 20-feet savings for less PEX and pipe insulation at $4.88/ft. Costs from online retailers.
Many multifamily buildings are expected to meet this credit without any changes to
distribution design.
Expanded credit n/a $83 Cost for HERS verification only. $75 per multifamily unit before markup. This was only
evaluated for multifamily buildings.
Drain Water
Heat Recovery 50% efficiency n/a $690
Cost from the 2019 DWHR CASE Report assuming a 2-inch DWHR unit. The CASE Report
multifamily costs were based on one unit serving 4 dwelling units with a central water heater.
Since individual water heaters serve each dwelling unit in this analysis, the Reach Code Team
used single family costs from the CASE Report. Costs in the CASE Report were based on a
46.1% efficient unit, a DWHR device that meets the 50% efficiency assumed in this analysis
may cost a little more. (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a).
Federally Pre-empted Measures
Furnace AFUE
92% vs 80% $139 $139 Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at
$26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing
(stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. Value at
year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 96% vs 80% $244 $244
Air
Conditioner
SEER/EER
16/13 vs 14/11.7 $111 $111 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in
first cost. Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 18/14 vs 14/11.7 $1,148 $1,148
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
12 2019-07-17
Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Heat Pump
SEER/EER
/HSPF
16/13/9 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $411 $411 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in
first cost. 18/14/10 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $1,511 $1,511
Tankless
Water Heater
Energy Factor
0.96 vs 0.81 $203 $203
Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at
$26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing
(stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost.
HPWH NEEA Tier 3 vs
2.0 EF $294 $294 Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in
first cost.
PV + Battery
PV System System size
varies $3.72/W-DC $3.17/W-DC
First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and represent
costs for the first half of 2018 of $3.50/W-DC for residential system and $2.90/W-DC for non-
residential system ≤500 kW-DC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax
credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.
Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/W-DC present value includes replacements at year 11 at
$0.15/W-DC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/W-DC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report
(California Energy Commission, 2017).
System maintenance costs of $0.31/W-DC present value assume $0.02/W-DC (nominal)
annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).
10% overhead and profit added to all costs
Battery
System size
varies by building
type
$656/kWh $656/kWh
$633/kWh first cost based on the PV Plus Battery Study report (Statewide Reach Codes Team,
2018) as the average cost of the three systems that were analyzed. This cost was reduced by
16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.
Replacement cost at year 15 of $100/kWh based on target price reductions (Penn, 2018).
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
13 2019-07-17
2.5 Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all sixteen climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using
the Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates.
Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy
efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24
requirements.
Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which
represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future
savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over
the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater
than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 3.
Equation 3
𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟
In most cases the benefit is represented by annual utility savings or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first
cost and replacement costs. However, in some cases a measure may have incremental cost savings but with
increased energy related costs. In this case, the benefit is the lower first cost and the cost is the increase in
utility bills. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 4.
Equation 4
𝑵𝑷𝑽 𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓=∑𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓𝒓∗(𝟏+𝒓)𝒓𝒍
𝒓=𝟏
Where:
• n = analysis term
• r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies.
• Analysis term of 30-years
• Real discount rate of 3 percent
• Inflation rate of 2 percent
• First incremental costs are financed into a 30-year mortgage
• Mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent
• Average tax rate of 20 percent (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions)
2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost
Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer cost-
effectiveness for the proposed packages. The Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from
each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect January of 2020. Annual utility costs were
calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in
Table 5. Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details includes the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable
residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.13 Annual electricity production in excess of annual
electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved
13 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU
rate structure. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3800
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
14 2019-07-17
NEM2 tariffs for that utility. Minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges have been
applied. Future change to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those
changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 code cycle (2020-2022).
The net surplus compensation rates for each utility are as follows:14
• PG&E: $0.0287 / kWh
• SCE: $0.0301 / kWh
• SDG&E: $0.0355 / kWh
Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each
zone according to Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate
is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an
electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery
packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which
was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14.
Table 5. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has
customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas
rates.
Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to
customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle
and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate
which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all
cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14.
Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone
Climate Zones Electric / Gas
Utility
Electricity
(Time-of-use)
Natural
Gas
1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU, Option B G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU, Option B GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas TOU-D-4-9 or
TOU-D-PRIME GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 GR
Source: Utility websites, See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for details
on the tariffs applied.
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and
Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study (Energy &
Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the
currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates
are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013
and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation,
based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are
assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories
beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for additional details.
14 Net surplus compensation rates based on 1-year average February 2018 – January 2019.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
15 2019-07-17
2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy Commission’s TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized
monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas
savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and
year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The
CBECC-Res simulation software outputs are in terms of TDV kBTUs. The present value of the energy cost savings
in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBTU savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed
by the Energy Commission. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential buildings.
Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are
equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on
investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 5.
Equation 5
𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑟
𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟
2.6 Electrification Evaluation
In addition to evaluating upgrades to mixed fuel and all-electric buildings independently that do not result in fuel
switching, the Reach Code Team also analyzed the impact on construction costs, utility costs, and TDV when a
builder specifies and installs electric appliances instead of the gas appliances typically found in a mixed fuel
building. This analysis compared the code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses gas for space heating,
water heating, cooking, and clothes drying, with the code compliant all-electric prototype. It also compared the
all-electric Efficiency & PV Package with the code compliance mixed fuel prototype. In these cases, the relative
costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and gas
infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing gas to the building were also included.
A variety of sources were reviewed when determining incremental costs. The sources are listed below.
• SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study (EPRI, 2016)
• City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018)
• Building Electrification Market Assessment (E3, 2019)
• Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings (Hopkins et al., 2018)
• Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future (Navigant, 2008)
• Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in
the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable
Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016)
• 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report (Itron, 2014)
• Natural gas infrastructure costs provided by utility staff through the Reach Code subprogram
• Costs obtained from builders, contractors and developers
Incremental costs are presented in Table 6. Values in parentheses represent a lower cost or cost reduction in the
electric option relative to mixed fuel. The costs from the available sources varied widely, making it difficult to
develop narrow cost estimates for each component. For certain components data is provided with a low to high
range as well as what were determined to be typical costs and ultimately applied in this analysis. Two sets of
typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another
applied in the TDV methodology. Details of these differences are explained in the discussion of site gas
infrastructure costs in the following pages.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
16 2019-07-17
Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Code Compliant Home Compared to a Mixed Fuel
Code Compliant Home
Measure Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Multifamily1 (Per Dwelling Unit) Single Family1
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC ($2,770) $620 ($221)
Same as Single Family
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas
Tankless ($1,120) $1,120 $0
Electric vs Gas Clothes Dryer2 ($428) $820 $0
Electric vs Gas Cooking2 $0 $1,800 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $200 $800 $600 $150 $600 $600
In-House Gas Infrastructure ($1,670) ($550) ($800) ($600) ($150) ($600)
Site Gas Infrastructure ($25,000) ($900) ($5,750) ($11,836) ($16,250) ($310) ($3,140) ($6,463)
Total First Cost ($30,788) $3,710 ($6,171) ($12,257) ($20,918) $4,500 ($3,361) ($6,684)
Present Value of Equipment Replacement Cost $1,266 $1,266
Lifetime Cost Including Replacement & Financing of First
Cost ($5,349) ($11,872)
($2,337) ($5,899)
1Low and high costs represent the potential range of costs and typical represents the costs used in this analysis and
determined to be most representative of the conditions described in this report. Two sets of typical costs are presented,
one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology.
2Typical costs assume electric resistance technology. The high range represents higher end induction cooktops and heat
pump clothes dryers. Lower cost induction cooktops are available.
Typical incremental costs for switching from a mixed fuel design to an all-electric design are based on the
following assumptions:
Appliances: The Reach Code Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is very
similar to that for natural gas appliances. This was based on information provided by HVAC contractors,
plumbers and builders as well as a review of other studies. After review of various sources, the Reach Code
Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance options for clothes dryers and
stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar.
HVAC: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on the City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code
Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) which assumes approximately $200 first cost savings for the heat
pump relative to the gas furnace and air conditioner. Table 6 also includes the present value of the
incremental replacement costs for the heat pump based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the
gas furnace in the mixed fuel home.
DHW: Typical costs for the water heating system were based on equivalent installed first costs for the HPWH
and tankless gas water heater. This accounts for slightly higher equipment cost but lower installation labor
due to the elimination of the gas flue. Incremental replacement costs for the HPWH are based on a 15-year
lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the tankless water heater.
For multifamily, less data was available and therefore a range of low and high costs is not provided. The
typical first cost for multifamily similarly is expected to be close to the same for the mixed fuel and all-
electric designs. However, there are additional considerations with multifamily such as greater complexity
for venting of natural gas appliances as well as for locating the HPWH within the conditioned space (all
climates except Climate Zones 1, 3, and 5, see Table 2) that may impact the total costs.
Electric service upgrade: The study assumes an incremental cost to run 220V service to each appliance of $200
per appliance for single family homes and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost
estimates from builders and contractors. The Reach Code Team reviewed production builder utility plans for
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
17 2019-07-17
mixed-fuel homes and consulted with contractors to estimate which electricity and/or natural gas services are
usually provided to the dryer and oven. Typical practice varied, with some builders providing both gas and
electric service to both appliances, others providing both services to only one of the appliances, and some only
providing gas. For this study, the Reach Code Team determined that for single family homes the typical cost is
best qualified by the practice of providing 220V service and gas to either the dryer and the oven and only gas
service to the other. For multifamily buildings it’s assumed that only gas is provided to the dryer and oven in the
mixed fuel home.
It is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed
for both mixed fuel and all-electric new construction homes. There are no incremental electrical site
infrastructure requirements.
In-house gas infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a gas line from the meter to the
appliance location is $200 per appliance for single family and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment
based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The cost estimate includes providing gas to the water
heater, furnace, dryer and cooktop.
Site gas infrastructure: The cost-effective analysis components with the highest degree of variability are the
costs for on-site gas infrastructure. These costs can be project dependent and may be significantly impacted by
such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main and main location, joint
trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per
development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The typical
infrastructure costs for single family homes presented in Table 6 are based on cost data provided by PG&E and
reflect those for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area requiring the installation of natural gas
infrastructure, including a main line. Infrastructure costs for infill development can also be highly variable and
may be higher than in an undeveloped area. The additional costs associated with disruption of existing roads,
sidewalks, and other structures can be significant. Total typical costs in Table 6 assume $10,000 for extension of
a gas main, $1,686 for a service lateral, and $150 for the meter.
Utility Gas Main Extensions rules15 specify that the developer has the option to only pay 50% of the total cost for
a main extension after subtraction of allowances for installation of gas appliances. This 50% refund and the
appliance allowance deductions are accounted for in the site gas infrastructure costs under the On-Bill cost-
effectiveness methodology. The net costs to the utility after partial reimbursement from the developer are
included in utility ratebase and recovered via rates to all customers. The total cost of $5,750 presented in Table
6 reflects a 50% refund on the $10,000 extension and appliance deductions of $1,086 for a furnace, water
heater, cooktop, and dryer. Under the On-Bill methodology this analysis assumes this developer option will
remain available through 2022 and that the cost savings are passed along to the customer.
The 50% refund and appliance deductions were not applied to the site gas infrastructure costs under the TDV
cost-effectiveness methodology based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the
Reach Code technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond
the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure
upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology.
15 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf
SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf
SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
18 2019-07-17
Less information was available for the costs associated with gas infrastructure for low-rise multifamily
development. The typical cost in Table 6 for the On-Bill methodology is based on TRC’s City of Palo Alto 2019
Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018). These costs, provided by the City of Palo
Alto, are approximately $25,100 for an 8-unit new construction building and reflect connection to an existing
main for infill development. Specific costs include plan review, connection charges, meter and manifold,
plumbing distribution, and street cut fees. While these costs are specifically based on infill development and
from one municipal utility, the estimates are less than those provided by PG&E reflecting the average cost
differences charged to the developer between single family and multifamily in an undeveloped area (after
accounting for deductions per the Gas Main Extensions rule). To convert costs charged to the developer to
account for the full infrastructure upgrade cost (costs applied in the TDV methodology analysis), a factor of
2.0616 was calculated based on the single family analysis. This same factor was applied to the multifamily cost of
$3,140 to arrive at $6,463 (see Table 6).
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on outputs from the CBECC-Res simulation software.
Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year. CBECC-Res applies two distinct hourly profiles, one
for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through
16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and all-
electric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per
square foot of conditioned floor area.
3 Results
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for
both single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases, to support
the design of local ordinances requiring new low-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state
requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used
to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted
compliant measures to meet the requirements.
This analysis covered all sixteen climate zones and evaluated two efficiency packages, including a non-
preempted package and a preempted package that includes upgrades to federally regulated equipment, an
Efficiency & PV Package for the all-electric scenario only, and an Efficiency & PV/Battery Package. For the
efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost-effective
based on one of the two metrics applied in this study, TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which
the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to
exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost-effectiveness approach.
Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code
compliance in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and
rounding down to the next half of a whole number. Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package are defined
based on the lower of the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package and the equipment, preempted package.
For example, if for a particular case the cost-effective non-preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the
preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3.
16 This factor includes the elimination of the 50% refund for the main extension and adding back in the appliance
allowance deductions.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
19 2019-07-17
For a package to qualify, a minimum EDR Margin of 0.5 was required. This is to say that a package that only
achieved an EDR Margin of 0.4, for example, was not considered. An EDR Margin less than 0.5 generally
corresponds to a compliance margin lower than 5% and was considered too small to ensure repeatable results.
In certain cases, the Reach Code Team did not identify a cost-effective package that achieved the minimum EDR
Margin of 0.5.
Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following
measures are included in at least one package:
• Reduced infiltration
• Improved fenestration
• Improved cool roofs
• High performance attics
• Slab insulation
• Reduced duct leakage
• Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space
• Low pressure-drop distribution system
• Compact hot water distribution system, basic and expanded
• High efficiency furnace, air conditioner & heat pump (preempted)
• High efficiency tankless water heater & heat pump water heater (preempted)
3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing
The approach to determining the size of the PV and battery systems varied based on each package and the
source fuel. Table 7 describes the PV and battery sizing approaches applied to each of the four packages. For the
Efficiency Non-preempted and Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted packages a different method was applied to
each the two fuel scenarios. In all mixed fuel cases, the PV was sized to offset 100% of the estimated electrical
load and any electricity savings from efficiency measures were traded off with a smaller PV system. Not
downsizing the PV system after adding efficiency measures runs the risk of producing more electricity than is
consumed, reducing cost-effectiveness and violating NEM rules. While the impact of this in most cases is minor,
analysis confirmed that cost-effectiveness improved when reducing the system size to offset 100% of the
electricity usage as opposed to keeping the PV system the same size as the Standard Design.
In the all-electric Efficiency cases, the PV system size was left to match the Standard Design (Std Design PV), and
the inclusion of energy efficiency measures was not traded off with a reduced capacity PV system. Because the
PV system is sized to meet the electricity load of a mixed fuel home, it is cost-effective to keep the PV system
the same size and offset a greater percentage of the electrical load.
For the Efficiency & PV case on the all-electric home, the Reach Code Team evaluated PV system sizing to offset
100%, 90% and 80% of the total calculated electricity use. Of these three, sizing to 90% proved to be the most
cost-effective based on customer utility bills. This is a result of the impact of the annual minimum bill which is
around $120 across all the utilities. The “sweet spot” is a PV system that reduces electricity bills just enough to
match the annual minimum bill; increasing the PV size beyond this adds first cost but does not result in utility bill
savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
20 2019-07-17
Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type
Package Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency (Envelope & Equipment) PV Scaled @ 100% electricity Std Design PV
Efficiency & PV n/a PV Scaled @ 90%
Efficiency & PV/Battery
PV Scaled @ 100% electricity
5kWh / SF home
2.75kWh/ MF apt
PV Scaled @ 100%
5kWh / SF home
2.75kWh/ MF apt
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate battery and PV capacity for the Efficiency &
PV/Battery Packages using the 1-story 2,100 square foot prototype in Climate Zone 12. Results are shown in
Figure 2. The current version of CBECC-Res requires a minimum battery size of 5 kWh to qualify for the self-
utilization credit. CBECC-Res allows for PV oversizing up to 160% of the building’s estimated electricity load
when battery storage systems are installed; however, the Reach Code Team considered this high, potentially
problematic from a grid perspective, and likely not acceptable to the utilities or customers. The Reach Code
Team compared cost-effectiveness of 5kWh and 7.5kWh battery systems as well as of PV systems sized to offset
90%, 100%, or 120% of the estimated electrical load.
Results show that from an on-bill perspective a smaller battery size is more cost-effective. The sensitivity
analysis also showed that increasing the PV capacity from 90% to 120% of the electricity use reduced cost-
effectiveness. From the TDV perspective there was little difference in results across all the scenarios, with the
larger battery size being marginally more cost-effective. Based on these results, the Reach Code Team applied to
the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package a 5kWh battery system for single family homes with PV sized to offset 100%
of the electricity load. Even though PV scaled to 90% was the most cost-effective, sizing was increased to 100%
to evaluate greater generation beyond the Efficiency & PV Package and to achieve zero net electricity. These
results also show that in isolation, the inclusion of a battery system reduces cost-effectiveness compared to the
same size PV system without batteries.
For multifamily buildings the battery capacity was scaled to reflect the average ratio of battery size to PV system
capacity (kWh/kW) for the single family Efficiency & PV Package. This resulted in a 22kWh battery for the
multifamily building, or 2.75kWh per apartment.
Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing
On-Bill = 1.9 (TDV = 1.84)
On-Bill = 1.49 (TDV = 1.9)
On-Bill = 1.37 (TDV = 1.88)
On-Bill = 1.35 (TDV = 1.91)
On-Bill = 1.23 (TDV = 1.9)
On-Bill = 1.14 (TDV = 1.87)
On-Bill = 1.04 (TDV = 1.88)
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
21 2019-07-17
3.2 Single Family Results
Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes
the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel
results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all-electric
results are relative to an all-electric code compliant basecase.
Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On-Bill and
TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on
TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non-preempted efficiency
measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as
“>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these
cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin
results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR
Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly
higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all-electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all-electric non-
preempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7.
For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0
and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to
achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity.
For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates;
adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which
have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The
Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all-electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the
heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as
a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling
electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to
offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and
subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR.
