SR 09-27-2022 10C
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 16
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the
Environment
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Santa Monica
Municipal Code and adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California
Green Building Code 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 2022 California Green Building Standards Code;
2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that amends the Santa Monica
Municipal Code (SMMC) by adding chapter 8.38 entitled, Zero Emission Building
Code and amend Santa Monica Municipal Code section 8.08.040 to allow the
Building and Fire Life Safety Commission to hear appeals related to the Zero
Emission Building Code;
3. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that adopts local amendments
to the 2022 California Green Buildings Standards Code to support increased
access to electric vehicle charging; and
4. Direct the City Manager to file the adopted resolution and ordinance amending
the Green Building Standards Code with the California Building Standards
Commission following the second reading of the ordinance at least 30 days
before the effective date of the Codes.
Summary
As a leader in sustainability, the City continues to implement strategies that support
its goals for a clean, safe, healthy, and sustainable community. As adopted by the
City Council, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Attachment A) recommends
adopting carbon neutral construction codes for new residential, commercial, and
10.C
Packet Pg. 643
2 of 16
multi-family properties. These codes would increase energy efficiency, prohibit gas
infrastructure in new buildings, and consequently reduce carbon
emissions. Throughout the State, there is growing momentum among policymakers
and green building stakeholders establishing building electrification as the most viable
path to zero-emission buildings.
New construction buildings offer a major opportunity to mitigate future emissions given
the long-term nature of a building as an asset. By “building it right” from the start, the
City has an opportunity to drastically reduce future carbon emissions and “lock in” zero
emissions throughout the life cycle of these buildings. To date, 58 California cities and
counties have adopted code enhancements that require or encourage all-electric
buildings, establishing a statewide trend toward building electrification. In line with this
trend, staff proposes a two-part process:
1. Amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) by adding chapter 8.38 entitled,
“Zero Emission Building Code”. 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. The Code would prohibit gas infrastructure in
newly constructed buildings for which a building permit for construction is issued on
or after January 1, 2023, unless a complete building permit application is submitted
on or before December 31, 2022. Exemption provisions are included for accessory
dwelling units, certain laboratory equipment and medical uses, and cooking
appliances in commercial kitchens.
2. Amend the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to increase the
quantity of electric vehicle charging infrastructure required in newly constructed
buildings. This amendment would build upon the community’s adopted goal of
reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly
65% of greenhouse gas emissions. Adopting the local amendment would increase
EV ready parking spaces to 60% for multi-residential, add 20% EV ready spaces for
office parking facilities, and double the number of spaces equipped with EV chargers
in other non-residential properties.
10.C
Packet Pg. 644
3 of 16
Staff will continue to conduct extensive outreach to the building community to prepare
stakeholders for the ordinance’s effective date of January 1, 2023.
Background
Limiting global warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is
imperative for avoiding the disastrous and irreparable effects of climate change. To
meet this goal, action must be taken at all levels of government to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recognizing the importance of municipal action
towards reducing the community’s impact on climate change, in 2019 City Council
adopted a goal of reducing communitywide carbon emissions to 80% below 1990
levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality (zero carbon dioxide emissions) by
2050 or sooner. These ambitious but achievable goals initiated a range of
interdepartmental City projects and programs designed to reduce the environmental
impact of emissions from transportation, construction and landfill waste generation,
and energy infrastructure (mostly from building emissions). In fact, 32% of emissions
in Santa Monica are estimated to come from buildings, largely due to burning
methane gas, commonly referred to as “natural gas,” for space and water heating
demands.
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
and grid-supplied renewable energy. While many new buildings are utilizing zero
emissions electricity sources from rooftop solar and Clean Power Alliance, the largest
source of remaining emissions in buildings is methane gas.
At the local level, the City of Santa Monica is engaged in numerous efforts to reduce
citywide GHG emissions. These include:
• Participation in the Clean Power Alliance, which offers 100% renewable and
carbon-free electricity to customers,
10.C
Packet Pg. 645
4 of 16
• An Electrify Santa Monica rebate program to incentivize residents and small
businesses to install EV charging stations and convert methane gas appliances
to efficient electric alternatives, and
• Numerous energy efficiency-related projects and public EV infrastructure projects
at municipal sites. Energy savings from four parking structure lighting retrofits in
2021 yielded a 44% average reduction in annual energy usage at those sites.
At the State level, public policy is trending toward all new construction in California to
incorporate solar PV panels into both residential and non-residential buildings:
• January 1, 2022, the California Energy Code started requiring solar photovoltaic
(PV) systems on all new low-rise residential buildings.
• January 1, 2023, the California Energy Code will expand the renewable energy
requirements with solar PV and battery storage systems on all new multi-family
and non-residential buildings.
In May 2019, the Clean Power Alliance (CPA), the City’s Community Choice Energy
entity, began procuring 100% renewable electricity for the community, accelerating the
pace of renewable energy adoption locally and nearly eliminating emissions related to
electricity. This, coupled with advances in appliance technologies, make a transition to
an all-electric building not only viable but in most cases cost effective, particularly for
new construction. All-electric buildings powered by a combination of on-site solar and
100% Green Power from the Clean Power Alliance are effectively zero emission
buildings.
The City’s current Energy Reach Code, (Attachment B), which is effective from January
1, 2020, through December 31, 2022, is known as an all-electric preferred code. It is a
steppingstone toward eventually requiring all-electric buildings. This code has two
pathways for compliance:
1. Mixed-fuel design. This pathway allows the use of both electric and methane in
new construction but requires a higher level of energy efficiency to incentivize the
design of all-electric buildings.
10.C
Packet Pg. 646
5 of 16
2. All-electric design. All-electric buildings are not subject to higher levels of energy
efficiency and may be built to the State’s standard design requirements.
City staff estimates that 30-40% of the new buildings permitted after 2020 are all-
electric. With an estimated 60-70% of new buildings still including gas end-uses, it is
clear that the next step is to require all-electric new construction. Given the State
requirement for the City to build approximately 8,900 new housing units over the next 7
years, addressing carbon emissions from buildings represents a significant opportunity.
The City of Santa Monica was one of the first cities in the State to implement an
electric-preferred reach code. Since then, dozens of cities in California have passed
more aggressive policies that ban gas infrastructure in new construction, including the
municipalities of Berkeley, San Francisco, Ojai, and Santa Barbara.