Additional results details can be found in Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of
measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of
results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
22 2019-07-17
Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non-Preempted Equipment -
Preempted
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment -
Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency &
PV/Battery
CZ01 +$1,355 +$1,280 +$5,311 +$7,642 +$2,108 +$18,192 +$24,770
CZ02 +$1,504 +$724 +$5,393 +$3,943 +$2,108 +$12,106 +$18,132
CZ03 +$1,552 +$1,448 +$5,438 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,517 +$14,380
CZ04 +$1,556 +$758 +$5,434 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,786 +$14,664
CZ05 +$1,571 +$772 +$5,433 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,307 +$14,047
CZ06 +$1,003 +$581 +$4,889 +$926 +$846 +$6,341 +$12,036
CZ07 n/a +$606 +$4,028 n/a +$846 +$4,436 +$9,936
CZ08 +$581 +$586 +$4,466 +$926 +$412 +$5,373 +$11,016
CZ09 +$912 +$574 +$4,785 +$1,180 +$846 +$5,778 +$11,454
CZ10 +$1,648 +$593 +$5,522 +$1,773 +$949 +$6,405 +$12,129
CZ11 +$3,143 +$1,222 +$7,026 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$10,827 +$17,077
CZ12 +$1,679 +$654 +$5,568 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$11,520 +$17,586
CZ13 +$3,060 +$611 +$6,954 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,532 +$16,806
CZ14 +$1,662 +$799 +$5,526 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,459 +$16,394
CZ15 +$2,179 -($936) +$6,043 +$4,612 +$2,108 +$5,085 +$11,382
CZ16 +$3,542 +$2,441 +$7,399 +$5,731 +$2,108 +$16,582 +$22,838
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
23 2019-07-17
Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 5.3 3.4 2.8 6.9 4.9 4.1 5.0 10.6 0.9 1.6 10.5
02 PG&E 3.3 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 10.1 0.5 1.6 10.0
03 PG&E 3.0 1.3 1.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 10.0 0.4 1.4 10.0
04 PG&E 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.5 10.0
05 PG&E 2.7 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.4 1.3 9.0
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 2.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.3 1.3 9.0
06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 9.8 0.8 1.3 9.5
07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.1 1.3 9.0
08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 0.9 1.3 8.0
09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.6 0.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.7 2.5 8.8 1.0 1.5 8.5
10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 9.6 1.0 1.5 9.5
10 SDG&E 3.2 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.0 9.6 0.6 1.5 9.5
11 PG&E 4.3 0.8 1.2 5.1 2.5 3.7 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.5 9.0
12 PG&E 3.5 1.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 4.6 3.0 9.6 0.4 1.7 9.5
13 PG&E 4.6 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.3 8.4 4.5 9.7 0.4 1.6 9.5
14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.0 1.6 2.5 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.3 1.7 9.0
14 SDG&E 5.0 1.9 2.5 5.8 4.9 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.2 1.7 9.0
15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 >1 >1 4.5 7.1 1.1 1.5 7.0
16 PG&E 5.4 1.6 1.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 5.0 10.5 0.9 1.4 10.5
1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
24 2019-07-17
Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 15.2 1.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 2.7 6.5 31.4 1.8 1.5 31.0 41.2 1.4 1.4 41.0
02 PG&E 4.9 1.2 1.1 5.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 19.4 1.8 1.4 19.0 30.1 1.4 1.4 30.0
03 PG&E 4.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 1.8 1.6 4.0 18.5 2.2 1.7 18.0 29.3 1.5 1.6 29.0
04 PG&E 3.4 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 17.2 2.1 1.6 17.0 28.6 1.5 1.6 28.5
05 PG&E 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5
06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 14.3 1.2 1.5 14.0 26.1 1.2 1.4 26.0
07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 11.3 1.9 1.5 11.0 24.2 1.3 1.5 24.0
08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 10.9 1.0 1.5 10.5 21.6 1.1 1.4 21.5
09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.78 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.2 2.5 11.5 1.1 1.6 11.5 21.3 1.1 1.5 21.0
10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.9 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.1 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.1 1.5 21.0
10 SDG&E 3.1 1.1 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.7 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.4 1.5 21.0
11 PG&E 4.6 1.2 1.5 5.9 3.0 3.3 4.5 14.2 1.8 1.6 14.0 23.2 1.5 1.6 23.0
12 PG&E 3.8 0.8 1.1 5.1 2.0 2.5 3.5 15.7 1.7 1.4 15.5 25.4 1.3 1.5 25.0
13 PG&E 5.1 1.1 1.4 6.0 2.9 3.3 5.0 13.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 22.5 1.4 1.5 22.0
14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.0 1.5 6.0 2.3 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.2 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.3 1.6 23.5
14 SDG&E 5.6 1.3 1.5 6.0 2.9 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.8 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.7 1.6 23.5
15 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.1 1.6 7.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 13.5 1.2 1.5 13.0
16 PG&E 9.7 1.7 1.7 4.9 2.4 2.3 4.5 27.0 2.1 1.6 26.5 35.4 1.7 1.5 35.0
1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
25 2019-07-17
Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison
Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the
Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency &
PV+Battery packages)
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
26 2019-07-17
3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions
Figure 5 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric single family 2019 code compliant
cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but
are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard Design mixed fuel emissions range from 1.3
(CZ 7) to 3.3 (CZ 16) lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric Standard Design emissions range from
0.7 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces
GHG emissions by 20% on average to between 1.0 and 1.8 lbs CO2e/ft2, with the exception of Climate Zones 1
and 16. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG
emissions by 65% on average to 0.8 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less. None of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions.
Because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res, there is always some amount of
GHG impacts with using electricity from the grid.
Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison
3.3 Multifamily Results
Table 11 through Table 13 contain cost effectiveness findings for the multifamily packages. Table 11 summarizes
the package costs for all the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages.
Table 12 and Table 13 present the B/C ratios for all the packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV
methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. All the packages are cost-effective
based on TDV except Climate Zone 3 for the all-electric cases where no cost-effective combination of non-
preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the
B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual
utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized
immediately.
It is generally more challenging to achieve equivalent savings targets cost-effectively for the multifamily cases
than for the single family cases. With less exterior surface area per floor area the impact of envelope measures
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
27 2019-07-17
is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore
only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied.
Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin
results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective
efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency
Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and
16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all-electric case, no cost-effective non-
preempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5
for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16.
For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5
across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings
alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV
Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR
Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much
higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is
applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to
offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard
Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building
electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in
adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the
EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it
is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all-electric case.
Additional results details can be found in Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures
included in each of the packages in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by
climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
28 2019-07-17
Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Dwelling Unit
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non-
Preempted
Equipment -
Preempted
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
Non-
Preempted
Equipment -
Preempted
Efficiency
& PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
CZ01 +$960 +$507 +$3,094 +$949 +$795 +$5,538 +$8,919
CZ02 +$309 +$497 +$2,413 +$361 +$795 +$3,711 +$6,833
CZ03 +$175 +$403 +$2,279 n/a +$795 +$3,272 +$6,344
CZ04 +$329 +$351 +$2,429 +$361 +$795 +$3,158 +$6,201
CZ05 +$180 +$358 +$2,273 +$247 +$795 +$3,293 +$6,314
CZ06 +$190 +$213 +$2,294 +$231 +$361 +$2,580 +$5,590
CZ07 +$90 +$366 +$2,188 +$202 +$361 +$2,261 +$5,203
CZ08 +$250 +$213 +$2,353 +$231 +$361 +$2,240 +$5,249
CZ09 +$136 +$274 +$2,234 +$231 +$361 +$2,232 +$5,236
CZ10 +$278 +$250 +$2,376 +$361 +$361 +$2,371 +$5,395
CZ11 +$850 +$317 +$2,950 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,601 +$6,759
CZ12 +$291 +$434 +$2,394 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,835 +$6,943
CZ13 +$831 +$290 +$2,936 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,462 +$6,650
CZ14 +$874 +$347 +$2,957 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,356 +$6,380
CZ15 +$510 -($157) +$2,604 +$1,011 +$1,954 +$1,826 +$5,020
CZ16 +$937 +$453 +$3,028 +$843 +$795 +$4,423 +$7,533
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
29 2019-07-17
Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 3.4 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.0 11.5 0.4 1.2 11.5
02 PG&E 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 10.9 0.2 1.6 10.5
03 PG&E 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 10.3 0.1 1.4 10.0
04 PG&E 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 11.2 0.2 1.6 11.0
05 PG&E 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.2 1.4 9.5
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.1 1.4 9.5
06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 10.7 0.6 1.4 10.5
07 SDG&E 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 11.0 0.0 1.4 11.0
08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 9.9 0.7 1.3 9.5
09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.5 9.7 0.9 1.5 9.5
10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 10.4 1.0 1.6 10.0
10 SDG&E 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.5 10.4 0.2 1.6 10.0
11 PG&E 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5 10.5 0.4 1.6 10.5
12 PG&E 1.9 1.1 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 1.5 10.3 0.3 1.7 10.0
13 PG&E 3.1 0.6 1.3 3.4 2.0 3.8 3.0 10.7 0.4 1.6 10.5
14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.7 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 9.6 1.1 1.4 9.5
14 SDG&E 3.1 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 1.4 9.5
15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.2 1.4 2.3 4.4 >1 >1 4.0 8.8 1.3 1.7 8.5
16 PG&E 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 9.9 0.5 1.3 9.5
1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
30 2019-07-17
Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
01 PG&E 3.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 22.5 2.0 1.5 22.5 34.5 1.3 1.4 34.5
02 PG&E 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 17.5 2.4 1.8 17.5 30.9 1.4 1.7 30.5
03 PG&E 0.0 - - 2.7 1.7 1.6 0.0 16.1 2.4 1.7 16.0 29.5 1.3 1.6 29.5
04 PG&E 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 15.0 2.4 1.8 15.0 28.9 1.3 1.8 28.5
05 PG&E 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0
06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 13.8 1.2 1.7 13.5 27.5 1.2 1.6 27.5
07 SDG&E 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 12.8 2.1 1.8 12.5 27.1 1.2 1.6 27.0
08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 11.6 1.3 1.8 11.5 24.2 1.2 1.6 24.0
09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 11.3 1.3 1.9 11.0 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0
10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5 10.8 1.3 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0
10 SDG&E 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 2.1 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.4 1.7 23.0
11 PG&E 3.5 1.4 1.6 3.9 2.0 2.3 3.5 13.4 2.2 1.8 13.0 25.3 1.4 1.8 25.0
12 PG&E 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 14.4 2.1 1.6 14.0 26.6 1.3 1.7 26.5
13 PG&E 3.3 1.3 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.3 3.0 12.2 2.1 1.7 12.0 23.9 1.4 1.7 23.5
14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.7 1.2 1.6 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.5 14.0 1.4 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.4 1.8 24.5
14 SDG&E 3.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.2 3.5 14.0 2.2 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.7 1.8 24.5
15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.4 1.5 2.3 6.4 1.2 1.7 4.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 7.0 16.9 1.3 1.8 16.5
16 PG&E 4.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 19.6 2.6 1.9 19.5 29.9 1.6 1.7 29.5
1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
31 2019-07-17
Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison
Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the
Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency &
PV+Battery packages)
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
32 2019-07-17
3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions
Figure 8 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric multifamily 2019 code compliant
cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but
are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard design mixed fuel emissions range from 2.0
to 3.0 lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric standard design emissions range from 1.2 to 1.7 lbs
CO2e/ ft2. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG
emissions by 17% on average to between 1.7 and 2.2 lbs CO2e/ft2, except Climate Zone 16. Adding PV, batteries
and efficiency to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 64% on average to
0.6 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less with the exception of Climate Zones 14, 15 and 16. As in the single family case, none of
the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity
in CBECC-Res.
Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison
3.4 Electrification Results
Cost-effectiveness results comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases are summarized below. The tables show
average annual utility bill impacts and lifetime utility bill impacts, which account for fuel escalation for electricity
and natural gas (see Section 2.5), lifetime equipment cost savings, and both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness
(B/C ratio). Positive utility bill values indicate lower utility costs for the all-electric home relative to the mixed
fuel case while negative values in red and parenthesis indicate higher utility costs for the all-electric case.
Lifetime equipment cost savings include savings due to eliminating natural gas infrastructure and replacement
costs for appliances based on equipment life. Positive values for the lifetime equipment cost savings indicate
lower installed costs for the all-electric and negative values indicate higher costs. B/C ratios 1.0 or greater
indicate positive cost-effectiveness. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there
was incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated
with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
33 2019-07-17
Three scenarios were evaluated:
1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant
mixed fuel home.
2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90% of the
annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code
compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV
packages described above.
3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code
compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime
incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home.
3.4.1 Single Family
Table 14, Table 15, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 present results of cost-effectiveness analysis for
electrification of single family buildings, according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. Based on typical
cost assumptions arrived at for this analysis, the lifetime equipment costs for the single family code compliant
all-electric option are approximately $5,350 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option. Cost savings are
entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure, which was assumed to be a savings of $5,750. When
evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance
allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are twice as much.
Under the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, the incremental cost of the efficiency and PV is
typically more than the cost savings seen in the code compliant case, which results in a net cost increase in most
climate zones for the all-electric case. In climates with small heating loads (7 and 15) there continues to be an
incremental cost savings for the all-electric home. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost
savings in all climates except 1 and 16 for single family.
Utility impacts differ by climate zone and utility, but utility costs for the code compliant all-electric option are
typically higher than for the compliant mixed fuel design. There are utility cost savings across all climates zones
and building types for the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package, resulting in a more cost-effective option.
The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for single family homes in
Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. The code compliant option is cost-effective
based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 1 and 16. If the same costs used for the On-Bill
approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund
and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 6
through 10. The Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill
and TDV methodologies. In many cases it is cost-effective immediately with lower equipment and utility costs.
The last set of results in Table 14 shows the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code
compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the
On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 14 (SCE/SoCalGas
territory only), and 16. For these three cases the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be
required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 15 and show that an
additional 1.6kW in Climate Zone 1 results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. For Climate Zone 14 and 16 adding 0.25kW and
1.2kW, respectively, results in a B/C ratio of 1.2. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV
methodology in all climate zones except 16.
3.4.2 Multifamily
Multifamily results are found in Table 16, Table 17, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. Lifetime costs for the
multifamily code compliant all-electric option are approximately $2,300 less than the mixed fuel code compliant
option, entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV,
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
34 2019-07-17
the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and
therefore the cost savings are approximately 2.5 times higher.
With the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, due to the added cost of the efficiency and PV there is
a net cost increase for the all-electric case in all climate zones for except 7, 8, 9, and 15. With the TDV analysis,
there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates. Like the single family results, utility costs are typically
higher for the code compliant all-electric option but lower than the code compliant mixed fuel option with the
Efficiency & PV Package.
The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for multifamily in Climate
Zones 6 through 9, 10 and 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. Based on the TDV methodology, the code
compliant option for multifamily is cost-effective for all climate zones. If the same costs used for the On-Bill
approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund
and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 8
and 9. Like the single family cases, the Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones
based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies.
The last set of results in Table 16 show the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code
compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the
On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zone 1. For this case the
Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package.
These results are presented in Table 17 and show that an additional 0.3kW per apartment results in a B/C ratio
of 1.1. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16.
Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($1,194) +$712 -($482) -($14,464) +$5,349 0.4 -($13,081) +$11,872 0.9
02 PG&E -($825) +$486 -($340) -($10,194) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,456) +$11,872 1.6
03 PG&E -($717) +$391 -($326) -($9,779) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,766) +$11,872 1.5
04 PG&E -($710) +$387 -($322) -($9,671) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,447) +$11,872 1.6
05 PG&E -($738) +$367 -($371) -($11,128) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($738) +$370 -($368) -($11,034) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($439) +$289 -($149) -($4,476) +$5,349 1.2 -($4,826) +$11,872 2.5
07 SDG&E -($414) +$243 -($171) -($5,134) +$5,349 1.0 -($4,678) +$11,872 2.5
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($347) +$249 -($97) -($2,921) +$5,349 1.8 -($3,971) +$11,872 3.0
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($377) +$271 -($107) -($3,199) +$5,349 1.7 -($4,089) +$11,872 2.9
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($403) +$280 -($123) -($3,684) +$5,349 1.5 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7
10 SDG&E -($496) +$297 -($198) -($5,950) +$5,349 0.9 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7
11 PG&E -($810) +$447 -($364) -($10,917) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,024) +$11,872 1.7
12 PG&E -($740) +$456 -($284) -($8,533) +$5,349 0.6 -($6,281) +$11,872 1.9
13 PG&E -($742) +$413 -($329) -($9,870) +$5,349 0.5 -($6,480) +$11,872 1.8
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($661) +$413 -($248) -($7,454) +$5,349 0.7 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7
14 SDG&E -($765) +$469 -($296) -($8,868) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($297) +$194 -($103) -($3,090) +$5,349 1.7 -($5,364) +$11,872 2.2
16 PG&E -($1,287) +$712 -($575) -($17,250) +$5,349 0.3 -($17,391) +$11,872 0.7
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
35 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($99) +$712 +$613 +$18,398 -($12,844) 1.4 +$13,364 -($6,321) 2.1
02 PG&E -($89) +$486 +$397 +$11,910 -($6,758) 1.8 +$9,307 -($234) 39.7
03 PG&E -($87) +$391 +$304 +$9,119 -($3,169) 2.9 +$6,516 +$3,355 >1
04 PG&E -($85) +$387 +$302 +$9,074 -($3,438) 2.6 +$6,804 +$3,086 >1
05 PG&E -($98) +$367 +$268 +$8,054 -($2,959) 2.7 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($98) +$370 +$272 +$8,148 -($2,959) 2.8 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($188) +$289 +$102 +$3,049 -($992) 3.1 +$4,585 +$5,531 >1
07 SDG&E -($137) +$243 +$106 +$3,174 +$912 >1 +$2,176 +$7,436 >1
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($160) +$249 +$89 +$2,664 -($25) 107.9 +$3,965 +$6,499 >1
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$271 +$102 +$3,067 -($429) 7.1 +$5,368 +$6,094 >1
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($173) +$280 +$107 +$3,216 -($1,057) 3.0 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1
10 SDG&E -($137) +$297 +$160 +$4,805 -($1,057) 4.5 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1
11 PG&E -($147) +$447 +$300 +$8,988 -($5,478) 1.6 +$9,776 +$1,045 >1
12 PG&E -($92) +$456 +$364 +$10,918 -($6,172) 1.8 +$9,913 +$352 >1
13 PG&E -($144) +$413 +$269 +$8,077 -($5,184) 1.6 +$8,960 +$1,339 >1
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($241) +$413 +$172 +$5,164 -($5,111) 1.0 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1
14 SDG&E -($139) +$469 +$330 +$9,910 -($5,111) 1.9 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($107) +$194 +$87 +$2,603 +$264 >1 +$2,598 +$6,787 >1
16 PG&E -($130) +$712 +$582 +$17,457 -($11,234) 1.6 +$9,536 -($4,710) 2.0
Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($869) +$712 -($157) -($4,704) +$0 0 -($6,033) +$6,549 1.1
02 PG&E -($445) +$486 +$40 +$1,213 +$0 >1 +$868 +$6,505 >1
03 PG&E -($335) +$391 +$56 +$1,671 +$0 >1 +$483 +$6,520 >1
04 PG&E -($321) +$387 +$66 +$1,984 +$0 >1 +$1,062 +$6,521 >1
05 PG&E -($335) +$367 +$31 +$938 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($335) +$370 +$34 +$1,031 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($227) +$289 +$63 +$1,886 +$0 >1 +$3,258 +$6,499 >1
07 SDG&E -($72) +$243 +$171 +$5,132 +$0 >1 +$3,741 +$6,519 >1
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($144) +$249 +$105 +$3,162 +$0 >1 +$4,252 +$6,515 >1
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($170) +$271 +$100 +$3,014 +$0 >1 +$4,271 +$6,513 >1
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($199) +$280 +$81 +$2,440 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1
10 SDG&E -($155) +$297 +$143 +$4,287 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1
11 PG&E -($426) +$447 +$21 +$630 +$0 >1 +$1,623 +$6,504 >1
12 PG&E -($362) +$456 +$94 +$2,828 +$0 >1 +$2,196 +$6,525 >1
13 PG&E -($370) +$413 +$43 +$1,280 +$0 >1 +$1,677 +$6,509 >1
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($416) +$413 -($4) -($107) +$0 0 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1
14 SDG&E -($391) +$469 +$79 +$2,356 +$0 >1 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($98) +$194 +$97 +$2,900 +$0 >1 +$2,456 +$6,483 >1
16 PG&E -($878) +$712 -($166) -($4,969) +$0 0 -($8,805) +$6,529 0.7
1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home.