Energy Resilience and Reliability
Questions surrounding grid reliability and resiliency are common as more buildings and
vehicles electrify. Investor-owned utilities regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission, including Southern California Edison (SCE), are committed and required
to meet this growing demand. To prepare for the increasing loads, SCE has deployed
utility-scale energy storage projects to enhance storage capacity, introduced demand
response programs that reward customers for using energy at off-peak times, and is
accelerating the development and deployment of critical grid technologies.
Advancements in electric technologies such as battery energy storage and demand
management, as well as evolving market factors are creating new pathways to energy
reliability and resilience. Additionally, new, modern buildings include technologies that
allow for maximizing energy load flexibility. For example, using heat pump water
heaters as thermal storage can help match the timing of electricity demand to the
generation of renewable energy, as well as reduce the severity of the late-afternoon
demand ramp as solar output rapidly decreases.
Some industry stakeholders contend that mixed-fuel buildings offer greater resilience in
the face of an electric outage, but this is misleading since most gas appliances today
10.C
Packet Pg. 647
6 of 16
operate with an electric ignition. While gas cooking stoves could be operated during an
electricity outage, the inability to use electric-powered ventilation hoods would
negatively impact indoor air quality. It is also important to note that gas lines and leaks
pose a significant danger during fires and earthquakes and typically take longer to
repair compared to electrical outages.
The proposed Zero Emission Building ordinance (Attachment C) would advance the
City’s emission reduction goals, by building upon the new 2022 State Energy Code,
which encourages electric heat pumps and establishes electric-ready requirements for
new homes. To develop the proposed ordinance, City staff evaluated pro-forma
feasibility and cost-effectiveness studies (Attachment D), legal analysis, and model
municipal code language from other cities.
EV Charger Reach Code
Based on the 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 62% of the City’s GHG
emissions come from the transportation sector. The best way to reduce these emissions
is to reduce trips from vehicles altogether by shifting to public or active transportation.
For trips that must be made by cars, the shift from gas-powered vehicles to electric is a
critical component of reducing GHG emissions and harmful pollution. The most common
barrier to switching to an EV, especially for residents of multi-family buildings, is the lack
of access to reliable charging at the home or workplace. Requiring EV charging
infrastructure in new buildings is the best way to support the transition to EVs and is
significantly less expensive than future retrofits to add EV charging.
In November 2017, City Council adopted the EV Action Plan (Attachment E), which
includes strategies to remove barriers to EV adoption. This includes adopting building
code updates that require greater levels of EV charging infrastructure in new buildings
than required by the existing state code.
The 2022 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) includes increased EV charging
requirements compared to previous code cycles, but it does not go far enough to
10.C
Packet Pg. 648
7 of 16
significantly improve access to EV charging given the pace of transition needed to meet
state goals and meaningfully address the climate crisis. The state aims to have 5 million
zero emission vehicles on the road by 2030 and estimates that there is currently a gap
of 972,000 chargers needed to support this goal. Further, by 2035, all new cars and
passenger trucks sold in California must be ZEVs per Executive Order N-79-20. Most of
the buildings built in or after 2023 will continue to exist in 2035, and these EVs will need
a place to charge.
The City has more than 150 public chargers and is actively expanding the public
charging network, but will not be able to support the level of charging needed without
significant increases in residential and non-residential projects. In February 2020,
Council adopted an EV Charger Reach Code (Attachment F) to go beyond the 2019
CALGreen requirements. The new proposed requirements (Attachment G) are intended
to provide higher levels of convenient EV charging access, with a focus on multifamily
residents, based on feedback from the community, Commission meetings, and
stakeholder workshops.
Reach Code Pathway
The State Building Standards Commission adopts amendments to the California
Building Standards Codes (CBSC) every three years. Provided that required findings
are made, the State allows cities to amend the CBSC to make them more restrictive.
In order for local amendments to be accepted by the State Building Standards
Commission and enforceable at the local level, every local building standard
amendment must provide a greater level of safety, accessibility, or environmental
conservation and be deemed locally beneficial based on geological, topographical,
and/or climatic conditions.
Reach codes are most commonly applied to new construction, as cost savings are often
greatest at the time a building is first constructed. Jurisdictions may also include
exemptions to reach codes based on the needs of specific sectors.
10.C
Packet Pg. 649
8 of 16
Reach Codes commonly fall into the following categories:
• Energy efficiency–focused;
• Incentivizing all-electric construction; or
• Requiring all-electric systems in new buildings.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
05/28/19 (Attachment A) Adopted the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
09/24/19 (Attachment B) Ordinance adopting the 2019 California Energy Code
and Local Amendments
11/14/17 (Attachment E) Adopted the EV Action Plan
02/25/20 (Attachment F) Ordinance adopting the 2020 EV Charger Reach Code
Discussion
Pathways for Building Decarbonization
Decarbonizing buildings will require a multipronged approach, with different strategies
applied to existing buildings and new construction. It is important to consider that
buildings are long-term assets with energy infrastructure designed for equipment that is
meant to last for decades. Therefore, each new building is an opportunity for investment
in an emissions-free future. Advances in electric appliances, such as electric heat
pumps and other electrical equipment are yielding much higher overall efficiencies than
their natural gas counterparts, allowing for significant emissions reductions in
buildings.
Existing buildings are less cost-effective to convert to all-electric systems. This is
primarily due to the fact that most existing buildings already have natural gas
infrastructure in place, negating any savings achieved by avoiding the cost of installing
the infrastructure in the first place. Additionally, appliances in existing buildings typically
reach their end of life at different times, eliminating the cost advantage of dual-purpose
systems, such as heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling.
10.C
Packet Pg. 650
9 of 16
In order to address the existing building sector, the City will need to rely heavily on
energy efficiency measures to leverage or create programs that help Santa Monica
building owners transition to all-electric systems. Such programs include utility incentive
programs, energy efficiency financing mechanisms, and other innovative programs that
encourage the transition through finance, regulatory assistance, and education.
To date, 46 California jurisdictions have adopted new construction policies that require
all-electric buildings, including Berkeley, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Ojai,
and Santa Barbara. Similar legislation has passed in New York City, Seattle, Quebec,
and entire countries, including Germany, France, the UK, Denmark, Austria, Ireland,
and the Netherlands. In May 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted to develop an
ordinance and implementation plan to ban most gas appliances in new construction by
January 1, 2023.
Natural Gas Infrastructure Prohibition Pathway (for New Construction)
Eleven of the California cities have chosen to require all-electric new construction
projects with no gas appliances or gas plumbing by amending the zoning, health and
safety, or other municipal codes. This option differs from amendments to the State
Energy Code, in that it does not amend any of the California Building Standards Codes
(CBSC); rather, it codifies a local prohibition of new gas infrastructure. Because the
restriction applies only to the installation of gas infrastructure after the point of delivery
to the property (i.e., after the meter installation), it does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the CBSC.
Based on the above features of the natural gas prohibition pathway, Staff recommends
City Council approve the ZEB Ordinance as an amendment to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code. This approach is the predominant method that other California cities
have chosen to require all-electric new buildings.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The Statewide Utilities’ Codes and Standards Team completed cost-effectiveness
studies in August 2019. These cost-effectiveness studies examined options for all-
10.C
Packet Pg. 651
10 of 16
electric and mixed-fuel new construction for single-family residential, multi-family
residential, retail, office, and hotel use.
The studies revealed that all-electric buildings are generally cheaper to build due to the
elimination of gas piping systems to and throughout the building(s) and reduced
mechanical ventilation requirements. These lower initial costs generally make all-
electric construction more cost-effective on a life-cycle basis. This is particularly true for
low-rise residential buildings, where it is also often more cost effective for the owner to
exceed code requirements by improving efficiency and adding additional solar PV
panels. In fact, if one invests the savings from the gas infrastructure in PV capacity to
offset the electricity load, an all-electric building is often cost-effective for the owner and
the community from day one. The solar-powered building is less expensive to build and
cheaper to operate.
Additionally, with the adoption of the 2022 code cycle, the state of California requires
solar generation on all new buildings. This on-site generation enhances the cost-
effectiveness of the all-electric new construction approach.
Unlike amendments to the Energy Code, a cost-effectiveness study is not required for
amendments to Title 24, Part 11, of the California Building Standards Code
(CALGreen), though many studies have shown the cost savings of installing EV
charging infrastructure during the new construction process compared to retrofitting in
the future.
Ordinance Development
Upon receiving the draft 2022 California Building Standards 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
10.C
Packet Pg. 652
11 of 16
resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and
other supporting documentation.
Staff hosted three virtual stakeholder workshops 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. Staff also utilized code
language from the approximately 58 leading California jurisdictions that have adopted
codes that encourage or require all-electric buildings.
City of Santa Monica’s Proposed Zero Emission Building Code Summary (Buildings)
Natural Gas Infrastructure is prohibited in Newly Constructed Buildings for which a
building permit for construction is issued after January 1, 2023, unless a complete
building permit application is submitted on or before December 31, 2022.
Exemptions are minimal and include the following:
• Accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units that are
attached to an existing primary residential unit that has existing gas
infrastructure.
• Equipment for laboratory equipment or clean rooms designed for scientific
or medical uses.
• Cooking appliances in commercial restaurant kitchens or institutional
cooking facilities. Further, commercial kitchens in restaurants and
institutional cooking facilities with fuel gas infrastructure must also have
sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to facilitate future full
building electrification.
Proposed CALGreen Amendments (EV Charger Reach Code)
The proposed ordinance provides local amendments to Title 24 Part 11, the California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) in both the residential and non-residential
code sections. Cities have the option to adopt increased voluntary requirements
proposed in CALGreen that are known as Tier 1 and Tier 2, or they can adopt their own.
Including higher EV charging capacity and electrical infrastructure in new buildings is
10.C
Packet Pg. 653
12 of 16
significantly less expensive than retrofitting and saves time by eliminating the need to
obtain permits when a resident already has a receptacle in their parking space. The
recommended amendments to the 2022 CALGreen code are as follows:
Residential – CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2 – New multifamily dwellings, hotels and
motels, and new residential parking facilities:
• Apply the 5% EV Charger requirement to all projects (not just those with 20+
units)
o All projects must install EV chargers in 5% of the parking spaces.
• Increase the Low Power L2 EV Ready requirement from 25% to 60%.
o 60% of the parking spaces must be EV Ready with a receptacle capable
of providing a minimum of 20-amperes to an EV charger.
• Require a minimum of 1 EV capable space for small multifamily projects that do
not trigger the 10% EV Capable requirements.
o The 2022 CALGreen code requires that 10% of the total number of
parking spaces be EV Capable. Staff recommends keeping this
requirement in addition to the recommended amendments above.
• Note: No more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than
one parking space is provided by a single unit. There are no recommended
changes to the existing EV Capable requirement for one- and two-family
dwellings and townhouses in the 2022 CALGreen code.
Table 1. Proposed multifamily and motel EV charging requirements
10.C
Packet Pg. 654
13 of 16
Non-residential – CALGreen Section 5.105.5.3
• Adopt CALGreen Tier 1
o Tier 1 doubles the number of EV chargers required compared to
the mandatory requirement (see Table 2 below).
o Note: The number of EV chargers counts toward the required
number of EV capable spaces.
• Add a requirement for office facilities: 20% of the parking spaces must be
served by Low Power Level 2 EV Ready receptacles.
o There is an excess of clean power (primarily solar) on the electrical
grid during the daytime hours, which is why utilities incentivize the use
of power during off-peak times. Encouraging charging at workplaces
helps offset power demands at night to help balance the grid.
Table 2. Comparison of CALGreen Non-residential Requirements for EV Charging –
Mandatory vs. Tier 1
EV CAPABLE EV CHARGERS
Parking
Spaces
Mandatory Tier 1 Mandatory Tier 1
0-9 0 2 0 0
10-25 4 5 0 2
26-50 8 11 2 4
51-75 13 19 3 5
76-100 17 26 4 9
101-150 25 38 6 13
151-200 35 53 9 18
201 and over
20% of total
parking
spaces
30% of
total
parking
spaces
25% of EV
capable
spaces
33% of EV
capable
spaces
Table 3. Proposed Non-residential EV Charging Requirements
10.C
Packet Pg. 655
14 of 16
Notes: Low Power L2 EV Ready applies to office facilities only. The EV Charger and EV
Capable percentages are based on averages of each parking count row shown in Table
2. The percentages take into account the fact that the number of EV chargers installed
counts toward the required number of EV capable spaces.
Public Outreach
The ZEB Code was posted publicly on the City of Santa Monica’s website on May 9,
2022. City Staff also posted about the ZEB Code on social media as well as through
newsletters. Public workshops on the ZEB Code and EV Charger Reach Code were
held online to discuss each of the proposed local amendments on June 8, June 16, July
6, and July 7, 2022. Approximately 100 stakeholders attended the workshops. Staff also
presented the proposed codes to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice, and the Environment, the EV Subcommittee, the Planning Commission, and the
Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission. All public comments submitted to the
Commission meetings were in support of the proposed code changes.