2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
36 2019-07-17
Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional
PV
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
PV Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 4.7 -($4,704) +$0 0 6.3 +$6,898 -($6,372) 1.1
14 SCE/SoCalGas 4.5 -($107) +$0 0 4.8 +$1,238 -($1,000) 1.2
16 PG&E 4.1 -($4,969) +$0 0 5.3 +$5,883 -($4,753) 1.2
Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a
mixed fuel code compliant home
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
37 2019-07-17
Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a
mixed fuel code compliant home
Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home
versus a mixed fuel code compliant home
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
38 2019-07-17
Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results (Per Dwelling Unit)
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($396) +$193 -($203) -($6,079) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,838) +$5,899 1.0
02 PG&E -($310) +$162 -($148) -($4,450) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,144) +$5,899 1.4
03 PG&E -($277) +$142 -($135) -($4,041) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,035) +$5,899 1.5
04 PG&E -($264) +$144 -($120) -($3,595) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,329) +$5,899 1.8
05 PG&E -($297) +$140 -($157) -($4,703) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($297) +$178 -($119) -($3,573) +$2,337 0.7 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($191) +$161 -($30) -($902) +$2,337 2.6 -($2,477) +$5,899 2.4
07 SDG&E -($206) +$136 -($70) -($2,094) +$2,337 1.1 -($2,390) +$5,899 2.5
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$157 -($12) -($349) +$2,337 6.7 -($2,211) +$5,899 2.7
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($177) +$159 -($18) -($533) +$2,337 4.4 -($2,315) +$5,899 2.5
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($183) +$159 -($23) -($697) +$2,337 3.4 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4
10 SDG&E -($245) +$139 -($106) -($3,192) +$2,337 0.7 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4
11 PG&E -($291) +$153 -($138) -($4,149) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,420) +$5,899 1.3
12 PG&E -($277) +$155 -($122) -($3,665) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,557) +$5,899 1.7
13 PG&E -($270) +$146 -($124) -($3,707) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,821) +$5,899 1.5
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($255) +$187 -($69) -($2,062) +$2,337 1.1 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5
14 SDG&E -($328) +$175 -($154) -($4,607) +$2,337 0.5 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($154) +$142 -($12) -($367) +$2,337 6.4 -($2,509) +$5,899 2.4
16 PG&E -($404) +$224 -($180) -($5,411) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,719) +$5,899 1.0
Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($19) +$193 +$174 +$5,230 -($3,202) 1.6 +$2,467 +$361 >1
02 PG&E -($10) +$162 +$152 +$4,549 -($1,375) 3.3 +$2,605 +$2,187 >1
03 PG&E -($12) +$142 +$130 +$3,910 -($936) 4.2 +$1,632 +$2,626 >1
04 PG&E -($8) +$144 +$136 +$4,080 -($822) 5.0 +$2,381 +$2,740 >1
05 PG&E -($19) +$140 +$121 +$3,635 -($956) 3.8 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($19) +$178 +$159 +$4,765 -($956) 5.0 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($84) +$161 +$77 +$2,309 -($243) 9.5 +$1,940 +$3,319 >1
07 SDG&E -($49) +$136 +$87 +$2,611 +$75 >1 +$1,583 +$3,638 >1
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($74) +$157 +$83 +$2,480 +$96 >1 +$1,772 +$3,658 >1
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($76) +$159 +$82 +$2,469 +$104 >1 +$1,939 +$3,667 >1
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($79) +$159 +$80 +$2,411 -($34) 70.9 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1
10 SDG&E -($77) +$139 +$61 +$1,842 -($34) 54.2 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1
11 PG&E -($25) +$153 +$128 +$3,834 -($1,264) 3.0 +$2,080 +$2,298 >1
12 PG&E -($11) +$155 +$144 +$4,316 -($1,498) 2.9 +$2,759 +$2,064 >1
13 PG&E -($26) +$146 +$121 +$3,625 -($1,125) 3.2 +$2,083 +$2,437 >1
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($99) +$187 +$87 +$2,616 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1
14 SDG&E -($86) +$175 +$88 +$2,647 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$142 +$75 +$2,247 +$511 >1 +$1,276 +$4,073 >1
16 PG&E -($24) +$224 +$200 +$5,992 -($2,087) 2.9 +$2,629 +$1,476 >1
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
39 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($228) +$193 -($35) -($1,057) +$0 0 -($2,267) +$3,564 1.6
02 PG&E -($115) +$162 +$47 +$1,399 +$0 >1 +$59 +$3,563 >1
03 PG&E -($81) +$142 +$61 +$1,843 +$0 >1 +$138 +$3,562 >1
04 PG&E -($64) +$144 +$80 +$2,402 +$0 >1 +$983 +$3,563 >1
05 PG&E -($90) +$140 +$50 +$1,490 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4
05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($90) +$178 +$87 +$2,620 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4
06 SCE/SoCalGas -($90) +$161 +$71 +$2,144 +$0 >1 +$1,612 +$3,562 >1
07 SDG&E -($32) +$136 +$105 +$3,135 +$0 >1 +$1,886 +$3,560 >1
08 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$157 +$90 +$2,705 +$0 >1 +$1,955 +$3,564 >1
09 SCE/SoCalGas -($71) +$159 +$87 +$2,623 +$0 >1 +$1,924 +$3,561 >1
10 SCE/SoCalGas -($78) +$159 +$81 +$2,431 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1
10 SDG&E -($71) +$139 +$68 +$2,033 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1
11 PG&E -($93) +$153 +$59 +$1,783 +$0 >1 -($48) +$3,562 74.0
12 PG&E -($82) +$155 +$73 +$2,184 +$0 >1 +$739 +$3,564 >1
13 PG&E -($79) +$146 +$68 +$2,034 +$0 >1 +$310 +$3,560 >1
14 SCE/SoCalGas -($141) +$187 +$45 +$1,359 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1
14 SDG&E -($137) +$175 +$38 +$1,131 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1
15 SCE/SoCalGas -($50) +$142 +$92 +$2,771 +$0 >1 +$1,738 +$3,560 >1
16 PG&E -($194) +$224 +$30 +$900 +$0 >1 -($1,382) +$3,564 2.6
1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home.
2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV
(Per Dwelling Unit)
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
01 PG&E 2.7 -($1,057) +$0 0 3.0 +$1,198 -($1,052) 1.1
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
40 2019-07-17
Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a
mixed fuel code compliant home
Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a
mixed fuel code compliant home
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
41 2019-07-17
Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home
versus a mixed fuel code compliant home
4 Conclusions & Summary
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of “above code” performance specifications through
the application of efficiency measures, PV, and electric battery storage in all 16 California climate zones. The
analysis found cost-effective packages across the state for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings.
For the building types and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this
analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was
evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost.
While all the above code targets presented are based on packages that are cost-effective under at least one of
these metrics, they are not all cost-effective under both metrics. Generally, the test for being cost-effective
under the TDV methodology is less challenging than under the On-Bill methodology. Therefore, all packages
presented are cost-effective based on TDV, and may or may not be cost-effective based on the On-Bill method.
It is up to each jurisdiction to determine what metric is most appropriate for their application. A summary of
results by climate zone are presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone.
Above code targets are presented as Target EDR Margin, which have been defined for each scenario where a
cost-effective package was identified. Target EDR Margins represent the maximum “reach” values that meet the
requirements. Jurisdictions may adopt less stringent requirements. For the Efficiency Package the Target EDR
Margin was defined based on the lower EDR Margin of the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package and the
Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package. For example, if the cost-effective Non-Preempted package has an
EDR Margin of 3 and the Preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3.
The average incremental cost for the single family Efficiency packages is ~$1,750. The Efficiency & PV Package
average incremental cost is $9,180 and for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package it is approximately $5,600 for the
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
42 2019-07-17
mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all-electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are
approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case.
Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each
package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases labeled as “n/a” in the tables indicate where no
cost-effective package was identified under either On-Bill or TDV methodology.
This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all-electric design reduces
GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design.
There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team
assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant all-
electric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and
infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all-electric single family home this
analysis found that from a customer on-bill perspective, the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in
Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones
except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the
code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and
15, and cost-effective based on TDV.
Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all-electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all
climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant
building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On-Bill and TDV
methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this
results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental
equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility
cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases.
The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the all-
electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero
based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on-bill B/C ratio in all
cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the
PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on-bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in
oversizing of PV systems.
Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space
conditioning and water heating equipment in the all-electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this
analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the
individual mixed fuel and all-electric upgrades it’s expected that applying similar packages to the electrification
analysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness.
The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas
infrastructure. Costs are project-dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance
to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and
number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code
Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than
the estimates presented here.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
43 2019-07-17
Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Zo
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 5.0 10.5 6.5 31.0 41.0
02 3.0 10.0 4.5 19.0 30.0
03 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 29.0
04 2.5 10.0 3.0 17.0 28.5
05 2.5 9.0 4.0 18.0 28.5
06 1.5 9.5 2.0 14.0 26.0
07 n/a 9.0 n/a 11.0 24.0
08 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.5 21.5
09 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0
10 3.0 9.5 3.0 11.0 21.0
11 4.0 9.0 4.5 14.0 23.0
12 3.0 9.5 3.5 15.5 25.0
13 4.5 9.5 5.0 13.0 22.0
14 4.5 9.0 5.5 15.5 23.5
15 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 13.0
16 5.0 10.5 4.5 26.5 35.0
Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Zo
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 2.0 11.5 3.0 22.5 34.5
02 1.5 10.5 1.5 17.5 30.5
03 0.5 10.0 n/a 16.0 29.5
04 1.0 11.0 1.0 15.0 28.5
05 0.5 9.5 0.5 17.0 30.0
06 1.0 10.5 1.0 13.5 27.5
07 0.5 11.0 0.5 12.5 27.0
08 1.0 9.5 1.0 11.5 24.0
09 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0
10 1.5 10.0 1.5 10.5 23.0
11 2.5 10.5 3.5 13.0 25.0
12 1.5 10.0 2.5 14.0 26.5
13 3.0 10.5 3.0 12.0 23.5
14 3.0 9.5 3.5 14.0 24.5
15 4.0 8.5 4.0 7.0 16.5
16 2.0 9.5 3.0 19.5 29.5
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
44 2019-07-17
5 References
California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by
Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366
California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2018-
023-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-
400-2018-023/CEC-400-2018-023-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2018c. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018.
California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-
021-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2018d. 2019 Residential Compliance Manual. CEC-400-2018-017-CMF. December
2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-017/CEC-400-
2018-017-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-
400-2019-005-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission. 2016. Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to
Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to
Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities. Proposed Decision of Commissioner
Guzman Aceves. April 07, 2017. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M183/K389/183389022.PDF
Davis Energy Group. 2015. Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes. Prepared for
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 2015. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/evaluation-ducts-conditioned-
space-new-california-homes
Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019.
https://www.ethree.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf
EPRI. 2016. SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study: Summary for the Three-Prong Test Discussion.
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. September. 2016. Presentation to Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for
Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.”
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07-
09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/
Itron. 2014. 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report. Itron. May 2014. Presented to
California Public Utilities Commission.
Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic
Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018.
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf
Navigant. 2018. Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future. July 24, 2018. Prepared for
Southern California Gas Company.
https://www.socalgas.com/1443741887279/SoCalGas_Renewable_Gas_Final-Report.pdf
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
45 2019-07-17
Penn, Ivan. 2018. Cheaper Battery Is Unveiled as a Step to a Carbon-Free Grid. The New York Times. September
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html.
Accessed January 29, 2019.
Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery –
Final Report. July 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-
Report_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf
Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Attics –
Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-
Report_HPA_Final_September-2017.pdf
Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls –
Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-
Report_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf
Statewide CASE Team. 2017d. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance
Windows & Doors – Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf
Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency
Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-
savings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2016. CALGreen Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric
Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. November 2016.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/50/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Tiers%201-2%20Cost-
Eff%20Report
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017a. CALGreen All-Electric Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas
and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. October 2017.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/276/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20All-Electric%20Cost-
Eff%20Report
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017b. 2016 Title 24 Residential Reach Code Recommendations: Cost-
effectiveness Analysis for All California Climate Zones. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC
Energy Services. August 2017.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/283/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Reach%20Code%20Tier%203
%20Cost-Eff%20Report
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2018. PV + Battery Storage Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Prepared by EnergySoft. July, 2018.
http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report
Hopkins, Asa, Takahashi, Kenji, Glick, Devi, Whited, Melissa. 2018. Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in
California Buildings. Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. October 2018. http://www.synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf
TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018.
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
46 2019-07-17
Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map
Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission17)
17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
47 2019-07-17
Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details
PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 51
SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
SDG&E ........................................................................................................................................................... 54
Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 56
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
48 2019-07-17
PG&E
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20
describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January
2019 according to the rates shown below.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
49 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
50 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
51 2019-07-17
SCE
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 21 describes the
baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
53 2019-07-17
SoCalGas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 describes the baseline territories
that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
54 2019-07-17
SDG&E
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline
territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
55 2019-07-17
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
56 2019-07-17
Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and are from E3’s 2019 study
Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are
applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a thirty-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3
study. The Reach Code Team reviewed SDG&E’s GRC filing and applied the same approach that E3 applied for
PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022.
Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions
Statewide Electric
Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Natural Gas Residential Core Rate
(%/yr escalation, real)
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00%
2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14%
2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94%
2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
57 2019-07-17
Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results
Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
CZ Utility To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
Ti
e
r
1
E
D
R
Ta
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
1 PG&E 32.5 54.2 23 3.0 3.3 27.9 49.0 5.3 18.8% 2.5 3.2 3.4 2.8 26.0 47.3 6.9 25.1% 2.3 3.2 4.9 4.1
2 PG&E 25.0 46.0 12 2.2 2.8 22.0 42.7 3.3 16.3% 1.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 21.8 42.6 3.3 16.4% 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.6
3 PG&E 23.9 46.9 10 1.9 2.7 21.3 43.9 3.0 16.7% 1.6 2.7 1.3 1.3 20.1 42.8 4.1 22.8% 1.5 2.7 1.9 2.0
4 PG&E 23.1 44.9 8 1.9 2.7 20.8 42.4 2.5 13.9% 1.7 2.7 0.9 1.2 20.5 42.2 2.7 14.9% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.7
5 PG&E 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 1.1 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.5
5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 0.9 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.5
6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 49.9 10 1.6 2.7 21.5 47.8 2.0 12.1% 1.5 2.7 0.7 1.2 21.5 47.9 2.0 11.8% 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.0
7 SDG&E 20.3 49.1 5 1.3 2.6 20.3 49.1 0.0 0.0% 1.3 2.6 - - 18.8 47.6 1.5 12.4% 1.2 2.6 1.5 1.4
8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 46.9 10 1.4 2.9 20.1 45.6 1.3 7.7% 1.3 2.9 0.6 1.4 19.7 45.3 1.6 9.4% 1.3 2.9 1.3 1.8
9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 47.7 13 1.5 2.9 22.3 45.1 2.6 11.7% 1.5 2.9 0.7 2.0 21.9 44.8 2.9 13.4% 1.4 2.9 1.8 3.7
10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.6 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.0 3.8
10 SDG&E 24.2 46.3 11 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.8 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.6 3.8
11 PG&E 24.6 44.9 12 2.1 3.6 21.3 40.6 4.3 16.4% 1.9 3.4 0.8 1.2 20.7 39.9 5.1 19.2% 1.8 3.4 2.5 3.7
12 PG&E 25.5 44.8 11 2.1 3.0 22.5 41.3 3.5 14.9% 1.9 2.9 1.2 1.8 22.5 41.4 3.4 14.4% 1.9 3.0 3.3 4.6
13 PG&E 25.7 46.5 15 2.0 3.8 22.2 41.9 4.6 16.9% 1.8 3.6 0.8 1.3 21.2 40.7 5.8 21.4% 1.7 3.6 5.3 8.4
14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 46.3 11 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.6 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.1
14 SDG&E 25.3 46.3 22 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.9 6.1
15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 49.1 11 1.7 5.4 19.7 44.3 4.8 14.8% 1.6 5.0 1.0 1.6 19.5 44.1 5.0 15.4% 1.5 5.0 >1 >1
16 PG&E 30.4 48.9 22 3.3 2.7 25.0 43.5 5.4 20.6% 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 24.8 42.7 6.2 23.5% 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.2
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
58 2019-07-17
Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery
Total
EDR
CALGreen Tier 1
EDR Target
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV
kW
Total
EDR
Total
EDR
Margin
% Comp
Margin
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV
kW
On-Bill B/C
Ratio
TDV B/C
Ratio
1 PG&E 32.5 23 3.0 3.3 21.9 10.6 31.8% 2.4 3.3 1.0 1.8
2 PG&E 25.0 12 2.2 2.8 14.9 10.1 27.3% 1.8 2.9 0.5 1.7
3 PG&E 23.9 10 1.9 2.7 13.9 10.0 27.7% 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.5
4 PG&E 23.1 8 1.9 2.7 13.0 10.1 24.9% 1.5 2.8 0.3 1.6
5 PG&E 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.4 1.5
5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.3 1.5
6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 10 1.6 2.7 13.6 9.8 20.1% 1.2 2.8 0.9 1.4
7 SDG&E 20.3 5 1.3 2.6 11.1 9.2 9.0% 1.0 2.7 0.1 1.5
8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 10 1.4 2.9 12.9 8.4 23.7% 1.1 3.0 1.1 1.5
9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 13 1.5 2.9 15.7 8.8 24.7% 1.2 3.0 1.1 1.7
10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 1.1 1.6
10 SDG&E 24.2 11 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 0.6 1.6
11 PG&E 24.6 12 2.1 3.6 15.4 9.2 29.4% 1.8 3.5 0.4 1.6
12 PG&E 25.5 11 2.1 3.0 15.9 9.6 28.9% 1.8 3.0 0.5 1.9
13 PG&E 25.7 15 2.0 3.8 16.1 9.7 28.9% 1.7 3.7 0.4 1.7
14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 11 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.5 1.9
14 SDG&E 25.3 22 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.4 1.9
15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 11 1.7 5.4 15.3 7.1 25.1% 1.4 5.1 1.3 1.7
16 PG&E 30.4 22 3.3 2.7 19.9 10.5 32.6% 2.4 2.8 0.9 1.5
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
59 2019-07-17
Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
CZ Utility
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
To
t
a
l
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
1
ED
R
T
a
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
To
t
a
l
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
1 PG&E 46.8 68.2 36 1.5 3.3 31.8 53.0 15.2 40.2% 1.0 3.3 1.8 1.7 39.9 61.3 6.9 18.3% 1.3 3.3 2.9 2.7
2 PG&E 32.8 53.7 16 1.1 2.8 27.9 48.7 4.9 20.5% 0.9 2.8 1.2 1.1 27.7 48.5 5.1 21.2% 0.9 2.8 2.3 2.1
3 PG&E 33.1 55.6 14 1.0 2.7 28.5 50.9 4.7 20.6% 0.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 28.7 51.2 4.4 19.6% 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.6
4 PG&E 31.3 52.8 12 1.0 2.7 27.9 49.4 3.4 15.5% 0.9 2.7 1.9 1.8 27.4 48.9 3.9 17.6% 0.9 2.7 1.5 1.5
5 PG&E 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7
5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 54.2 12 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7
6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 55.8 12 0.9 2.7 27.7 53.8 2.0 10.9% 0.8 2.7 1.3 1.4 26.8 53.0 2.9 16.0% 0.8 2.7 2.2 2.3
7 SDG&E 27.1 55.3 7 0.7 2.6 27.1 55.3 0.0 0.0% 0.7 2.6 - - 24.8 53.0 2.2 16.9% 0.7 2.6 1.6 1.7
8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 51.5 10 0.8 2.9 24.5 49.9 1.6 8.9% 0.8 2.9 0.6 1.2 24.4 49.7 1.8 9.7% 0.8 2.9 2.8 3.0
9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 51.9 13 0.9 2.9 26.0 49.1 2.8 12.5% 0.8 2.9 0.8 2.0 25.5 48.6 3.3 14.7% 0.8 2.9 2.1 3.2
10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.3 3.2
10 SDG&E 28.8 50.7 12 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.6 3.2
11 PG&E 30.0 50.2 13 1.1 3.6 25.4 45.6 4.6 16.2% 1.0 3.6 1.2 1.5 24.1 44.3 5.9 20.8% 0.9 3.6 3.0 3.3
12 PG&E 30.9 50.1 13 1.0 3.0 27.1 46.3 3.8 15.3% 0.9 3.0 0.8 1.1 25.8 45.0 5.1 20.4% 0.9 3.0 2.0 2.5
13 PG&E 30.7 51.5 16 1.1 3.8 25.7 46.4 5.1 17.4% 0.9 3.8 1.1 1.4 24.7 45.4 6.0 20.9% 0.9 3.8 2.9 3.3
14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 52.2 8 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.0 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.3 3.1
14 SDG&E 31.3 52.2 39 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.3 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.9 3.1
15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 52.8 8 1.3 5.4 20.6 47.2 5.6 16.8% 1.1 5.4 1.1 1.6 18.9 45.5 7.3 21.8% 1.0 5.4 3.3 4.5
16 PG&E 46.5 64.6 39 1.7 2.7 36.8 54.9 9.7 25.2% 1.4 2.7 1.7 1.7 41.6 59.7 4.9 12.7% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.3
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
60 2019-07-17
Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
To
t
a
l
ED
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
1
ED
R
T
a
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
To
t
a
l
ED
R
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l
ED
R
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
1 PG&E 46.8 36 1.5 3.3 15.4 31.4 40.2% 0.5 6.0 1.8 1.5 5.6 41.2 51.9% 0.3 6.76 1.5 1.4
2 PG&E 32.8 16 1.1 2.8 13.4 19.4 20.5% 0.5 4.9 1.8 1.4 2.7 30.1 31.5% 0.3 5.51 1.4 1.5
3 PG&E 33.1 14 1.0 2.7 14.6 18.5 20.6% 0.5 4.5 2.2 1.7 3.7 29.3 31.6% 0.2 5.10 1.6 1.6
4 PG&E 31.3 12 1.0 2.7 14.1 17.2 15.5% 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.6 2.8 28.6 26.5% 0.2 5.15 1.5 1.7
5 PG&E 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.7 1.7
5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 12 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.7 1.7
6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 12 0.9 2.7 15.5 14.3 10.9% 0.6 4.1 1.2 1.5 3.6 26.1 18.9% 0.3 4.68 1.2 1.5
7 SDG&E 27.1 7 0.7 2.6 15.8 11.3 0.7% 0.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 2.9 24.2 6.7% 0.3 4.21 1.3 1.6
8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 10 0.8 2.9 15.1 10.9 8.9% 0.6 4.0 1.0 1.5 4.5 21.6 24.9% 0.3 4.54 1.1 1.5
9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 13 0.9 2.9 17.3 11.5 12.5% 0.7 4.1 1.1 1.6 7.6 21.3 25.5% 0.4 4.66 1.2 1.6
10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.1 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.2 1.6
10 SDG&E 28.8 12 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.7 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.5 1.6
11 PG&E 30.0 13 1.1 3.6 15.8 14.2 16.2% 0.6 5.4 1.8 1.6 6.8 23.2 29.2% 0.4 6.11 1.5 1.7
12 PG&E 30.9 13 1.0 3.0 15.2 15.7 15.3% 0.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 5.6 25.4 29.3% 0.3 5.62 1.3 1.5
13 PG&E 30.7 16 1.1 3.8 17.3 13.4 17.4% 0.6 5.4 1.7 1.5 8.2 22.5 29.4% 0.4 6.14 1.4 1.6
14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 8 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.2 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.4 1.6
14 SDG&E 31.3 39 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.8 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.7 1.6
15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 8 1.3 5.4 20.0 6.2 16.8% 1.1 5.5 1.1 1.6 12.7 13.5 27.0% 0.8 6.25 1.2 1.6
16 PG&E 46.5 39 1.7 2.7 19.6 27.0 25.2% 0.9 5.5 2.1 1.6 11.1 35.4 34.3% 0.6 6.17 1.7 1.6
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
61 2019-07-17
Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary
Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
62 2019-07-17
Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary
LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
63 2019-07-17
Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
64 2019-07-17
Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
65 2019-07-17
Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary
LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
66 2019-07-17
Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
67 2019-07-17
Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary
VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
68 2019-07-17
Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results
Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Z
o
n
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
1
ED
R
T
a
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
M
a
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
s
q
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
01 PG&E 28.6 60.7 23 2.7 15.9 25.1 57.3 3.4 19.3% 2.3 16.0 1.1 1.2 26.4 58.4 2.3 12.2% 2.5 15.9 1.3 1.4
02 PG&E 25.7 56.5 12 2.4 13.9 24.2 54.7 1.8 9.9% 2.3 13.8 1.0 1.7 23.6 54.2 2.3 12.5% 2.2 13.9 1.1 1.5
03 PG&E 24.7 57.8 10 2.1 13.5 24.0 57.2 0.6 4.7% 2.1 13.5 1.0 1.1 23.1 56.2 1.6 11.2% 1.9 13.4 1.1 1.2
04 PG&E 25.5 56.8 8 2.2 13.6 24.3 55.5 1.3 7.7% 2.1 13.5 0.8 1.2 23.8 54.9 1.9 10.9% 2.0 13.5 1.1 1.7
05 PG&E 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 1.0 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.2 1.3
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 0.8 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.1 1.3
06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 63.2 10 2.2 13.9 25.8 61.9 1.3 7.0% 2.1 13.8 0.6 1.5 25.5 61.9 1.3 7.4% 2.0 13.9 1.4 1.7
07 SDG&E 26.8 64.5 5 2.1 13.2 26.1 63.6 0.9 5.3% 2.1 13.1 0.7 2.2 25.0 62.5 2.0 12.2% 2.0 13.2 1.1 1.4
08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 61.8 10 2.2 14.6 24.6 60.3 1.5 7.4% 2.1 14.5 0.7 1.4 24.6 60.7 1.1 5.7% 2.0 14.6 1.4 1.7
09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 59.7 13 2.2 14.7 25.0 57.9 1.8 8.2% 2.2 14.4 1.5 3.3 24.1 56.9 2.8 12.9% 2.1 14.4 1.7 2.9
10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 0.8 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.0 3.3
10 SDG&E 27.0 58.7 11 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 1.1 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.6 3.3
11 PG&E 24.5 54.5 12 2.4 16.6 22.3 51.6 2.9 11.9% 2.2 16.3 0.7 1.2 22.2 51.3 3.2 13.2% 2.2 16.1 1.8 3.3
12 PG&E 25.9 55.3 11 2.3 14.9 24.3 53.4 1.9 8.8% 2.2 14.8 1.1 2.2 23.5 52.5 2.8 12.8% 2.1 14.7 1.2 2.2
13 PG&E 26.1 55.9 15 2.3 17.5 23.7 52.8 3.1 12.1% 2.1 17.1 0.6 1.3 23.7 52.5 3.4 13.2% 2.1 16.9 2.0 3.8
14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 55.9 11 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.7 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.0 3.0
14 SDG&E 25.6 55.9 22 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.9 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.5 3.0
15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 59.2 11 2.5 21.6 22.7 55.0 4.2 12.9% 2.4 20.4 1.4 2.3 22.6 54.8 4.4 13.5% 2.3 20.4 >1 >1
16 PG&E 29.4 57.3 22 3.5 13.4 26.6 54.9 2.4 11.3% 3.0 13.7 1.1 1.2 26.9 54.4 2.9 13.1% 3.1 13.2 1.8 2.1
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
69 2019-07-17
Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
CZ Utility
BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery
Total
EDR
CALGreen
Tier 1 EDR
Target
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV kW
per
Building
Total
EDR
Total
EDR
Margin
% Comp
Margin
lbs CO2
per sqft
PV kW
per
Building
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
TDV B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 28.6 23 2.7 15.9 17.1 11.5 29.3% 2.1 16.5 0.4 1.3
02 PG&E 25.7 12 2.4 13.9 14.8 10.9 16.9% 2.1 14.2 0.2 1.8
03 PG&E 24.7 10 2.1 13.5 14.4 10.3 10.7% 1.9 13.9 0.1 1.6
04 PG&E 25.5 8 2.2 13.6 14.3 11.2 15.7% 1.9 13.9 0.2 1.8
05 PG&E 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.6
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.6
06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 10 2.2 13.9 16.1 10.7 10.0% 1.8 14.2 0.6 1.5
07 SDG&E 26.8 5 2.1 13.2 15.8 11.0 7.3% 1.7 13.6 0.0 1.6
08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 10 2.2 14.6 15.8 9.9 13.4% 1.8 14.9 0.8 1.5
09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 13 2.2 14.7 16.7 9.7 15.2% 1.8 14.9 1.0 1.7
10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 1.1 1.8
10 SDG&E 27.0 11 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 0.3 1.8
11 PG&E 24.5 12 2.4 16.6 14.0 10.5 19.9% 2.0 16.7 0.4 1.8
12 PG&E 25.9 11 2.3 14.9 15.6 10.3 17.8% 2.0 15.2 0.3 2.0
13 PG&E 26.1 15 2.3 17.5 15.4 10.7 20.1% 2.0 17.5 0.4 1.8
14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 11 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 1.2 1.5
14 SDG&E 25.6 22 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 0.6 1.5
15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 11 2.5 21.6 16.2 8.8 18.9% 2.1 20.9 1.4 1.9
16 PG&E 29.4 22 3.5 13.4 19.5 9.9 19.3% 2.7 14.1 0.5 1.4
“inf” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
70 2019-07-17
Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
CZ Utility
BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
1
E
D
R
T
a
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
E
D
R
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-Bi
l
l
B
/
C
Ra
t
i
o
TD
V
B
/
C
R
a
t
i
o
01 PG&E 41.1 70.6 36 1.6 15.9 37.5 67.0 3.6 14.6% 1.5 15.9 1.6 1.4 37.1 67.3 3.3 18.4% 1.4 15.9 2.4 2.3
02 PG&E 34.3 63.4 16 1.4 13.9 32.4 61.5 1.9 9.1% 1.3 13.9 1.7 2.1 31.1 60.2 3.2 15.1% 1.3 13.9 1.6 1.6
03 PG&E 33.5 64.2 14 1.3 13.5 33.5 64.2 0.0 0.0% 1.3 13.5 - - 30.4 61.5 2.7 19.5% 1.1 13.5 1.7 1.6
04 PG&E 32.0 61.4 12 1.3 13.6 30.5 60.0 1.4 8.0% 1.2 13.6 1.4 1.5 29.7 59.2 2.2 12.2% 1.2 13.6 1.2 1.1
05 PG&E 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 65.4 12 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0
06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 65.9 12 1.3 13.9 30.9 64.9 1.0 5.9% 1.3 13.9 0.7 1.3 29.8 63.7 2.2 13.0% 1.2 13.9 1.6 1.9
07 SDG&E 31.7 66.6 7 1.2 13.2 31.1 66.0 0.6 4.6% 1.2 13.2 0.6 1.0 29.7 64.7 1.9 13.6% 1.1 13.2 1.6 1.7
08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 63.6 10 1.3 14.6 28.6 62.4 1.2 6.5% 1.2 14.6 0.9 1.7 27.9 61.7 1.9 10.3% 1.2 14.6 1.6 1.8
09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 61.9 13 1.3 14.7 28.7 60.3 1.6 8.1% 1.3 14.7 1.3 2.7 28.8 60.4 1.5 7.4% 1.2 14.7 1.6 1.6
10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.2 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 1.7 2.0
10 SDG&E 31.2 61.3 12 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.5 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 2.0 2.0
11 PG&E 31.9 60.6 13 1.4 16.6 28.5 57.1 3.5 13.1% 1.3 16.6 1.4 1.6 28.1 56.7 3.9 14.4% 1.3 16.6 2.0 2.3
12 PG&E 32.0 59.9 13 1.3 14.9 29.4 57.3 2.6 11.4% 1.2 14.9 0.9 1.1 29.0 57.0 2.9 13.0% 1.2 14.9 1.6 1.6
13 PG&E 32.1 60.5 16 1.4 17.5 28.8 57.2 3.3 12.6% 1.2 17.5 1.3 1.6 28.3 56.7 3.8 14.3% 1.2 17.5 2.0 2.3
14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 61.6 8 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.2 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 1.6 2.2
14 SDG&E 32.5 61.6 39 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.5 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 2.0 2.2
15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 61.0 8 1.8 21.6 23.9 56.6 4.4 14.2% 1.6 21.6 1.5 2.3 21.9 54.6 6.4 20.6% 1.5 21.6 1.2 1.7
16 PG&E 40.2 66.6 39 1.9 13.4 36.2 62.5 4.1 15.0% 1.7 13.4 2.1 2.1 37.1 63.4 3.2 11.4% 1.7 13.4 1.6 1.7
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
71 2019-07-17
Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Z
o
n
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
To
t
a
l
E
D
R
CA
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
1
E
D
R
T
a
r
g
e
t
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
kW
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
To
t
a
l
ED
R
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
kW
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-B il
l
B
/C
R at
i
o
TD
V
B
/C R at
i
o
To
t
a
l
ED
R
To
t
a
l
ED
R
Ma
r
g
i
n
%
C
o
m
p
Ma
r
g
i
n
lb
s
C
O
2
p
e
r
sq
f
t
PV
k
W
pe
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
On
-B il
l
B
/C
R at
i
o
TD
V
B
/C R at
i
o
01 PG&E 41.1 36 1.6 15.9 18.6 22.5 14.6% 0.8 26.9 2.0 1.5 6.6 34.5 24.6% 0.4 30.3 1.4 1.5
02 PG&E 34.3 16 1.4 13.9 16.8 17.5 9.1% 0.7 21.9 2.4 1.8 3.4 30.9 16.1% 0.3 24.8 1.4 1.8
03 PG&E 33.5 14 1.3 13.5 17.4 16.1 2.6% 0.7 20.8 2.4 1.7 4.0 29.5 8.6% 0.3 23.6 1.4 1.7
04 PG&E 32.0 12 1.3 13.6 17.0 15.0 8.0% 0.7 20.2 2.4 1.8 3.1 28.9 16.0% 0.3 22.9 1.4 1.9
05 PG&E 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.5 1.8
05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 12 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.5 1.8
06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 12 1.3 13.9 18.1 13.8 5.9% 1.0 19.5 1.2 1.7 4.4 27.5 8.9% 0.5 22.1 1.3 1.7
07 SDG&E 31.7 7 1.2 13.2 18.9 12.8 4.6% 0.9 18.1 2.1 1.8 4.6 27.1 6.6% 0.5 20.5 1.3 1.7
08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 10 1.3 14.6 18.2 11.6 6.5% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.8 5.6 24.2 12.5% 0.5 22.0 1.3 1.7
09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 13 1.3 14.7 19.1 11.3 8.1% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.9 7.1 23.3 15.1% 0.6 22.0 1.4 1.8
10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 1.3 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.3 1.8
10 SDG&E 31.2 12 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 2.1 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.5 1.8
11 PG&E 31.9 13 1.4 16.6 18.5 13.4 13.1% 0.8 22.8 2.2 1.8 6.6 25.3 21.1% 0.4 25.8 1.5 1.9
12 PG&E 32.0 13 1.3 14.9 17.6 14.4 11.4% 0.7 21.7 2.1 1.6 5.4 26.6 20.4% 0.4 24.5 1.3 1.8
13 PG&E 32.1 16 1.4 17.5 19.9 12.2 12.6% 0.8 23.3 2.1 1.7 8.2 23.9 20.6% 0.4 26.4 1.4 1.8
14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 8 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 1.4 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.4 1.9
14 SDG&E 32.5 39 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 2.2 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.8 1.9
15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 8 1.8 21.6 21.1 7.1 14.2% 1.5 23.6 1.4 2.1 11.3 16.9 20.2% 1.1 26.6 1.4 1.9
16 PG&E 40.2 39 1.9 13.4 20.6 19.6 15.0% 1.2 22.0 2.6 1.9 10.3 29.9 23.0% 0.8 24.8 1.7 1.8
“>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
72 2019-07-17
Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary
Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
73 2019-07-17
Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
74 2019-07-17
Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
75 2019-07-17
Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
76 2019-07-17
Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
77 2019-07-17
Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
78 2019-07-17
Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary
VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
79 2019-07-17
Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone
Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 80
Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 82
Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 84
Climate Zone 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 86
Climate Zone 5 PG&E .................................................................................................................................. 88
Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas .................................................................................................................. 90
Climate Zone 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Climate Zone 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 94
Climate Zone 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 96
Climate Zone 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 98
Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 100
Climate Zone 10 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 102
Climate Zone 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 104
Climate Zone 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 106
Climate Zone 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 108
Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 110
Climate Zone 14 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 112
Climate Zone 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 114
Climate Zone 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 116
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
80 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 1
Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary
Climate Zone 1
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 581 n/a n/a 3.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 480 5.0 (0.08) 2.51 0.49 $1,355 3.38 2.82
Efficiency-Equipment 0 440 6.5 (0.07) 2.32 0.68 $1,280 4.92 4.10
Efficiency & PV/Battery (28) 480 10.5 0.04 2.40 0.60 $4,788 0.96 1.79
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 7,079 0 n/a n/a 1.51 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,461 0 15.0 0.00 1.01 0.50 $7,642 1.79 1.66
Efficiency-Equipment 5,933 0 6.5 0.00 1.29 0.22 $2,108 2.94 2.74
Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 1.00 $18,192 1.81 1.45
Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 0 41.0 3.45 0.28 1.23 $24,247 1.48 1.43
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3 Code Compliant 7,079 0 0.0 0.00 1.51 1.49 ($5,349) 0.37 0.91
Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 2.48 $12,844 1.43 2.11
Neutral Cost 5,270 0 8.0 1.35 1.26 1.74 $0 0.00 1.09
Min Cost Effectiveness 3,160 0 18.0 2.97 0.95 2.04 ($6,372) 1.08 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,
Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
81 2019-07-17
Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 1
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 180 n/a n/a 2.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 147 3.0 0.00 2.31 0.44 $960 1.10 1.18
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 159 2.0 (0.01) 2.48 0.27 $507 1.29 1.41
Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 147 11.5 0.07 2.13 0.61 $2,807 0.39 1.33
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,624 0 n/a n/a 1.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,328 0 3.5 0.00 1.46 0.15 $949 1.55 1.40
Efficiency-Equipment 2,278 0 3.0 0.00 1.41 0.20 $795 2.39 2.26
Efficiency & PV 499 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 0.86 $5,538 2.04 1.50