On July 20, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously approved recommending that
the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the SMMC and local amendments to
the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
On August 15, 2022, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the
Environment unanimously approved a motion to recommend that the Council adopt the
10.C
Packet Pg. 656
15 of 16
proposed local amendments to the SMMC and 2022 California Green Building
Standards Code.
On August 17, 2022, the Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission remained neutral on
the proposed amendments to the SMMC and local amendments to the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code.
Next Steps
The 2022 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 H) sets forth findings regarding local climatic,
geological, topographical, and environmental conditions that are required to support the
adoption of the local code amendments.
The proposed amendments must be submitted to the California Building Standards
Commission (CBSC) following Council’s second reading by October 30, 2022 in order
to be effective when the 2022 CALGreen takes effect on January 1, 2023.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council pass both resolutions and approve the ZEB
ordinance and EV Charger Reach Code ordinance amending the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code.
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 the City Hall 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.
The new code will help to streamline the plan check review process by removing one of
the compliance pathways (for mixed-fuel buildings).
10.C
Packet Pg. 657
16 of 16
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no immediate financial impacts or budget actions necessary as a result of the
recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required
in the future.
Prepared By: Ariana Vito, Sustainability Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (Web Link)
B. 2019 Energy Code Ordinance
C. PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722
D. Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies
E. EV Action Plan (Web Link)
F. 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance
G. PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722
H. PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722
I. Written Comment
10.C
Packet Pg. 658
1
City Council Meeting: September 24, 2019 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2617 (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 AND THE 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
2
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a resolution making express findings, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, 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 adopt
a resolution making necessary local findings and adopt local amendments to the 2019
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
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 California Green
Building Standards Code to achieve energy savings, reduce local pollution, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
4
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 “2019 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 Commission 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 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
5
(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
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
6
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:
kWPV = (CFA x 0.594)/1000 +(Ndwell x 1.23)
WHERE:
kWPV = 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.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
7
(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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
8
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, 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 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.
In addition to definitions set forth in Section 202 of the 2019 California Green
Building Standards Code, the following definitions shall apply:
(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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
9
(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:
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.
8.106.055 Residential Solar and Pool Heating Requirements.
Section 4.201 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended
to read as follows:
4.201.3 Pool Heating.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, an electric
heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall be used for such
heating.
4.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
(a) All major additions to one- and two-family dwellings are required
to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The PV system installed
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
10
must have a minimum total wattage 1.5 times the square footage of the
addition. (1.5 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.
4.201.5 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to Multi-Family Dwellings (3 stories or less).
(a) All 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 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
11
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.
8.106.070 Flashing Details.
Section 4.407.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
12
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:
5.201.3 Pool Heating – Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, and
Hotels and Motels Buildings.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, an electric
heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall be used for such
heating.
5.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major
Additions to Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, and Hotels and
Motels Buildings.
(a) All major additions to non-residential, high-rise residential, and
hotel and motel buildings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic
(PV) system. The PV system installed must have a minimum total wattage
2.0 times the square footage of the 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
13
(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 Standards 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.
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 declares 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 unconstitutional.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
14
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10.C.b
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
Approved and adopted this 24th day of September, 2019.
_____________________________
Gleam Davis, Mayor State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss. City of Santa Monica )
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2617 (CCS) had its introduction on September 10, 2019, and was adopted at the Santa Monica
City Council meeting held on September 24, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Morena, McKeown, Himmelrich, Winterer, Jara, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
A summary of Ordinance No. 2617 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California Government Code Section 40806.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10/3/2019
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER_______ (CCS) (City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 8.38 ENTITLED, “ZERO EMISSION BUILDING CODE” AND AMEND SECTION 8.08.040(a) TO ALLOW
THE BUILDING AND FIRE LIFE SAFETY COMMISSION TO HEAR APPEALS RELATED TO THE ZERO EMISSION BUILDING CODE.
WHEREAS, Scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion,
procurement and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to global warming and climate change; and
WHEREAS, This Chapter is also reasonably necessary because of health and
safety concerns as City residents suffer from asthma and other health conditions
associated with poor indoor and outdoor air quality exacerbated by the combustion of
natural gas; and
WHEREAS, As a coastal city, Santa Monica is vulnerable to sea level rise. Human
activities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cause increases in worldwide
average temperature, which contribute to melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of
ocean water, resulting in rising sea levels; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, this
chapter establishes requirements for carbon-neutral construction codes, which will
reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote
a lower contribution to greenhouse gases; and
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2
WHEREAS, using electric heating and cooling infrastructure in new buildings
fueled by less greenhouse gas intensive electricity is linked to significantly lower
greenhouse gas emissions and is cost competitive because of the cost savings
associated with all-electric designs that avoid new gas infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, All-electric building design benefits the health, welfare, and resiliency
of Santa Monica and its residents; and
WHEREAS, The most cost-effective time to integrate electrical infrastructure is in
the design phase of a building project because building systems and spaces can be
designed to optimize the performance of electrical systems and the project can take full
advantage of avoided costs and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas
piping and venting for combustion air safety; and
WHEREAS, It is the intent of the City Council to eliminate natural gas emissions in
new buildings where all electric infrastructure can be most practicably integrated, thereby
reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and
transportation of natural gas; 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 all-electric
homes are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is
permitted by the 2022 California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, the content and details of this ordinance were the subject of 4 public
stakeholder workshops conducted on June 8, June 16, July 6, and July 7, 2022, at which
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
3
attendees included architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, and
residents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.38 is hereby added to read
as follows:
Chapter 8.38 Zero Emission Building Code
8.38.010 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), below, the requirements of this Chapter shall
apply to all Newly Constructed Buildings as provided in Section 8.38.030 for which
a building permit for construction is issued on or after January 1, 2023.
(b) The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Newly Constructed Buildings for which a complete building permit application
is submitted on or before December 31, 2022;
(2) Junior Accessory Dwelling Units;
(3) Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to an existing primary residential
unit that has natural gas infrastructure;
(4) City-Designated Historic Resources demolished in the course of rehabilitation,
if compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would require removal of
more original finishes or features than proposed in the scope of the
rehabilitation; and
(5) The use of portable propane appliances for outdoor cooking and heating.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
4
(c) This Chapter neither amends the California Energy Code as adopted by Section
8.38.010 of this Code, nor requires the use or installation of any specific appliance
or system as a condition of approval.
8.38.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following
meanings:
(a) “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.0095.
(b) “Applicant” means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture,
corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, or state or local
government agency applying for a permit for a newly constructed building.
(c) “Energy Code” means the most current version of the California Energy Code
published by the California Building Standards Commission as adopted by
reference pursuant to Chapter 8.36 and any local amendments thereto.
(d) “City-Designated Historic Resource” means a city-designated historic resource as
defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.0500.
(e) “Greenhouse gas emissions” means gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.
(f) “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined
in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.1155.
(g) “Mechanical Code” means the California Mechanical Code published by the
California Building Standards Commission as adopted by reference to Chapter
22.04 and any local amendments thereto.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
5
(h) “Natural gas” has the same meaning as "Fuel Gas" as defined in the Plumbing
Code and in the Mechanical Code.
(i) “Fuel Gas infrastructure” means natural gas or fuel gas piping, other than service
pipe, in or in connection with a building or within the property lines of a parcel,
extending from the point of delivery at the gas meter as specified in the Plumbing
Code or in the Mechanical Code.
(j) “Newly-constructed building” means a new structure that has never before been
used or occupied for any purpose or removal and replacement of an existing
structure, or repair, alteration, modification, addition to, or rehabilitation of an
existing structure, where a demolition will occur, as defined Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.25.030 (A.1) or (A.2).
(k) “Permitting authority” means the Building Official or a city employee exercising
authority delegated by the Building Official.
(l) “Plumbing Code” means the California Plumbing Code published by the California
Building Standards Commission as adopted by reference to Chapter 8.32 and any
local amendments thereto.
8.38.030 Prohibited Fuel Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings.
(a) Fuel Gas Infrastructure is prohibited in Newly Constructed Buildings.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the Permitting Authority may authorize Fuel Gas
Infrastructure in a Newly Constructed Building if the Applicant establishes that it is
not physically feasible to construct the building without Fuel Gas Infrastructure. For
purposes of this exception, it is physically feasible to construct the building without
Fuel Gas Infrastructure if an all-electric prescriptive compliance approach is
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
6
available for the building under the Energy Code or the building is able to achieve
the performance compliance standards under the Energy Code using
commercially available technology and an approved calculation method.
(c) When Fuel Gas Infrastructure is permitted for a Newly Constructed Building
pursuant to subsection (b), it may be extended to any system, device, or appliance
within a building for which an equivalent all-electric system or design is not
available. Further, Newly Constructed Buildings with Fuel Gas Infrastructure must
also have sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to facilitate future full
building electrification.
(d) The requirements of this Section shall be deemed objective planning standards
under Government Code Section 65913.4 and objective development standards
under Government Code Section 65589.5.
(e) Authorization of Fuel Gas Infrastructure in a Newly Constructed Building may occur
on a case-by cases basis by the Permitting Authority where compliance is not
feasible based on the utility being unable to supply adequate power.
8.38.040 Public Interest Exemption.
(a) Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 8.38.030(a), minimally necessary and
specifically tailored Natural Gas Infrastructure may be allowed in a Newly
Constructed Building if the Permitting Authority finds that the use of specifically
tailored Fuel Gas Infrastructure serves the public interest. In determining whether
the construction of Natural Gas Infrastructure is in the public interest, the
Permitting Authority may consider:
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
7
(1) The availability of alternative technologies or systems that do not use natural
gas; and
(2) Any other impacts that the decision to allow Fuel Gas Infrastructure may have
on the health, safety, or welfare of the public.
(b) If the installation of Fuel Gas Infrastructure is granted under a public interest
exemption, the Newly Constructed Buildings shall nonetheless be required at the
minimum to have sufficient electric capacity, wiring and conduit to facilitate future
full building electrification.
(c) For purposes of this Section, provision of Fuel Gas Infrastructure for cooking
appliances in commercial kitchens in restaurants and institutional cooking facilities
shall be deemed to be in the public interest provided that the infrastructure is
limited to the capacity necessary to operate the appliances as designed. Further,
commercial kitchens in restaurants and institutional cooking facilities with Fuel Gas
Infrastructure must also have sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to
facilitate future full building electrification.
(d) For purposes of this Section, provision of Fuel Gas Infrastructure for medical uses,
laboratory equipment or clean-rooms in buildings designed for scientific or medical
uses shall be deemed to be in the public interest provided that the infrastructure is
limited to the capacity necessary for designated medical, laboratory or clean-room
areas.
8.38.050 Appeal of Permitting Authority Decisions.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
8
Decisions of the Permitting Authority under this Chapter may be appealed to the Building
and Fire Life Safety Commission under this section, pursuant to the provisions of Santa
Monica Municipal Code 8.08.040.
8.38.060 Periodic Review of Ordinance.
Public Works shall review the requirements of this Ordinance every 36 months for
ongoing consistency with the California Energy Code and the Energy Commission’s
triennial code adoption cycle and make a report and recommendation to the City
Manager.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.08.040(a) is hereby
amended as follows:
8.08.040 Board of Appeal.
(a) General. Pursuant to this Chapter, Section 1002 of the Santa Monica
City Charter, the California Building Standards Code, the Building and Fire Life Safety
Commission is hereby created as the Board of Appeal. The Building and Fire Life
Safety Commission shall also serve as the appellate body for appeals of the
determinations of the permitting authority under Chapter 8.38.
Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the City Council to serve a
term of four years unless removed for cause. No Commission member shall hold any
paid office with the City.
The Commission shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting
investigations and business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the
responsible official and appellants. Said Commission may also recommend to the
appointing authority such new legislation as is consistent therewith.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
9
The Building Officer and/or Fire Marshal or designee shall be an ex-officio
member of the Commission and shall act as secretary.
SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 declares 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 unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. 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. Following its adoption, this Ordinance shall
be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for filing. This Ordinance
shall become effective 30 days after submission to the California Building Standards
Commission. 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:
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
10
________________________ DOUG SLOAN
City Attorney
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
Santa Monica's Energy Reach Code
Promoting Healthy, Safe, and Cost-Effective Homes & Buildings
2019 Reach Code
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Study (Page 2)
Non-Residential Study (Page 1 )
Low-Rise Residential Additions Solar PV Study (Page
)
Pool Heating Study (Page )
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 Met
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 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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
2 2019-07-17
1
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 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
3 2019-07-17
2 of the -
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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 Ener
The 2019 Title 24 code introduces nergy 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.which represents the building s energy use without solar generation.4
2.Total 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 loading o 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
5 2019-07-17
1 (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).
1
2
2.2.3
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.
1)Efficiency Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency
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 (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 ies)
A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Time of Use with default
efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
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 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.