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 34.5 1.80 0.38 1.24 $8,632 1.38 1.47
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3 Code Compliant 2,624 0 0.0 0.00 1.62 1.13 ($2,337) 0.38 1.01
Efficiency & PV 62 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 2.00 $3,202 1.63 >1
Neutral Cost 1,693 0 9.5 0.70 1.25 1.50 $0 0.00 1.57
Min Cost Effectiveness 1,273 0 14.0 1.01 1.09 1.66 ($1,052) 1.14 3.76
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,
Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
82 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 2
Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary
Climate Zone 2
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 421 n/a n/a 2.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 360 3.0 (0.04) 1.94 0.30 $1,504 1.63 1.66
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 352 3.0 (0.03) 1.90 0.33 $724 3.77 3.63
Efficiency & PV/Battery (22) 360 10.0 0.06 1.82 0.41 $4,871 0.53 1.73
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 5,014 0 n/a n/a 1.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,079 0 4.5 0.00 0.94 0.18 $3,943 1.21 1.07
Efficiency-Equipment 4,122 0 5.0 0.00 0.94 0.17 $2,108 2.25 2.10
Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 0.63 $12,106 1.83 1.38
Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 30.0 2.71 0.26 0.86 $17,610 1.41 1.48
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 5,014 0 0.0 0.00 1.11 1.12 ($5,349) 0.52 1.59
Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 1.75 $6,758 1.76 39.70
Neutral Cost 2,891 0 9.5 1.36 0.82 1.41 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
83 2019-07-17
Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 2
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 150 n/a n/a 2.37 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 142 1.5 (0.02) 2.25 0.12 $309 0.97 1.75
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 134 2.0 (0.01) 2.15 0.22 $497 1.08 1.49
Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 142 10.5 0.04 2.07 0.30 $2,125 0.20 1.81
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,151 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,038 0 1.5 0.00 1.32 0.06 $361 1.73 2.05
Efficiency-Equipment 1,928 0 3.0 0.00 1.25 0.13 $795 1.56 1.56
Efficiency & PV 476 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 0.67 $3,711 2.42 1.82
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 30.5 1.36 0.35 1.04 $6,546 1.44 1.82
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,151 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.99 ($2,337) 0.53 1.42
Efficiency & PV 60 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 1.65 $1,375 3.31 >1
Neutral Cost 1,063 0 10.5 0.70 0.96 1.41 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
84 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 3
Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary
Climate Zone 3
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 348 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 296 2.5 (0.03) 1.63 0.26 $1,552 1.28 1.31
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 273 4.0 (0.03) 1.52 0.37 $1,448 1.91 1.97
Efficiency & PV/Battery (20) 296 10.0 0.07 1.50 0.38 $4,915 0.42 1.53
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,355 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,584 0 4.5 0.00 0.85 0.15 $1,519 2.60 2.36
Efficiency-Equipment 3,670 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.14 $2,108 1.76 1.62
Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 0.54 $8,517 2.22 1.68
Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 0 29.0 2.37 0.23 0.76 $13,857 1.56 1.64
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,355 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.89 ($5,349) 0.55 1.53
Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 1.43 $3,169 2.88 >1
Neutral Cost 2,217 0 10.5 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
85 2019-07-17
Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 3
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 133 n/a n/a 2.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 0.5 (0.00) 2.06 0.07 $175 1.00 1.11
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 119 1.5 (0.00) 1.94 0.19 $403 1.11 1.23
Efficiency & PV/Battery (10) 127 10.0 0.05 1.86 0.27 $1,991 0.12 1.61
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,944 0 n/a n/a 1.27 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.00 $0 - -
Efficiency-Equipment 1,698 0 2.5 0.00 1.13 0.14 $795 1.73 1.58
Efficiency & PV 457 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 0.58 $3,272 2.43 1.73
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 29.5 1.26 0.33 0.94 $6,057 1.38 1.71
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.86 ($2,337) 0.58 1.46
Efficiency & PV 57 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 1.43 $936 4.18 >1
Neutral Cost 845 0 11.5 0.70 0.85 1.28 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
86 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 4
Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary
Climate Zone 4
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 347 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 306 2.5 (0.03) 1.68 0.20 $1,556 0.93 1.15
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 294 2.5 (0.02) 1.62 0.26 $758 2.39 2.67
Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 306 10.0 0.07 1.55 0.33 $4,911 0.33 1.64
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,342 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,775 0 3.0 0.00 0.89 0.11 $1,519 1.92 1.84
Efficiency-Equipment 3,747 0 3.5 0.00 0.88 0.12 $2,108 1.52 1.52
Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 0.52 $8,786 2.13 1.62
Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 28.5 2.44 0.25 0.75 $14,141 1.52 1.67
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,342 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.88 ($5,349) 0.55 1.59
Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 1.40 $3,438 2.64 >1
Neutral Cost 2,166 0 10.0 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
87 2019-07-17
Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 4
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 134 n/a n/a 2.16 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 1.0 (0.01) 2.06 0.10 $329 0.75 1.24
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 123 1.5 (0.01) 2.01 0.15 $351 1.06 1.74
Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 11.0 0.04 1.87 0.29 $2,141 0.19 1.82
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,887 0 n/a n/a 1.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,794 0 1.0 0.00 1.21 0.05 $361 1.38 1.54
Efficiency-Equipment 1,712 0 2.0 0.00 1.15 0.10 $795 1.23 1.09
Efficiency & PV 453 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 0.57 $3,158 2.43 1.81
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 28.5 1.17 0.32 0.93 $5,914 1.37 1.86
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,887 0 0.0 0.00 1.25 0.90 ($2,337) 0.65 1.77
Efficiency & PV 57 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 1.47 $822 4.96 >1
Neutral Cost 767 0 11.0 0.70 0.82 1.33 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design..
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
88 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 5 PG&E
Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary
Climate Zone 5
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 1.10 1.22
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 2.29 2.48
Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $4,911 0.41 1.46
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31
Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70
Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76
Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $13,525 1.65 1.70
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32
Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.72 >1
Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
89 2019-07-17
Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 5
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.99 1.03
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.24 1.34
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $1,985 0.17 1.58
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86
Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03
Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,026 1.50 1.77
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3 Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.50 1.28
Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 3.80 >1
Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
90 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas
Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary
Climate Zone 5
PG&E/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-
Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 0.92 1.22
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 1.98 2.48
Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $4,911 0.35 1.46
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31
Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70
Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76
Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $13,525 1.65 1.70
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32
Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.75 >1
Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
91 2019-07-17
Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 5
PG&E/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.85 1.03
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.09 1.34
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $1,985 0.16 1.58
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86
Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03
Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,026 1.50 1.77
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.65 1.28
Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 4.98 >1
Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
92 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 6
Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary
Climate Zone 6
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 249 n/a n/a 1.57 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 229 2.0 (0.02) 1.47 0.10 $1,003 0.66 1.15
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 218 1.5 (0.01) 1.41 0.15 $581 1.58 2.04
Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 229 9.5 0.08 1.22 0.34 $4,367 0.95 1.42
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 3,099 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,885 0 2.0 0.00 0.83 0.05 $926 1.31 1.41
Efficiency-Equipment 2,746 0 2.5 0.00 0.80 0.08 $846 2.20 2.29
Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.24 $6,341 1.19 1.48
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 26.0 1.93 0.33 0.55 $11,513 1.20 1.50
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 3,099 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.69 ($5,349) 1.19 2.46
Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.93 $992 3.07 >1
Neutral Cost 959 0 12.0 1.36 0.67 0.89 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
93 2019-07-17
Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 6
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 114 n/a n/a 2.17 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 112 1.0 (0.01) 2.14 0.03 $190 0.65 1.49
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 103 1.0 (0.00) 2.03 0.15 $213 1.43 1.74
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 112 10.5 0.04 1.76 0.41 $2,007 0.64 1.55
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,558 0 n/a n/a 1.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,531 0 1.0 0.00 1.26 0.02 $231 0.65 1.34
Efficiency-Equipment 1,430 0 2.0 0.00 1.20 0.08 $361 1.62 1.91
Efficiency & PV 427 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 0.31 $2,580 1.24 1.71
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.5 1.02 0.49 0.79 $5,303 1.28 1.67
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,558 0 0.0 0.00 1.28 0.90 ($2,337) 2.59 2.38
Efficiency & PV 53 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 1.20 $243 9.50 >1
Neutral Cost 459 0 12.5 0.70 0.99 1.18 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
94 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 7
Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary
Climate Zone 7
SDG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 196 n/a n/a 1.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 196 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.00 $0 - -
Efficiency-Equipment 0 171 1.5 (0.00) 1.18 0.12 $606 1.50 1.40
Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 189 9.0 0.10 1.04 0.26 $3,506 0.07 1.52
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,479 0 n/a n/a 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.00 $0 - -
Efficiency-Equipment 2,222 0 2.0 0.00 0.69 0.06 $846 1.60 1.65
Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.17 $4,436 1.87 1.55
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 24.0 1.61 0.29 0.46 $9,413 1.32 1.56
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.55 ($5,349) 1.04 2.54
Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.72 ($912) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 267 0 13.5 1.35 0.55 0.75 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
95 2019-07-17
Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 7
SDG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 110 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 0.5 (0.01) 2.08 0.03 $90 0.73 2.24
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 2.0 (0.00) 1.96 0.15 $366 1.07 1.41
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 11.0 0.05 1.71 0.40 $1,900 0.04 1.61
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,434 0 n/a n/a 1.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,416 0 0.5 0.00 1.20 0.01 $202 0.60 1.02
Efficiency-Equipment 1,319 0 1.5 0.00 1.14 0.07 $361 1.59 1.71
Efficiency & PV 412 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 0.27 $2,261 2.08 1.76
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.0 0.92 0.47 0.74 $4,916 1.26 1.71
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,434 0 0.0 0.00 1.21 0.90 ($2,337) 1.12 2.47
Efficiency & PV 51 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 1.17 ($75) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 294 0 13.5 0.70 0.91 1.20 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
96 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 8
Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary
Climate Zone 8
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 206 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 198 1.0 (0.02) 1.34 0.05 $581 0.57 1.41
Efficiency-Equipment 0 181 1.5 (0.01) 1.27 0.12 $586 1.30 1.82
Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 198 8.0 0.08 1.11 0.27 $3,944 1.10 1.48
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,576 0 n/a n/a 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,483 0 1.5 0.00 0.78 0.02 $926 0.57 1.22
Efficiency-Equipment 2,352 0 1.5 0.00 0.75 0.05 $412 2.82 3.03
Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.18 $5,373 1.00 1.48
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 21.5 1.67 0.32 0.48 $10,493 1.14 1.49
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,576 0 0.0 0.00 0.80 0.58 ($5,349) 1.83 2.99
Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.77 $25 107.93 >1
Neutral Cost 439 0 11.0 1.36 0.60 0.78 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
97 2019-07-17
Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 8
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 109 n/a n/a 2.18 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 106 1.5 (0.02) 2.13 0.05 $250 0.70 1.36
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 1.0 (0.00) 2.04 0.14 $213 1.37 1.67
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 106 9.5 0.03 1.77 0.41 $2,066 0.84 1.50
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,409 0 n/a n/a 1.26 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,373 0 1.0 0.00 1.24 0.02 $231 0.87 1.72
Efficiency-Equipment 1,276 0 1.5 0.00 1.18 0.08 $361 1.63 1.75
Efficiency & PV 426 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 0.27 $2,240 1.26 1.78
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 24.0 0.92 0.53 0.73 $4,962 1.31 1.68
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,409 0 0.0 0.00 1.26 0.91 ($2,337) 6.69 2.67
Efficiency & PV 53 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 1.18 ($96) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 309 0 12.0 0.70 0.98 1.20 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
98 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 9
Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary
Climate Zone 9
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 229 n/a n/a 1.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 216 2.5 (0.04) 1.46 0.07 $912 0.69 1.97
Efficiency-Equipment 0 201 2.5 (0.04) 1.38 0.15 $574 1.80 3.66
Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 216 8.5 0.05 1.23 0.30 $4,263 1.11 1.66
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,801 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,645 0 2.5 0.00 0.84 0.04 $1,180 0.78 1.96
Efficiency-Equipment 2,460 0 3.0 0.00 0.80 0.07 $846 2.11 3.22
Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.21 $5,778 1.08 1.64
Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 0 21.0 1.72 0.37 0.50 $10,932 1.16 1.60
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,801 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.66 ($5,349) 1.67 2.90
Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.87 $429 7.15 >1
Neutral Cost 594 0 10.0 1.36 0.67 0.86 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
99 2019-07-17
Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 9
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 111 n/a n/a 2.24 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 109 1.5 (0.03) 2.19 0.05 $136 1.46 3.35
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 101 2.5 (0.03) 2.08 0.16 $274 1.66 2.87
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 109 9.5 0.03 1.84 0.40 $1,947 1.03 1.71
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,468 0 n/a n/a 1.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,414 0 1.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $231 1.29 2.70
Efficiency-Equipment 1,334 0 1.5 0.00 1.25 0.08 $361 1.63 1.58
Efficiency & PV 441 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 0.29 $2,232 1.34 1.91
Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 23.0 0.92 0.58 0.75 $4,949 1.35 1.77
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,468 0 0.0 0.00 1.33 0.91 ($2,337) 4.38 2.55
Efficiency & PV 55 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 1.20 ($104) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 331 0 11.0 0.70 1.03 1.21 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
100 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas
Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary
Climate Zone 10
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.63 1.33
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.05 3.84
Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $4,999 1.00 1.64
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 0.92 1.52
Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.27 3.19
Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.08 1.50
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $11,606 1.16 1.58
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 1.45 2.66
Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 3.04 >1
Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
101 2019-07-17
Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 10
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 0.81 1.69
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 1.96 3.27
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,089 1.12 1.79
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.16 2.00
Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 1.71 1.98
Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 1.31 1.79
Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,108 1.35 1.78
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 3.35 2.36
Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 70.89 >1
Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
102 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 10 SDGE
Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary
Climate Zone 10
SDG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648.10 0.80 1.33
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593.40 2.64 3.84
Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $4,999.50 0.64 1.64
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,772.82 1.08 1.52
Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $948.63 2.62 3.19
Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405.39 1.68 1.50
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $11,606.13 1.48 1.58
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 0.90 2.66
Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 4.55 >1
Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
103 2019-07-17
Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 10
SDG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278.06 1.09 1.69
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $249.93 2.60 3.27
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,088.94 0.27 1.79
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $360.62 1.53 2.00
Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $360.85 2.05 1.98
Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,370.68 2.12 1.79
Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,107.56 1.52 1.78
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 0.73 2.36
Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 54.15 >1
Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
104 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 11
Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary
Climate Zone 11
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 378 n/a n/a 2.14 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 333 4.0 (0.19) 1.90 0.24 $3,143 0.78 1.20
Efficiency-Equipment 0 320 5.0 (0.21) 1.83 0.31 $1,222 2.50 3.68
Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 333 9.0 (0.09) 1.78 0.36 $6,503 0.39 1.64
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,585 0 n/a n/a 1.15 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,815 0 4.5 0.00 0.99 0.16 $3,735 1.24 1.47
Efficiency-Equipment 3,533 0 5.5 0.00 0.93 0.22 $2,108 2.97 3.33
Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 0.55 $10,827 1.84 1.55
Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 0 23.0 2.49 0.36 0.79 $16,555 1.54 1.66
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,585 0 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.99 ($5,349) 0.49 1.69
Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 1.54 $5,478 1.64 >1
Neutral Cost 2,429 0 7.0 1.36 0.85 1.29 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
105 2019-07-17
Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 11
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 127 2.5 (0.05) 2.18 0.20 $850 0.65 1.17
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.06) 2.16 0.22 $317 1.84 3.29
Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 10.5 0.01 2.00 0.38 $2,663 0.43 1.77
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,974 0 n/a n/a 1.42 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,732 0 3.5 0.00 1.29 0.13 $1,011 1.40 1.64
Efficiency-Equipment 1,707 0 3.5 0.00 1.26 0.16 $795 2.02 2.33
Efficiency & PV 504 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 0.61 $3,601 2.22 1.81
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 25.0 1.14 0.45 0.98 $6,472 1.48 1.89
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,974 0 0.0 0.00 1.42 0.96 ($2,337) 0.56 1.33
Efficiency & PV 63 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 1.56 $1,264 3.03 >1
Neutral Cost 866 0 9.0 0.70 0.99 1.38 $0 >1 73.96
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard De sign.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
106 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 12
Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary
Climate Zone 12
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 390 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 344 3.5 (0.06) 1.88 0.23 $1,679 1.18 1.83
Efficiency-Equipment 0 338 3.0 (0.05) 1.85 0.26 $654 3.31 4.65
Efficiency & PV/Battery (23) 344 9.5 0.04 1.76 0.35 $5,045 0.48 1.89
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,492 0 n/a n/a 1.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,958 0 3.5 0.00 0.94 0.10 $3,735 0.78 1.06
Efficiency-Equipment 3,721 0 5.0 0.00 0.90 0.15 $2,108 2.00 2.51
Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 0.53 $11,520 1.69 1.41
Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 25.0 2.62 0.29 0.76 $17,064 1.33 1.53
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,492 0 0.0 0.00 1.05 1.07 ($5,349) 0.63 1.89
Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 1.60 $6,172 1.77 >1
Neutral Cost 2,374 0 8.0 1.35 0.76 1.36 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
107 2019-07-17
Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 12
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 143 n/a n/a 2.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 135 1.5 (0.02) 2.21 0.12 $291 1.10 2.22
Efficiency-Equipment 0 128 2.5 (0.03) 2.12 0.21 $434 1.25 2.22
Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 135 10.0 0.03 2.03 0.30 $2,106 0.34 1.98
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,963 0 n/a n/a 1.34 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,792 0 2.5 0.00 1.24 0.09 $1,011 0.91 1.12
Efficiency-Equipment 1,744 0 2.5 0.00 1.21 0.13 $795 1.56 1.63
Efficiency & PV 472 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 0.60 $3,835 2.08 1.65
Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 26.5 1.20 0.38 0.96 $6,656 1.31 1.76
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,963 0 0.0 0.00 1.34 1.00 ($2,337) 0.64 1.66
Efficiency & PV 59 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 1.60 $1,498 2.88 >1
Neutral Cost 872 0 9.5 0.70 0.92 1.42 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
108 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 13
Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary
Climate Zone 13
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 352 n/a n/a 2.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 311 4.5 (0.21) 1.80 0.22 $3,060 0.76 1.28
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 292 5.5 (0.24) 1.70 0.32 $611 5.26 8.40
Efficiency & PV/Battery (19) 311 9.5 (0.11) 1.69 0.33 $6,432 0.39 1.69
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,180 0 n/a n/a 1.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,428 0 5.0 0.00 0.92 0.15 $4,154 1.12 1.40
Efficiency-Equipment 3,177 0 6.0 0.00 0.87 0.21 $2,108 2.88 3.30
Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 0.50 $10,532 1.70 1.47
Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 22.0 2.32 0.35 0.73 $16,283 1.45 1.59
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,180 0 0.0 0.00 1.08 0.94 ($5,349) 0.54 1.83
Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 1.44 $5,184 1.56 >1
Neutral Cost 2,092 0 7.0 1.36 0.79 1.23 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
109 2019-07-17
Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 13
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 135 n/a n/a 2.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 123 3.0 (0.05) 2.12 0.18 $831 0.63 1.27
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 121 3.0 (0.07) 2.10 0.21 $290 1.95 3.75
Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 123 10.5 0.00 1.95 0.35 $2,649 0.43 1.82
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,849 0 n/a n/a 1.36 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,629 0 3.0 0.00 1.24 0.12 $1,011 1.31 1.56
Efficiency-Equipment 1,590 0 3.5 0.00 1.21 0.16 $795 1.98 2.28
Efficiency & PV 501 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 0.56 $3,462 2.12 1.71
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 23.5 1.11 0.44 0.92 $6,362 1.41 1.82
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,849 0 0.0 0.00 1.36 0.94 ($2,337) 0.63 1.54
Efficiency & PV 63 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 1.50 $1,125 3.22 >1
Neutral Cost 773 0 8.5 0.70 0.94 1.36 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
110 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas
Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary
Climate Zone 14
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.57 2.46
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 3.95 6.14
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,004 1.45 1.92
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 0.95 1.46
Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.29 3.13
Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.21 1.62
Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $15,872 1.40 1.65
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3 Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.72 1.67
Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.01 >1
Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 0.00 >1
Min Cost Effectiveness 1,853 0 10.0 1.61 1.12 1.23 ($1,000) 1.24 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,
Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
111 2019-07-17
Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 14
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.73 1.21
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 1.96 2.99
Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,669 1.21 1.53
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.24 1.65
Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 1.59 2.20
Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 1.39 1.91
Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,093 1.42 1.86
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 1.13 1.48
Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.57 >1
Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.7 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
112 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 14 SDGE
Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary
Climate Zone 14
SDG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.92 2.46
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 4.88 6.14
Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,004 1.36 1.92
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 1.30 1.46
Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.92 3.13
Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.80 1.62
Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $15,872 1.73 1.65
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.60 1.67
Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.94 >1
Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
113 2019-07-17
Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 14
SDG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.93 1.21
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 2.48 2.99
Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,669 0.57 1.53
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.47 1.65
Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 2.00 2.20
Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 2.16 1.91
Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,093 1.77 1.86
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 0.51 1.48
Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.60 >1
Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
114 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 15
Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary
Climate Zone 15
SCE/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 149 n/a n/a 1.69 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 141 4.5 (0.43) 1.56 0.13 $2,179 1.00 1.58
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 132 4.5 (0.45) 1.51 0.18 ($936) >1 >1
Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 141 7.0 (0.34) 1.38 0.32 $5,521 1.25 1.65
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,149 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,230 0 5.5 0.00 1.12 0.20 $4,612 1.12 1.58
Efficiency-Equipment 866 0 7.0 0.00 1.04 0.28 $2,108 3.30 4.47
Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.22 $5,085 1.12 1.57
Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 13.0 0.83 0.84 0.48 $10,860 1.22 1.61
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,149 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.37 ($5,349) 1.73 2.21
Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.59 ($264) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 23 0 6.0 1.36 1.13 0.57 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each
case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology.
Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
115 2019-07-17
Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 15
SCE/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 93 n/a n/a 2.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 92 4.0 (0.15) 2.42 0.11 $510 1.35 2.28
Efficiency-Equipment 0 86 4.0 (0.16) 2.33 0.20 ($157) >1 >1
Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 92 8.5 (0.10) 2.13 0.40 $2,317 1.45 1.91
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 1,243 0 n/a n/a 1.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 954 0 4.0 0.00 1.61 0.17 $1,011 1.50 2.28
Efficiency-Equipment 764 0 6.0 0.00 1.50 0.29 $1,954 1.24 1.72
Efficiency & PV 548 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 0.28 $1,826 1.43 2.07
Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 0 16.5 0.62 1.08 0.70 $4,732 1.42 1.91
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 1,243 0 0.0 0.00 1.78 0.75 ($2,337) 6.36 2.35
Efficiency & PV 68 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 1.03 ($511) >1 >1
Neutral Cost 78 0 7.5 0.70 1.48 1.05 $0 >1 >1
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
116 2019-07-17
Climate Zone 16
Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary
Climate Zone 16
PG&E
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant (0) 605 n/a n/a 3.31 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 454 5.0 0.01 2.59 0.72 $3,542 1.62 1.46
Efficiency-Equipment 0 474 6.0 (0.08) 2.66 0.65 $2,441 2.19 2.20
Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 454 10.5 0.10 2.36 0.95 $6,877 0.93 1.47
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 7,694 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 5,696 0 9.5 0.00 1.38 0.35 $5,731 1.72 1.69
Efficiency-Equipment 6,760 0 4.5 0.00 1.55 0.18 $2,108 2.36 2.32
Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 0.79 $16,582 2.09 1.62
Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 35.0 3.45 0.64 1.09 $22,315 1.75 1.58
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3 Code Compliant 7,694 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.58 ($5,349) 0.31 0.68
Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 2.37 $11,234 1.55 2.02
Neutral Cost 5,398 0 8.5 1.35 1.51 1.80 $0 0.00 0.74
Min Cost Effectiveness 3,358 0 16.0 2.56 1.32 1.99 ($4,753) 1.24 1.40
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV,
Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
117 2019-07-17
Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit)
Climate Zone 16
PG&E
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
PV Size
Change
(kW)5
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions (lbs/sf)
NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
1 Code Compliant 0 206 n/a n/a 3.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 172 2.0 0.03 3.02 0.44 $937 1.11 1.19
Efficiency-Equipment (0) 183 2.5 (0.02) 3.12 0.33 $453 1.76 2.15
Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 172 9.5 0.08 2.65 0.80 $2,741 0.52 1.41
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
2
Code Compliant 2,699 0 n/a n/a 1.86 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,329 0 4.0 0.00 1.70 0.16 $843 2.08 2.05
Efficiency-Equipment 2,470 0 3.0 0.00 1.74 0.13 $795 1.59 1.70
Efficiency & PV 518 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 0.63 $4,423 2.58 1.89
Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 29.5 1.42 0.75 1.11 $7,245 1.71 1.76
Mi
x
e
d
F
u
e
l
t
o
Al
l
-El
e
c
t
r
i
c
3
Code Compliant 2,699 0 0.0 0.00 1.86 1.59 ($2,337) 0.43 1.03
Efficiency & PV 65 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 2.22 $2,087 2.87 >1
Neutral Cost 1,518 0 10.0 0.70 1.56 1.90 $0 >1 2.58
1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home.
2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home.
3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case
which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs
differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).
4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency &
PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.
5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Cost-effectiveness Study:
Low-Rise Residential
Addendum –
Cost Effectiveness Study of Santa Monica
Proposed Ordinance Requiring
Photovoltaic (PV) Systems on Residential
Additions
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc.
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: August 28, 2019
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility
customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may
be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method,
product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any
privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study – Santa Monica PV for Additions
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
2 Methodology and Assumptions.......................................................................................................................... 2
3 Results & Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Cost Effectiveness Results ........................................................................................................3
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions
2 2019-08-28
1 Introduction
This addendum presents results from analysis conducted in response to a request from the City of Santa Monica
to evaluate the cost effectiveness of requiring the installation of solar photovoltaic systems for major residential
additions. The City has defined major additions to include any building whenever an additional story is added,
and any building where more than a cumulative of fifty percent of the existing floor area is added. The proposed
requirements for major additions are as follows:
• Install a PV system with minimum capacity equal to:
o Single-family detached & duplexes: 1.5 watts (W) per square foot (sq ft) of the addition
o All other occupancies: 2 W per sq ft of the addition’s footprint
The requirements of this section shall be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where:
• Production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and
feasible unshaded areas,
• If the PV system size required is less than 1,200 W, or
• All-electric building systems
This analysis builds upon the results of the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New
Construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) conducted for the California Statewide Codes and Standards
Program and last modified August 1, 2019, which evaluated compliance packages across all sixteen California
climate zones.
2 Methodology and Assumptions
This analysis evaluated three scenarios, described below:
1. 2,100 square feet (sq ft) 1-story Single Family (SF) prototype with an 800 sq ft second story addition.
• PV sized to 1.5 watts per sq ft (W/sq ft) of addition area
2. 2,700 sq ft 2-story SF prototype with a 1,350 sq ft 2-story addition.
• PV sized to 1.5 W/sq ft of addition area
3. 6,960 sq ft 8-unit 2-story Multifamily (MF) prototype with a 3,480 sq ft 4-unit 1-story addition.
• PV sized to 2W/sq ft of addition footprint area.
All three scenarios assume natural gas is provided and used to serve space and water heating, cooking and
clothes drying end uses.
SCE's TOU-D-4-9 rate was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness.
Single family PV costs applied in the statewide study reflect systems 2.5 kilowatt (kW) and greater. Smaller
systems, such as the proposed minimum 1.2 kW system, likely will be more expensive on a per kW basis due to
fixed costs for the PV installation. Data from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun (Barbose et al., 2018) show an average 25%
increase in cost for a 1.2kW system relative to a 3kW system for new construction installations in 2016 and
2017.1 Data for existing home installations showed an increase in cost of about 20% for smaller sized systems.
For the purpose of this study, single family PV costs were assumed to be 25% higher than those applied in the
statewide study. Assumptions for the solar investment tax credit, overhead and profit, inverter replacement,
and maintenance costs are the same as in the statewide report.
1 While the Tracking the Sun report contains 2018 data, the public data files do not include data more recent
than 2017.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions
3 2019-08-28
Single family PV system costs from the statewide report were used for the multifamily additions assumptions
since the proposed system for the example case evaluated (approximately 7 kW) is more similar to a large single
family system than a larger non-residential system.
All other applicable assumptions from the residential new construction analysis were applied.
Refer to the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction (Statewide Reach Codes
Team, 2019) for further details. Key components of the methodology are repeated below.
Cost-effectiveness
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and
quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures as compared
to the 2019 prescriptive Title 24 requirements. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they
value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use.
• Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based
upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility
rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy inflation.
• Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture
the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of
providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for
carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use
differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.
Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved)
during off-peak periods (Horii et al, 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in
evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which
represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future
savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over
the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater
than one represents a positive return on investment.
3 Results & Discussion
The analysis found all cases evaluated to be cost-effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches.
The Reach Code Team also recommends adding an exemption for homes with existing PV systems that meet or
exceed the size requirements determined by the proposed code.
Table 1: Summary of Cost Effectiveness Results
Climate Zone 6
SCE/SoCalGas®
Annual
Gross
kWh
Annual
Net kWh
(Gross-
PV
Product
ion)
Annual
therms
PV
Size
(kW)
CO2-Equivalent
Emissions
(pounds/sq ft CFA) NPV of
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost ($)
NPV of Lifetime
Savings
Benefit to Cost
Ratio (B/C)
Total Reduction On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
SF 2100+800 sq ft
2nd story addition 4,187 2,293 270 1.20 1.57 0.14 $5,783 $5,935 $7,611 1.03 1.32
SF 2700+1350 sq ft
2-story addition 5,052 1,855 377 2.02 1.45 0.18 $9,758 $10,792 $12,570 1.11 1.29
MF 6960+3480 sq ft
1-story addition 32,840 21,851 1,363 6.96 2.65 0.24 $27,507 $33,799 $45,261 1.23 1.65
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study - Santa Monica PV for Additions
4 2019-08-28
4 References
Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic
Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018.
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf
Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2019. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. July 2019.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes
Title 24, Part 6
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
Cost Effectiveness Study:
All Electric Heat Pump Pool Heating -
Non-Preempted
Prepared for:
Jeremy Reefe
Codes and Standards Program
San Diego Gas and Electric
Prepared by:
Energy Solutions
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: August 18, 2019
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by San Diego Gas & Electric Company and funded by the California utility
customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2019, San Diego Gas & Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document
may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither SDG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information,
method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe
any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
2018-11-16
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
2 Methodology and Assumptions.................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Swimming Pool Prototype and Assumptions. .................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Existing Pool Heating Regulations ............................................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Federal Preemption ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Technology and Measure Descriptions ............................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Gas Pool Heater Technology Summary .................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 HPPH Technology Summary ..................................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Pool Heater Sizing Methodology and Industry Trends ............................................................ 6
2.2.4 Base case Description .............................................................................................................. 7
2.2.5 Measure case Description ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2.6 Equipment Cost ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 9
3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Key Assumptions and Analysis Sensitivities ................................................................................... 11
3.2 Conclusions & Summary ................................................................................................................ 13
4 References ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A – Cost Effectiveness Details .......................................................................................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1: Average high and low temperatures in Santa Monica, CA ................................................................ 3
Table 2: Base case/ Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions ..................................................................... 9
Table 3: IOU Utility Tariffs and Rate Estimates .............................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................................................................................ 11
Table 5: Cost-effectiveness Details ................................................................................................................ 15
Table 6: Customer Utility Life-cycle Costs ...................................................................................................... 15
List of Figures
Figure 1: Common In-ground Pool Equipment and Plumbing Schematic ....................................................... 3
Figure 2: Brookhaven National Labs COP Test Results, Rheem Model 8320ti HPPH ...................................... 5
Figure 3: Heat Pump Pool Heater Performance .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 4: Equipment Cost Data ........................................................................................................................ 8
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
2 2019-08-18
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy
Commission, 2018) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the
code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes,
that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section
25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must
demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in
buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain
approval from the CEC and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
This report documents the assumptions and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an all-electric heat
pump pool heater (HPPH) to a gas pool heater when a pool has pool heating supply. Currently Title 24
Part 6 bans electric resistance pool heating unless 60% of annual pool heating demand is met by site-
solar or recovered energy. Additionally, if a pool is heated by a heat pump or gas pool heater, a pool
cover is required (California Energy Commission, 2018).