3
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 102019-07-174MeasurePerformance LevelIncremental Cost (2020PV$)Source & NotesSingle FamilyMultifamily(Per Dwelling Unit)Non-Preempted Measures Reduced Infiltration3.0 vs 5.0ACH50$391n/a2for 3 ACH50 & $0.207/ft2for 2 ACH50) + $100 HERS rater verification.2.0 vs 5.0ACH50$613n/aWindow U-factor0.24 vs 0.30$2,261$607$4.23/ft2window area based on analysis conductedfor the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC0.50 vs 0.35$0$0Data 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 Reflectance0.25 vs 0.20$237$58Costs 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$0ExteriorWall InsulationR-7.5 vs R-5$818n/aBased on increasing --7.5in a 2x6 wall (Statewide CASE Team, 2017c). Applies to single family only inall climates except CZ 6,7.Under-Deck Roof Insulation(HPA)R-13 vs R-0$1,338$334Costs 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 .R-19 vs R-13$282$70R-30 vs R-19$1,831$457R-38vs R-30$585$146Attic Floor InsulationR-38 vs R-30$584$146: $0.34/ft2ceiling area Slab Edge InsulationR-10vs R-0$553$121$4/linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research.Assumes 16in depth.R-10vs R-7$157$21BEopt 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$358n/aCosts based on a 2015 report on the Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Spacefor New California Homes(Davis Energy Group, 2015). HERS verification cost of $100 for the Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Spacecredit. Ducts in Conditioned Space$658n/aVerified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space$768$11010.C.d
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 112019-07-174MeasurePerformance LevelIncremental Cost (2020PV$)Source & NotesSingle FamilyMultifamily(Per Dwelling Unit)Distribution System Leakage2% vs 5%$96n/a1-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 multifamilyLow Leakage Air Handler$0n/aNegligible cost based on review of available products. There are more than 6,000 Energy Commission certified unitsand the list includes manyfurnace 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)0.35vs 0.45 $96$48Costs assume one-hourlabor for single family and half-hour per multifamily apartment.Labor rate of $96per 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$48Hot Water Pipe InsulationHERS verified$110$83Cost 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 DistributionBasic credit$150$0For 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 buildingsare expected to meet this credit without any changes to distribution design.Expanded creditn/a$83Cost for HERS verification only. $75 per multifamily unit before markup. This was only evaluated for multifamily buildings.Drain Water Heat Recovery50% efficiencyn/a$690Cost 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 unitswith 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 FurnaceAFUE92%vs 80%$139$139Equipment 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 assumesa 50% reduction in first cost.Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included.96%vs 80%$244$244Air Conditioner SEER/EER16/13 vs 14/11.7$111$111Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 20 assumesa 50% reduction in first cost.Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included.18/14vs 14/11.7$1,148$1,14810.C.d
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 122019-07-174MeasurePerformance LevelIncremental Cost (2020PV$)Source & NotesSingle FamilyMultifamily(Per Dwelling Unit)Heat Pump SEER/EER/HSPF16/13/9 vs 14/11.7/8.2$411$411Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumesa 50% reduction in first cost.18/14/10 vs 14/11.7/8.2$1,511$1,511Tankless Water Heater Energy Factor0.96 vs 0.81$203$203Equipment 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 assumesa 50% reduction in first cost.HPWHNEEA Tier 3 vs 2.0 EF$294$294Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumesa 50% reduction in first cost.PV + Battery PV SystemSystem size varies$3.72/W-DC$3.17/W-DCFirst costs are from LBNLTracking 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) andat 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 costsBatterySystem 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).10.C.d
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
3
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.
E 4
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-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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
5 B
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
15 2019-07-17
2.5.2 TDV Lifec
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy C 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.
5
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
16 2019-07-17
6 s All-Electric F
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
20 2019-07-17
7
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 icity 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.
2
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
21 2019-07-17
3.2
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 222019-07-178LifetimeCostsClimate ZoneMixed FuelAll-ElectricNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryCZ01+$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 CZ07n/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 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 232019-07-179-1,2CZUtilityEfficiencyEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedTarget EfficiencyEDRMarginTarget TotalEDRMarginEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatio01PG&E5.33.42.86.94.94.15.010.60.91.610.502PG&E3.31.61.73.33.83.63.010.10.51.610.003PG&E3.01.31.34.11.92.02.510.00.41.410.004PG&E2.50.91.22.72.42.72.510.10.31.510.005PG&E2.71.11.22.62.32.52.59.40.41.39.005PG&E/SoCalGas2.70.91.22.62.02.52.59.40.31.39.006SCE/SoCalGas2.00.71.22.01.62.01.59.80.81.39.507SDG&E0.0--1.51.51.40.09.20.11.39.008SCE/SoCalGas1.30.61.41.61.31.81.08.40.91.38.009SCE/SoCalGas2.60.72.02.91.83.72.58.81.01.58.510SCE/SoCalGas3.20.61.33.22.03.83.09.61.01.59.510SDG&E3.20.81.33.22.63.83.09.60.61.59.511PG&E4.30.81.25.12.53.74.09.20.41.59.012PG&E3.51.21.83.43.34.63.09.60.41.79.513PG&E4.60.81.35.85.38.44.59.70.41.69.514SCE/SoCalGas5.01.62.55.84.06.14.59.01.31.79.014SDG&E5.01.92.55.84.96.14.59.01.21.79.015SCE/SoCalGas4.81.01.65.0>1>14.57.11.11.57.016PG&E5.41.61.56.22.22.25.010.50.91.410.512Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix DSingle Family Measure Summary.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 242019-07-1710-EAll-Case1,2CZUtilityEfficiencyEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedTarget EfficiencyEDRMarginTarget TotalEDRMarginTarget TotalEDRMarginEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatio01PG&E15.21.81.76.92.92.76.531.41.81.531.041.21.41.441.002PG&E4.91.21.15.12.32.14.519.41.81.419.030.11.41.430.003PG&E4.72.62.44.41.81.64.018.52.21.718.029.31.51.629.004PG&E3.41.91.83.91.51.53.017.22.11.617.028.61.51.628.505PG&E4.42.62.34.41.91.74.018.22.31.818.028.71.61.628.505PG&E/SoCalGas4.42.62.34.41.91.74.018.22.31.818.028.71.61.628.506SCE/SoCalGas2.01.31.42.92.22.32.014.31.21.514.026.11.21.426.007SDG&E0.0--2.21.61.70.011.31.91.511.024.21.31.524.008SCE/SoCalGas1.60.61.21.82.83.01.510.91.01.510.521.61.11.421.509SCE/SoCalGas2.780.82.03.32.13.22.511.51.11.611.521.31.11.521.010SCE/SoCalGas3.10.91.53.42.33.23.011.11.11.511.021.21.11.521.010SDG&E3.11.11.53.42.63.23.011.11.71.511.021.21.41.521.011PG&E4.61.21.55.93.03.34.514.21.81.614.023.21.51.623.012PG&E3.80.81.15.12.02.53.515.71.71.415.525.41.31.525.013PG&E5.11.11.46.02.93.35.013.41.71.513.022.51.41.522.014SCE/SoCalGas5.61.01.56.02.33.15.515.51.21.615.523.91.31.623.514SDG&E5.61.31.56.02.93.15.515.51.81.615.523.91.71.623.515SCE/SoCalGas5.61.11.67.33.34.55.56.21.11.66.013.51.21.513.016PG&E9.71.71.74.92.42.34.527.02.11.626.535.41.71.535.01savings and annual utility bill savings.2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix DSingle Family Measure Summary10.C.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
25 2019-07-17
3 Total
4 comparison
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
26 2019-07-17
3.2.1
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.