The 2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) study (KEMA, 2010) shows that 57% of pools in
SCE territory have some form of pool heating (natural gas, solar thermal, electricity or propane) and the
vast majority (80%) use natural gas. Furthermore, in Santa Monica’s climate zone — Energy Commission
Climate Zone 6 — homes with a pool and/or spa use 277 therms of natural gas per year. While natural
gas pool heaters have historically dominated the residential pool heating market in California, based on
conversations with manufacturers, HPPHs are much more common in other major pool markets such as
Florida. In Florida, a combination of mild temperatures and low electricity prices have historically made
HPPHs a cost-effective choice for many pool owners.
An important note to highlight is that pool heating is not required in new pool construction. In fact, as
noted above, 43% of pool owners in SCE territory do not have a pool heater. In many climates
supplemental heating systems are unnecessary and in others a solar thermal pool cover provides
enough heating. Pool heating systems are often added to extend the summer swim season into the
spring and fall months. Renewable solar thermal energy systems are also relatively common, however it
is not always practical due to roof-space, shading, or its inability to provide heating on-demand, and
therefore not a suitable substitute for all pool heating systems in all residences.
In summary, the proposed code change in this report requires that heated pools use site-solar or
recovered thermal energy, and/or a HPPH. Therefore, the analysis in this report focuses exclusively on
the cost-effectiveness of a HPPH compared to the base case of a gas pool heater.
2 Methodology and Assumptions
This analysis uses a site energy savings methodology with customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) analysis
valuing energy based upon estimated site energy usage and utility rate schedules. This methodology
requires estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures, as
well as quantifying the costs associated with the measures from the customer’s perspective.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
3 2019-08-18
2.1 Swimming Pool Prototype and Assumptions.
In proposing the first-in-the-nation swimming pool building code standards (which the CEC ultimately
adopted) in 2008, the IOU Codes and Standards Team used a 20,000 gallon in-ground swimming pool to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various measures for new pool construction (PG&E and Sempra
Energy, 2007). Similarly, this analysis assumes a 20,000 gallon in-ground swimming pool in evaluating
the cost-effectiveness of pool heating equipment.
Figure 1: Common In-ground Pool Equipment and Plumbing Schematic
Source: (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2009)
This analysis makes two other key assumptions about the average pool:
• Pool Temperature: The desired temperature for the heated pool is 80°F.
• Swim Season: Pool heating is generally used to extend the summer swim season. This analysis
assumes heating occurs on weekends March through October, as shown below in Table 1. Note
that because the model was calibrated to match RASS annual gas consumption of 277 therms
(KEMA, 2010), the actual hours of run-time are less important, but useful in determining
temperature conditions for heat pump performance.
Table 1: Average high and low temperatures in Santa Monica, CA
Source: (U.S. Climate Data, 2019)
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average high °F 64 63 62 63 64 66 69 70 71 70 67 65
Average low °F 50 51 52 54 56 59 62 63 63 59 54 51
Average °F 57 57 57 58.5 60 62.5 65.5 66.5 67 64.5 60.5 58
Assumed Pool Heating Season
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
4 2019-08-18
2.1.1 Existing Pool Heating Regulations
Pool heaters are currently regulated through a variety of state and federal energy efficiency standards
and building codes. This measure will not conflict with any of these standards, but they are briefly
summarized below for context.
• Title 24 Part 6: California has had building code standards in effect since 2010. The code bans
electric resistance pool heating unless 60% of annual pool heating demand is met by site-solar
or recovered energy. Additionally, if a pool is heated by a heat pump or gas pool heater, a pool
cover is required (California Energy Commission, 2018).
• Title 20: California has had an appliance standard for HPPHs since 2003. The current standard
requires an average coefficient of performance (COP) of 3.5 between the COP of the 80°F test
point and 50 °F test point (California Energy Commission, 2019).
• Federal: The Department of Energy (DOE) has minimum energy efficiency standards for gas-fired
pool heaters. The current standard requires pool heaters have an 82% thermal efficiency
(Department of Energy, 2010).
2.1.2 Federal Preemption
As mentioned above, DOE sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are
federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling,
and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher
minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and
evaluate cost-effective measures that do not include high efficiency federally regulated equipment. This
measure proposes requiring a CA Title 20 regulating HPPH, not requiring a higher efficiency federally
regulated gas pool heater, therefore preemption is not an issue. Pool heaters (gas and HPPH) are now
both rated with a DOE test procedure (Code of Federal Regulations, 2019).
2.2 Technology and Measure Descriptions
The technology analyzed in this report is mature; there is enough data on product performance due to
decades of efficiency standards. However, data on the application and sizing pool heating is limited. This
study selected pool heaters and capacities based on experience, conversations with manufacturers and
expert pool professionals.
2.2.1 Gas Pool Heater Technology Summary
Gas pool heaters utilize a combustion chamber and heat exchanger to warm the water supplied from
the filtration pump, before returning to the pool. It should be noted that gas pool heaters are rated and
advertised based on input capacity. To get to output capacity, input capacity is multiplied by the thermal
efficiency, or roughly 82% based on DOE minimum standards.
2.2.2 HPPH Technology Summary
A HPPH uses a heat pump to move and transfer heat from the surrounding air to the pool water through
a heat exchanger. HPPHs are rated on output capacity and are typically advertised at their high air
temperature (80°F), high humidity (80% relative humidity), and 80°F water temperature test point
(commonly denoted as 80/80/80). This is one of the test points required by California’s Title 20
appliance standards (California Energy Commission, 2019). This is unlike gas heaters typically advertised
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
5 2019-08-18
based on input capacity. HPPHs also are rated at other conditions such as 80/63/80, 50/63/80 and
80/63/104 (spa conditions) as required by the CEC and an Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
equipment databases (AHRI, 2019). At each output capacity for these ratings, a COP value is produced
which is a function of useful heat compared to work required, or in other words a measurement of how
efficient the heat pump is at the given conditions.
2.2.2.1 Determining COP for Modeling
COP data published at standard conditions by CEC is useful, however outside conditions are always
changing, so determining the exact COP at any given temperature is challenging. There is not a linear
relationship and unlike other heat pump applications, publicly available modeling software does not
exist for HPPHs. However, a 2009 study at Brookhaven National Labs conducted testing of pool heating
equipment and for at least one particular model found COPs to be relatively stable from roughly 57°F
and up, but COP declined below 57°F as would be expected (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2009).
Figure 2: Brookhaven National Labs COP Test Results, Rheem Model 8320ti HPPH
Source: (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2009)
To determine what COP to use in modeling energy consumption for HPPHs for this analysis, the CEC
database was leveraged to determine average performance. Figure 3 below plots the 325 models of
HPPHs in the CEC database of August 2019. As mentioned previously, CEC has had an appliance standard
for HPPHs since 2003 requiring the average of the standard (warm) and low temperature condition COP
values to be greater than 3.5. Currently the database shows the lowest average COP at the warm and
low temperature conditions to be 4.0, significantly higher than the standard. Furthermore, taking a
simple average of the “average COPs” yields a COP of 4.8 (MAEDbS, 2019). As Figure 3 below shows, in
warm conditions, COPs mostly range between 5 and 6.5. Therefore, given the HPPH will likely operate
mostly during the warmer swim season using TOU rates, mostly during warmer day-time off-peak hours,
a COP of 4.8 was selected as a reasonable middle ground between a code minimum and likely real-world
performance.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
6 2019-08-18
Figure 3: Heat Pump Pool Heater Performance
Source: (MAEDbS, 2019)
2.2.3 Pool Heater Sizing Methodology and Industry Trends
This analysis presents a range of cost-effectiveness for the measure due to two different likely base
cases. In practice, there is a range of pool heater sizing recommendations in the market, especially for
gas pool heaters. In many cases gas pool heater sizing has long been influenced by “bigger is better.”
Pool heaters are often sized for a worst-case winter-heating scenario and the ability to raise the
temperature of the pool in a certain period on a cold day. There are advantages to large capacity gas
pool heaters as they can heat a pool or spa more quickly than a smaller capacity pool heater, for a
relatively low incremental cost. However, this often leads to significantly oversized equipment for in
residential applications, especially in mild climates like southern California.
In the CEC database, the average residential gas pool heater capacity (where residential is defined as
<400 kBTUinput) is 270 kBTUinput (or ~226 kBTUoutput assuming a DOE minimum efficiency of 82%), whereas
the average residential pool heater heat pump is 107 kBTUoutput. Heat pump pool heaters have a much
narrower band of capacities in the market and in the residential segment generally have a maximum
capacity of 140 kBTUoutput (MAEDbS, 2019).
Pool heaters of a 140 kBTUoutput capacity (gas or HPPH) in a normal climate would operate the same and
could meet make-up heat and start-up heating demands for the average pool in Santa Monica’s climate.
However, it will do so slower than a 400 kBTUinput gas heater.
In general, while not intuitive, most pool heater sizing recommendations yield higher capacity gas
heaters compared to heat pumps. For example, according to the online retailer poolcenter.com, a 300
kBTUinput (or 246 kBTUoutput) sized pool heater would be recommended for a 20,000 gallon pool.
However, for HPPHs, the same poolcenter.com website states “For pool heat pump sizing, as a general
rule, plan on 50,000 BTU of pool heat pump for every 10,000 gallons of pool water” (Pool Center, 2019).
Therefore, it is recommended to have roughly a 100 kBTUoutput pool heater for a 20,000 gallon pool. This
is less than half of the capacity recommended for a gas pool heater of 246 kBTUoutput.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
7 2019-08-18
As another example of this technology disconnect, for Raypack (one of the largest pool heater
manufacturers), the largest in-ground heat pump manufactured is 140 kBTUoutput and the smallest in-
ground gas pool heater is 200 kBTUinput or 164 kBTUoutput (Raypack Inc., 2019). There is no overlap in
capacities for products marketed to the same sized pools. Since the capacity of a gas heater has
significant bearing on the first cost, and for reasons explained above, the measure is evaluated against
two base cases as described below.
2.2.4 Base case Description
Large Sized (266 kBTUinput/ 218 kBTUoutput) Gas Pool Heater: This base case is designed to reflect the
capacity of a “large” gas pool heater. This pool heater size reflects the average gas pool heater size in
the CEC database of 275 kBTUinput. Heaters of this capacity are able to heat a pool faster than a right-
sized pool heater and are generally recommended when a spa is attached to allow for quick heat-ups of
the spa on demand. Therefore, the representative unit selected is a 266 kBTUinput pool heater (a
commonly available size) with a DOE minimum thermal efficiency of 82%, yielding an output capacity of
218 kBTUoutput. The equipment cost of a pool heater of this capacity is estimated to be $1,832 with an
equipment lifetime of 10 years. A pool heater of this size will be able to heat a 20,000-gallon pool from
57°F (Santa Monica’s average air temperature in March) to 80°F in roughly 18 hours, representative of a
spring “pool opening” heat-up.
Right Sized (135 kBTUinput/ 111 kBTUoutput) Gas Pool Heater: This base case is designed to reflect the
capacity of a smaller, but “right-sized” gas pool heater. This pool heater will heat slightly slower from
cold temperatures but will be able to meet heat loss recovery throughout the swim season. Pool heaters
of this size may not be recommended when a spa is attached due to increased time for spa heat-up, but
there is plenty of capacity to do so should pool owners allow the time. The representative unit is a
standard-sized 135 kBTUinput pool heater (a commonly available size) with a DOE minimum thermal
efficiency of 82%, yielding an output capacity of 111 kBTUoutput. The equipment cost of a pool heater of
this capacity is estimated to be $1,426 with an equipment lifetime of 10 years. A pool heater of this size
will be able to heat a 20,000-gallon pool from 57°F to 80°F in roughly 35 hours.
2.2.5 Measure case Description
This following is a description of the efficiency measures applied in this analysis.
Standard Capacity (110 kBTUoutput) Heat Pump Pool Heater: This measure case is designed to reflect the
capacity of a standard-sized HPPH. This pool heater size roughly reflects the average HPPH capacity in
the CEC database of 107 kBTUoutput at outside air conditions of 80°F. In mild conditions, generally above
60 degrees, this pool heater will be able to perform in a similar capacity to the right-sized 111 kBTU pool
heater referenced above. At lower temperatures down to 50°F, it will work sufficiently, just at a lower
COP. Again, pool heaters of this size are sometimes not recommended when a spa is attached due to
increased time for spa heat-up, though it is possible with additional time. The representative unit is a
standard-sized 110 kBTUoutput pool heater (a commonly available size) with a COP of 4.8, given the
temperate conditions in Santa Monica during the swimming pool heating season (the reasoning for this
COP value is explained above in Section 2.2.2.1). The equipment cost of a pool heater of this capacity is
estimated to be $2,895 with an equipment lifetime of 10 years. Similar to the right-sized gas pool heater
base case, a pool heater of this size will be able to heat a 20,000-gallon pool from 57°F to 80°F in
roughly 35 hours.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
8 2019-08-18
2.2.6 Equipment Cost
To determine equipment costs, data was gathering from the online pool equipment retailer InyoPools
for three common pool heater brands that make both inground pool gas pool heaters and HPPHs:
Raypack, Pentair and Hayward (InyoPools.com, 2019). A linear regression model was then created to
model the equipment price of the representative units.
Figure 4: Equipment Cost Data
Source: (InyoPools.com, 2019)
Using the data and linear regression above in Figure 4, costs for the representative equipment is
displayed below in Table 2. Additional gas and electrical costs are displayed as well.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
9 2019-08-18
Table 2: Base case/ Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level Cost Source & Notes
Large Sized
(218
kBTUoutput)
Gas Pool
Heater
82% thermal
efficiency
$1,832 Average cost of 266,000 BTU input gas pool heater based on
data collected and created linear regression model:
http://www.inyopools.com/category_heaters.aspx
Right- Sized
(111
kBTUoutput)
Gas Pool
Heater
82% thermal
efficiency
$1,426 Average cost of 135,000 BTU input gas pool heater based on
data collected and analyzed linear regression model:
http://www.inyopools.com/category_heaters.aspx
Standard
Capacity (111
kBTUoutput)
Heat Pump
Pool Heater
COP of 4.8 $2,895 Average cost of 110,000 BTU output gas pool heater based on
data collected and analyzed linear regression model:
http://www.inyopools.com/category_heaters.aspx
Incremental
Gas Line
Extension
Cost for Gas
Heaters
N/A $200 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New
Construction Study:
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldLi
st/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes
Incremental
Electrical
Hardware for
Heat Pump
Pool Heater
N/A $5 Incremental cost for a 220v 40amp circuit breaker over a 120v
20amp circuit breaker.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D-Homeline-40-
Amp-2-Pole-Circuit-Breaker-HOM240CP/202353324
2.3 Cost Effectiveness
The current residential utility rates at the time of the analysis were used to calculate utility costs for all
cases and determine cost effectiveness for the base and measure case. Annual utility costs were
calculated using monthly electricity and gas consumption and applying the utility tariffs summarized in
Table 3. The standard residential rate (TOU-D in SCE territory for electricity, & GR in SoCal Gas for gas)
was applied to the base case and measure case. Pool heating was assumed to occur during off-peak
hours aligning with the recommended operating times of pool pumping and general day-time hours
during high pool usage. Electric rates represent a simple average of winter and summer off-peak rates
and gas rates represent a simple of average of baseline and non-baseline rates. Projections of rate
escalations reflect forecasted rate increases as documented by the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-
Rise Residential New Construction Appendix B: Utility Rate Tariffs (CA IOUs, 2019).
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
10 2019-08-18
Table 3: IOU Utility Tariffs and Rate Estimates
Electric / Gas
Utility
Electricity Tariff
(Time-of-use)
Natural Gas
Tariff
SCE /SoCal Gas TOU-D* GR**
Year $/ kWh $/ therm
2020 $ 0.19 $ 1.30
2021 $ 0.19 $ 1.35
2022 $ 0.20 $ 1.40
2023 $ 0.20 $ 1.46
2024 $ 0.21 $ 1.52
2025 $ 0.21 $ 1.58
2026 $ 0.21 $ 1.60
2027 $ 0.22 $ 1.61
2028 $ 0.22 $ 1.63
2029 $ 0.22 $ 1.64
* Assumes a simple average of summer and winter off-peak rates
** Assumes a simple average of baseline and non-baseline rates
Source: (CA IOUs, 2019)
The benefit-to-cost ratio is a metric which represents the cost effectiveness of the measure over the 10-
year estimated equipment lifetime, including discounting of future savings. All costs are assumed to
occur in year zero and are not financed. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure
are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive
return on investment. The ratio is calculated as follows where the discount rate is 3%.
Equation 1
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶=𝑁𝑁𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉𝐿𝐿 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵
Simple payback is also calculated based on the first incremental cost and the average energy savings
over the 10 years of the equipment life. Maintenance costs were not included because there are no
known incremental maintenance costs expected for any of these measures. See Table 4 below for final
results and Table 5 and Table 6 in Appendix A for more details.
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
11 2019-08-18
Table 4: Cost-Effectiveness Results
Measure
Electrical
Savings
(kWh)
Gas Savings
(therms)
% GHG
Savings
by
20291
Incremental
Cost
Year 1 Utility
Cost Savings
Simple
Payback
Lifecycle
B/C
Ratio
HPPH replacing
Right-sized Gas
Pool Heater
(1,355)
277 83% $ 1,274 $ 105 9.7
0.87
HPPH replacing
Large-sized Gas
Pool Heater
(1,355)
277 83% $ 868 $ 105 6.6
1.27
1Avoided GHG emissions from the adoption of this measure are calculated in accordance with California’s projected emissions
factors as outlined in the 2017 update to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) scoping plan to meet the 2030 greenhouse
gas targets (CARB 2017). By 2029, at the end of the design life, annual statewide emissions are projected to be 180
MtCO2e/GWh for electricity and 5,556 MtCO2e/MMtherm for natural gas.
3 Results
The cost-effective analysis presents mixed results, depending on the assumed base case heating
scenario. According to Table 4, if the large sized gas pool heater is assumed to be the baseline, then the
HPPH measure is cost-effective with a B/C ratio of 1.27. If a right-sized gas pool heater is assumed to be
the baseline, then the HPPH is not cost-effective with a B/C ratio of 0.87. This report identified the size
of the base case gas pool heater to be a key variable in cost-effectiveness, therefore results for both
base cases were presented for consideration. However, there are several other factors this cost-
effectiveness analysis is sensitive to which are described in greater detail below.
3.1 Key Assumptions and Analysis Sensitivities
• Rate changes: This proposal is a fuel-switching measure therefore it is highly sensitive to tariff
changes or rate increases and decreases for both gas and electricity. This measure would not be
cost-effective for either base case if there were not significant rate increases planned in SCG’s
territory in the next few years. The analysis also assumes that pool heating is performed during
off-peak hours, meaning not 4pm-9pm. Because the pool filter pump is needed to pump water
through the pool heater, it makes sense that the vast majority of pool and spa heating occur
during off-peak hours. However, if hourly or daily pool heating data were made available
showing pool heating occurs at any significant amount during on-peak hours, this could impact
the cost-effectiveness.
• Gas Consumption Data Granularity: The model was calibrated to the annual gas consumption of
pool and spa heating in the RASS 2009 study of 277 therms (229 for pool heating and 48 for spa
heating) (KEMA, 2010). Monthly estimates of gas consumption are not available in RASS or any
other studies the report authors could identify. Monthly pool heater usage or energy
consumption data would be especially helpful to align with monthly weather data to better
estimate HPPH performance (COPs) and to better align with seasonal electric and gas rate
changes.
• Gas infrastructure costs: This analysis assumed an avoided cost of $200 per gas appliance, the
same value used in the 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
12 2019-08-18
Study (CA IOUs, 2019). However, because pool heaters are located outside and sometimes
further away from the house, this could underestimate the avoided cost of running a gas line
extension to a backyard. Additionally, it should be noted that this analysis essentially assumes
that gas service is already at the home and does not count gas main extensions, service lateral or
a gas meter costs towards the cost of a gas pool heater. If a gas pool heater is the only gas
appliance at a home, and these costs were added as incremental costs, this would make the
HPPH cost-effective by a significant margin.
• Pool heater sizing: As has been described in this report, the analysis is highly sensitive to pool
heater sizing assumptions. The pool heating industry has numerous “rules of thumb” about pool
heater sizing. In a mild climate like Santa Monica’s, most pool heaters ranging from 100 kBTU to
400 kBTU will work, with the larger capacity units providing heating more quickly.
Understanding consumer preferences and installed market data of pool heater capacity would
help refine the base case scenarios and thus provide a more accurate estimate of the cost
effectiveness of HPPHs.
• COP of HPPHs: Data and studies of the performance of HPPHs is very limited and manufacturers
do not report or even generate COP as a function of temperature curves, so it can be challenging
to model exact performance. This analysis interpolated as best as possible from the Brookhaven
National Lab pool heater testing study and CEC appliance database to estimate COP values.
Should better data become available, it would allow more precise modeling of COP as
temperature conditions change throughout the year.
• Labor installation costs: The cost to install both gas heaters and HPPHs was assumed to be the
same across both the base cases and the measure, though it is possible one might take more
time to install than the other, but there is no data to support any differences. Interviews with
pool contractors could help provide insight into these installation costs.
• Market acceptance: HPPHs are not a new technology for pool heating and have been deployed
in other pool markets for many years. However, they have had only a very small market share in
CA historically. As has been described, gas pool heaters have larger capacities and the ability to
heat water more quickly than HPPHs. Based on internet reviews, this “fast-heating” capacity is
most appreciated by pool owners whose pools have attached in-ground spas as they may not
want to wait for a longer “heat up” with a HPPH. It should be noted that recently the market has
responded to consumers wanting both the efficiency of a HPPH and the faster heating capacity
of a gas pool heater with the manufacturer Pentair launching a hybrid HPPH and gas heater in
2018.1 If having a “fast-heating” pool heater option was deemed necessary for pool owners with
an attached spa it could alter this analysis and any code recommendations. For example, should
a minimum attached spa heat-up time be required (e.g. no more than ~2 hours), the code could
be written such that HPPHs be required for stand-alone pools, and gas or hybrid (gas & HPPH)
heaters could be allowed for pools with attached spas. However, this is a policy judgement
beyond the scope of this report. To assess this question of HPPH market acceptance further,
interviews could be conducted with manufacturers and equipment installers in markets with a
1 https://www.pentair.com/en/products/pool-spa-equipment/pool-heaters/ultratemp-hybrid-
heater.html
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
13 2019-08-18
high saturation of HPPHs to understand if their performance is a barrier for pool owners with
attached spas.
3.2 Conclusions & Summary
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost effectiveness of an “above code” ordinance for residential
pool heating. This ordinance proposes newly constructed heated pools to be heated with site-solar or
recovered energy, and/or a HPPH. Specifically, this report looks at the cost-effectiveness of HPPHs as
compared to the largely incumbent gas heater in the residential sector. As displayed in Table 3, there is
a significant opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases using HPPHs and the measure can be cost-
effective depending on certain assumptions and variables. Fortunately, HPPHs are not an emerging
technology and enjoy a long-term track record of energy savings success in other major pool markets.
Established manufacturers, training resources and supply chains make HPPHs an attractive energy
savings and GHG reduction opportunity. As technology improves and as utility rates change, the value
proposition of HPPHs is likely to become increasingly attractive over time.
In conclusion, this report has identified a cost-effective option to meet above-code performance levels
for pool heating in the City of Santa Monica that could be evaluated further for potential adopted by
other cities and counties within investor-owned utility territories across California.
4 References
AHRI. (2019, August 15). Heat Pump Pool Heater Certification. Retrieved from Air-Conditioning Heating
and Refrigeration Institute: http://www.ahrinet.org/HPPHcertification
Brookhaven National Laboratory. (2009, January). Performance Study of Swimming Pool Heaters. BNL-
93715-2009-IR. Retrieved from https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/73878.pdf
CA IOUs. (2019, August 1). California Investor Owned Utilities Residential New Construction Cost-
effectiveness Study. Retrieved from Local Energy Reach Codes:
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach
%20Codes
California Energy Commission. (2018, December). Mandatory Requirements for Pool and Spa Systems
and Equipment. Title 24 Part 6 Section 110.4. Retrieved from
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2019, May). Title 20 Appliance Standards. Retrieved from
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-140-2019-002/CEC-140-2019-002.pdf
Code of Federal Regulations. (2019, August 15). Appendix P to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Pool Heaters. Retrieved from
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=f01078cf11fc9bd68b4cce765b1551e8&mc=true&node=pt10.3.430&rgn=div5
Department of Energy. (2010, April 16). Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters,
Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters. Retrieved from
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/04/16/2010-7611/energy-conservation-
program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-water-heaters-direct
InyoPools.com. (2019, August 14). Pool Heaters. Retrieved from
http://www.inyopools.com/category_heaters.aspx
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
14 2019-08-18
KEMA. (2010). California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) Database. Retrieved
from http://websafe.kemainc.com/rass2009/Default.aspx
MAEDbS. (2019, August 15). Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System. Retrieved from
California Energy Commission:
https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx
PG&E and Sempra Energy. (2007, February 19). Draft Report Residential Swimming Pools Codes and
Standards Enhancement Initiative (CASE) Report. Retrieved from
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=46132&DocumentContentId=35298
Pool Center. (2019, August 8). Pool heater sizing guide. Retrieved from
https://www.poolcenter.com/heatersWhatSize
Raypack Inc. (2019, August 15). Pool and Spa Heaters. Retrieved from https://www.raypak.com/pool-
and-spa/
U.S. Climate Data. (2019, August 5). Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/santa-monica/california/united-states/usca1024
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
15 2019-08-18
Appendix A – Cost Effectiveness Details
Table 5: Cost-effectiveness Details
Source: (InyoPools.com, 2019), (MAEDbS, 2019), (KEMA, 2010)
Table 6: Customer Utility Life-cycle Costs
Source: (MAEDbS, 2019), (KEMA, 2010), (CA IOUs, 2019)
Heat Pump Pool Heater
Right-Sized Natural
Gas Pool Heater
Large-Sized Natural
Gas Pool Heater
Representative Unit Input
Capacity (BTU-hr)135,000 266,000
Representative Unit Output
Capacity (BTU-hr)110,000 111,000 218,000
Coefficient of Performance 4.8
kWh/year 1,377
Thermal Efficiency 82%82%
therms/ year 277 277
Equipment Lifetime 10 10 10
Representative Equipment Cost 2,895$ 1,426$ 1,832$
Incremental Electrical/ Gas
Equipment Costs 5$ 200.00$ 200.00$
Total Capital Cost 2,900$ 1,626$ 2,032$
BTUs/ $ (year one)86,415 63,318 63,318
10 Year NPV of Energy Costs 2,419$ 3,525$ 3,525$
Year $/ Therm Therms/ year Cost/ year $/ kWh kWh/yr Cost/ year
2020 1.30$ 276 357.17$ 0.19$ 1377 261.70$
2021 1.35$ 276 371.89$ 0.19$ 1377 266.94$
2022 1.40$ 276 387.21$ 0.20$ 1377 272.28$
2023 1.46$ 276 402.70$ 0.20$ 1377 277.72$
2024 1.52$ 276 418.80$ 0.21$ 1377 283.28$
2025 1.58$ 276 435.56$ 0.21$ 1377 288.94$
2026 1.60$ 276 439.91$ 0.21$ 1377 294.72$
2027 1.61$ 276 444.31$ 0.22$ 1377 297.67$
2028 1.63$ 276 448.75$ 0.22$ 1377 300.64$
2029 1.64$ 276 453.24$ 0.22$ 1377 303.65$
Gas Pool Heater Heat Pump Pool Heater
I
t
e
m
7
-
B
0
9
/
1
0
/
1
9
1
o
f
6
I
t
e
m
7
-
B
0
9
/
1
0
/
1
9
It
e
m
7-
B
09
/
1
0
/
1
9
2
of
6
It
e
m
7-
B
09
/
1
0
/
1
9
I
t
e
m
7
-
B
0
9
/
1
0
/
1
9
3
o
f
6
I
t
e
m
7
-
B
0
9
/
1
0
/
1
9
Memo
To: City of Santa Monica City Council
From: Erik Neandross, Acting Chair, Task Force on the Environment
Signature:
Date: September 4, 2019
Re: City of Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment Motions
Regarding Energy Reach Code
At the September 3, 2019 special meeting, the Task Force on the Environment
discussed and took action on the following agenda item:
Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action Regarding Energy Reach
Code
Drew Johnstone provide an update on the Energy and Green Building Reach
Code which applies to all new construction projects. This item will be presented
to Council on September 10, 2019, in order to go into effect January 1, 2020 in
line with the state building code (Title 24) update. After Council’s approval, this
Energy Reach Code will be reviewed by California Energy Commission for
approval.
Starting January 1, 2020, new buildings in the State of California will have two
design pathways for complying with the Energy Code, all-electric design or
mixed-fuel design. As an incentive to design all-electric, Santa Monica’s local
ordinance proposes a higher level of energy efficiency required for mixed -fuel
buildings. All-electric buildings are not subject to higher levels of energy
efficiency and may be built to the State’s baseline performance requirements.
Low-Rise Residential new construction will have different requirements than
high-rise multi-family /hotels and non-residential commercial new construction. A
Item 7-B
09/10/19
4 of 6 Item 7-B
09/10/19
Certified Energy Analyst is required to prepare and sign Certificate of
Compliance.
The ordinance also proposes a new solar photovoltaic requirement for all major
additions. There will also be new regulations for new pools that are heated. If a
pool is heated, heat-pump pool heaters and/or solar shall be used.
A Council study session on Building Decarbonization is scheduled for September
10th. Staff will also review future policy for energy efficiency for existing buildings
at a later date.
After discussion, the Task Force on the Environment adopted the following motion:
Motion by Task Force Member Susan Mearns, seconded by Task Force
Member Robert Lempert.
Motion: The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City Council
appoint a Task Force member with a background pertaining to green building.
Given the recent resignation of a Task Force member with expertise in green
building, the Task Force recognizes a need for similar background and
knowledge in this field for the Task Force on the Environment.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Acting Chair Erik Neandross
Member Robert Lempert
Member David Pettit
Member Susan Mearns
Member Dean Kubani
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Garen Baghdasarian
Item 7-B
09/10/19
5 of 6 Item 7-B
09/10/19
Motion by Task Force Member Susan Mearns, seconded by Task Force
Member Robert Lempert.
Motion: The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City Council
approve the ordinance adopting the 2019 California Energy and Green Building
Standards Codes’ with local amendments and findings.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Acting Chair Erik Neandross
Member Robert Lempert
Member David Pettit
Member Susan Mearns
Member Dean Kubani
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Garen Baghdasarian
Item 7-B
09/10/19
6 of 6 Item 7-B
09/10/19
Energy & Green Building
Code Update
September 10, 2019
Drew L. Johnstone
Sustainability Analyst
1
St ate’s Leadership
•SB100
•60% renewable electricity by 2030, 100% by 2045
•SB1477
•Provides $50M in annual incentives to jumpstart market
for low-emission heating tech
•2019 CA Building Standards Code “Title 24”
•Increased efficiency, all-electric pathways, and solar PV
re quired for low-rise residential
Santa Monica’s Leadership
•Susta inable City Plan (1994, 25yrs ago!)
•Mandatory solar on all new buildings (2016)
•Energy Reach Code (2017, in effect until Dec 31, 2019)
•Municipal Susta inable Building A.I. (2017)
•Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (2019)
•Carbon reduction program for existing buildings
•Adopt carbon-neutral building codes
•Convert gas equipment to electric
•Clean Power Alliance (2019)
3
4
Substantial Changes in 2019
•All-electric compliance
option
•Mandator y solar for low-rise
residential
•Pre-wiring for water heating
Energy Design Rating (Low-Rise Residential Metric)
5
Proposed Santa Monica Reach Code
Single Family &
Low-Rise MF
Efficiency and Solar :
To -State Code (no reach)
Efficiency + Solar :
CalGreen Tier 1
•High-performance efficiency
•To tal Energy Design Rating of 10
Code Compliance Pathways*
All-Electric Mixed-Fuel
* Title 24 Certificate of Compliance must be prepared by a Certified Energy Analyst
6
Tier 1
Re quired for Mixed-Fuel Single Family and Multi-Fa mily 3 Stories or Less
1.Complete Quality Insulation Installation (QII) Procedures
2.PLUS One of the Following:
•Ro of deck insulation or ducts in conditioned space; or
•High-Pe rformance Walls; or
•HERS Verified Compact Hot Water Dist. With Drain Water Heat Re cover y
3.Achieve a Total EDR of 10 or less
7
Proposed Santa Monica Reach Code
Non-Residential
Efficiency To -Code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Efficiency: 10% better than
State code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
* Title 24 Certificate of Compliance must be prepared by a Certified Energy Analyst
High Rise MF &
Hotel
Efficiency To -Code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Efficiency: 5% better than State
code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Code Compliance Pathways*
All-Electric Mixed-Fuel
8
CEA required to prepare and sign Cer tificates of Compliance
9
Benefits of All-Electric
ü Electrification provides immediate
GHG reduction
ü Electrification improves indoor air
quality and safety
ü All-electric buildings are generally
less expensive
•Cost-savings of $5,750-$11,836 for a
Single-Fa mily Home
•Cost-neutral for appliances and
mechanical systems
All-electric CCSM building
2121 Lincoln Blvd.
11
Major Additions -Solar PV Requirement
Any building whenever an additional stor y is added; or
>50% cumulative floor area is added:
SF and Duplexes:
1.5 watts of solar per sq.f t. of the addition
All other :
2 watts of solar per sq.f t. of the addition’s footprint
12
New Heated Pools –Solar and/or Electric Heat Pump
Solar Thermal or PV
Electric Heat Pump Po ol Cover
13
Ensuring Success During Implementation
•Update City We bsite
•Tr ainings & Workshops
•Update Checklists
•Update Guidance Documents
•Zero Emission, All-Electric Construction Guide
14
Re ach Code Adoption Process & Proposed Timeline
Initiate
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Cost Effectiveness
Studies
February
01
Wo rk to Refine, Local Community Review
May Jun Jul Aug
Draft Code
March -July
02
CEC Approvals
Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pr esent to Council for
Adoption
Tw ice: Sept
04
Implementation
Jan Feb Q3
Staff Training
Nov –March 2020
06
Engage Community Stakeholders
Submit to CEC
On or Before Sept 30
05
2019 Code Takes Effect
As early as
January 1, 2020
Pr esent to Bldg Fire/Life Safety
& Task Force on the Environment03
15
Re commended Action
Staff recommends that Council pass the resolution and
approve the ordinance amending the 2019 California Energy
Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
so that staff may bring the final resolution and ordinance
back to Council following approval by the California Energy
Commission in time for the local amendments to take effect
as of January 1, 2020.
16
Proposed
Santa Monica
Re ach Code
Code Compliance Pathways*
All-Electric Mixed-Fuel
Single Family &
Low-Rise MF
Efficiency + Solar : Meet State
Code (no reach)
Efficiency + Solar :
CalGreen Tier 1
•High-performance efficiency
•To tal Energy Design Rating of 10
High Rise MF &
Hotel
Efficiency: Meet State Code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Efficiency: 5% better than State
code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Non-Residential
Efficiency: Meet State Code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
Efficiency: 10% better than
State code
Solar : 2 watts/sq. ft. of bldg.
footprint
New Heated Pools Heat-pump and/or Solar N/A
Major Additions Solar for SF/Duplexes: 1.5 watts/sq. ft. of addition
Solar for all others: 2 watts/sq. ft. of addition’s footprint
* Title 24 Certificate of Compliance must be prepared by a Certified Energy Analyst
17
THANK YOU
18
St ate Requirements for Low-Rise Re s Solar
kW DC PV required = (CFA x A) / 1000 + (NDwell x B)
CFA = Conditioned floor area
A = Adjustment factor (CZ6) = 0.594
NDw ell = Number of dwelling units
B = Dwelling adjustment factor (CZ6) = 1.23
2,500 sqft Single-Family Home
(2,500 x 0.594) / 1000 + (1 x 1.23) =
1.485 + 1.23 = 2.7 kW PV
5,000 sqft SF Home: 4.2 kW
700 sqft AD U:1.64 kW
20,000 sqft Low -Rise Res w/ 42 Units
(20,000 x 0.594) / 1000 + 42 x 1.23) =
11 .88 + 51.66 = 63.54 kW PV
20,000 sqft Low -Rise Res w/20 Units
36.48 kW PV
19
Non-Re s Energy Code Compliance
Source: CBECC-Com 19 User Manual
20
21
Ti me Dependent Valuation –What we use now
“societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term
projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during
peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as
projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid
transmission and distribution impacts.
Va ries depending on fuel source (gas, electricity, and
propane), time of day, and season.
REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 11197
(CCS)