5 emissions comparison
3.3
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 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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 282019-07-1711MultifClimate ZoneMixed FuelAll-ElectricNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryCZ01+$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 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 292019-07-1712Multif-E1,2CZUtilityEfficiencyEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedTarget EfficiencyEDRMarginTarget TotalEDRMarginEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatio01PG&E3.41.11.22.31.31.42.011.50.41.211.502PG&E1.81.01.72.31.11.51.510.90.21.610.503PG&E0.61.01.11.61.11.20.510.30.11.410.004PG&E1.30.81.21.91.11.71.011.20.21.611.005PG&E0.51.01.01.51.21.30.59.90.21.49.505PG&E/SoCalGas0.50.81.01.51.11.30.59.90.11.49.506SCE/SoCalGas1.30.61.51.31.41.71.010.70.61.410.507SDG&E0.90.72.22.01.11.40.511.00.01.411.008SCE/SoCalGas1.50.71.41.11.41.71.09.90.71.39.509SCE/SoCalGas1.81.53.32.81.72.91.59.70.91.59.510SCE/SoCalGas1.70.81.72.92.03.31.510.41.01.610.010SDG&E1.71.11.72.92.63.31.510.40.21.610.011PG&E2.90.71.23.21.83.32.510.50.41.610.512PG&E1.91.12.22.81.22.21.510.30.31.710.013PG&E3.10.61.33.42.03.83.010.70.41.610.514SCE/SoCalGas3.10.71.23.32.03.03.09.61.11.49.514SDG&E3.10.91.23.32.53.03.09.60.51.49.515SCE/SoCalGas4.21.42.34.4>1>14.08.81.31.78.516PG&E2.41.11.22.91.82.12.09.90.51.39.512Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix FMultifamily Measure Summary.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 302019-07-1713--1,2CZUtilityEfficiencyEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryNon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioEfficiencyEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTarget EfficiencyEDRMarginTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTarget TotalEDRMarginTotalEDRMarginOn-Bill B/CRatioTDV B/CRatioTarget TotalEDRMargin01PG&E3.61.61.43.32.42.33.022.52.01.522.534.51.31.434.502PG&E1.91.72.13.21.61.61.517.52.41.817.530.91.41.730.503PG&E0.0--2.71.71.60.016.12.41.716.029.51.31.629.504PG&E1.41.41.52.21.21.11.015.02.41.815.028.91.31.828.505PG&E0.61.10.93.62.12.00.517.12.51.817.030.31.41.730.005PG&E/SoCalGas0.61.10.93.62.12.00.517.12.51.817.030.31.41.730.006SCE/SoCalGas1.00.71.32.21.61.91.013.81.21.713.527.51.21.627.507SDG&E0.60.61.01.91.61.70.512.82.11.812.527.11.21.627.008SCE/SoCalGas1.20.91.71.91.61.81.011.61.31.811.524.21.21.624.009SCE/SoCalGas1.61.32.71.51.61.61.511.31.31.911.023.31.31.723.010SCE/SoCalGas1.81.22.01.81.72.01.510.81.31.810.523.31.31.723.010SDG&E1.81.52.01.82.02.01.510.82.11.810.523.31.41.723.011PG&E3.51.41.63.92.02.33.513.42.21.813.025.31.41.825.012PG&E2.60.91.12.91.61.62.514.42.11.614.026.61.31.726.513PG&E3.31.31.63.82.02.33.012.22.11.712.023.91.41.723.514SCE/SoCalGas3.71.21.63.81.62.23.514.01.41.914.024.81.41.824.514SDG&E3.71.51.63.82.02.23.514.02.21.914.024.81.71.824.515SCE/SoCalGas4.41.52.36.41.21.74.07.11.42.17.016.91.31.816.516PG&E4.12.12.13.21.61.73.019.62.61.919.529.91.61.729.51tility bill savings.2Informationabout the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix FMultifamily Measure Summary.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
31 2019-07-17
6 Total
7 comparison
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
32 2019-07-17
3.3.1
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.
8
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-
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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,
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
14
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
36 2019-07-17
15 On-
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
9 all-
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
37 2019-07-17
10 -
11 -
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
38 2019-07-17
16 (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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
17 On-
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
40 2019-07-17
12 multi -
13 -
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
41 2019-07-17
14 -
4 Conclusion Summary
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effective 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.
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 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-
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
43 2019-07-17
18 Margins
Climate ZoneMixed 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
19 Margins
Climate ZoneMixed 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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
46 2019-07-17
A
15 (courtesy of the California Energy Commission17)
17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
47 2019-07-17
B
PG&E .............................................................................................................................................................48
SCE ...............................................................................................................................................................51
SoCalGas .......................................................................................................................................................53
SDG&E...........................................................................................................................................................54
Escalation Assumptions ..............................................................................................................................56
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
20 ma
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
49 2019-07-17
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
50 2019-07-17
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
21 SCE
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-17
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
22
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
23
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
55 2019-07-17
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
56 2019-07-17
The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and
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 applied the same approach that E3 applied for
PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022.
24
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%
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 572019-07-17C25ost-EffectiveBASECASENon-Preempted Equipment -PreemptedCZUtilityTotalEDREfficiency EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio1PG&E32.554.2233.03.327.949.05.318.8%2.53.23.42.826.047.36.925.1%2.33.24.94.12PG&E25.046.0122.22.822.042.73.316.3%1.92.81.61.721.842.63.316.4%1.92.83.83.63PG&E23.946.9101.92.721.343.93.016.7%1.62.71.31.320.142.84.122.8%1.52.71.92.04PG&E23.144.981.92.720.842.42.513.9%1.72.70.91.220.542.22.714.9%1.62.72.42.75PG&E22.244.4101.82.619.741.72.716.7%1.62.51.11.219.741.72.616.2%1.52.52.32.55PG&E/SoCalGas22.244.4101.82.619.741.72.716.7%1.62.50.91.219.741.72.616.2%1.52.52.02.56SCE/SoCalGas23.349.9101.62.721.547.82.012.1%1.52.70.71.221.547.92.011.8%1.42.71.62.07SDG&E20.349.151.32.620.349.10.00.0%1.32.6--18.847.61.512.4%1.22.61.51.48SCE/SoCalGas21.346.9101.42.920.145.61.37.7%1.32.90.61.419.745.31.69.4%1.32.91.31.89SCE/SoCalGas24.547.7131.52.922.345.12.611.7%1.52.90.72.021.944.82.913.4%1.42.91.83.710SCE/SoCalGas24.246.3101.63.021.743.13.214.3%1.53.00.61.321.543.13.214.6%1.43.02.03.810SDG&E24.246.3111.63.021.743.13.214.3%1.53.00.81.321.543.13.214.6%1.43.02.63.811PG&E24.644.9122.13.621.340.64.316.4%1.93.40.81.220.739.95.119.2%1.83.42.53.712PG&E25.544.8112.13.022.541.33.514.9%1.92.91.21.822.541.43.414.4%1.93.03.34.613PG&E25.746.5152.03.822.241.94.616.9%1.83.60.81.321.240.75.821.4%1.73.65.38.414SCE/SoCalGas25.346.3112.33.221.541.35.018.5%2.13.01.62.520.840.45.821.7%2.03.04.06.114SDG&E25.346.3222.33.221.541.35.018.5%2.13.01.92.520.840.45.821.7%2.03.04.96.115SCE/SoCalGas22.449.1111.75.419.744.34.814.8%1.65.01.01.619.544.15.015.4%1.55.0>1>116PG&E30.448.9223.32.725.043.55.420.6%2.62.71.61.524.842.76.223.5%2.72.62.22.2es where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 582019-07-1726PV/ost-EffectiveCZUtilityBASECASEEfficiency & PV/BatteryTotal EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWTotalEDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/CRatio1PG&E32.5233.03.321.910.631.8%2.43.31.01.82PG&E25.0122.22.814.910.127.3%1.82.90.51.73PG&E23.9101.92.713.910.027.7%1.52.80.41.54PG&E23.181.92.713.010.124.9%1.52.80.31.65PG&E22.2101.82.612.89.429.7%1.42.60.41.55PG&E/SoCalGas22.2101.82.612.89.429.7%1.42.60.31.56SCE/SoCalGas23.3101.62.713.69.820.1%1.22.80.91.47SDG&E20.351.32.611.19.29.0%1.02.70.11.58SCE/SoCalGas21.3101.42.912.98.423.7%1.13.01.11.59SCE/SoCalGas24.5131.52.915.78.824.7%1.23.01.11.710SCE/SoCalGas24.2101.63.014.69.627.3%1.33.11.11.610SDG&E24.2111.63.014.69.627.3%1.33.10.61.611PG&E24.6122.13.615.49.229.4%1.83.50.41.612PG&E25.5112.13.015.99.628.9%1.83.00.51.913PG&E25.7152.03.816.19.728.9%1.73.70.41.714SCE/SoCalGas25.3112.33.216.39.030.1%1.83.11.51.914SDG&E25.3222.33.216.39.030.1%1.83.11.41.915SCE/SoCalGas22.4111.75.415.37.125.1%1.45.11.31.716PG&E30.4223.32.719.910.532.6%2.42.80.91.5>1indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 592019-07-1727All-Electricost-EffectiveCZUtilityBASECASENon-PreemptedEquipment -PreemptedTotal EDREfficiency EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWTotal EDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioTotal EDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio1PG&E46.868.2361.53.331.853.015.240.2%1.03.31.81.739.961.36.918.3%1.33.32.92.72PG&E32.853.7161.12.827.948.74.920.5%0.92.81.21.127.748.55.121.2%0.92.82.32.13PG&E33.155.6141.02.728.550.94.720.6%0.82.72.62.428.751.24.419.6%0.92.71.81.64PG&E31.352.8121.02.727.949.43.415.5%0.92.71.91.827.448.93.917.6%0.92.71.51.55PG&E32.554.2161.02.628.149.94.419.7%0.92.62.62.328.049.84.420.3%0.92.61.91.75PG&E/SoCalGas32.554.2121.02.628.149.94.419.7%0.92.62.62.328.049.84.420.3%0.92.61.91.76SCE/SoCalGas29.755.8120.92.727.753.82.010.9%0.82.71.31.426.853.02.916.0%0.82.72.22.37SDG&E27.155.370.72.627.155.30.00.0%0.72.6--24.853.02.216.9%0.72.61.61.78SCE/SoCalGas26.151.5100.82.924.549.91.68.9%0.82.90.61.224.449.71.89.7%0.82.92.83.09SCE/SoCalGas28.851.9130.92.926.049.12.812.5%0.82.90.82.025.548.63.314.7%0.82.92.13.210SCE/SoCalGas28.850.7110.93.025.747.63.114.0%0.93.00.91.525.347.23.415.5%0.83.02.33.210SDG&E28.850.7120.93.025.747.63.114.0%0.93.01.11.525.347.23.415.5%0.83.02.63.211PG&E30.050.2131.13.625.445.64.616.2%1.03.61.21.524.144.35.920.8%0.93.63.03.312PG&E30.950.1131.03.027.146.33.815.3%0.93.00.81.125.845.05.120.4%0.93.02.02.513PG&E30.751.5161.13.825.746.45.117.4%0.93.81.11.424.745.46.020.9%0.93.82.93.314SCE/SoCalGas31.352.281.43.225.746.65.618.9%1.23.21.01.525.346.26.020.5%1.23.22.33.114SDG&E31.352.2391.43.225.746.65.618.9%1.23.21.31.525.346.26.020.5%1.23.22.93.115SCE/SoCalGas26.252.881.35.420.647.25.616.8%1.15.41.11.618.945.57.321.8%1.05.43.34.516PG&E46.564.6391.72.736.854.99.725.2%1.42.71.71.741.659.74.912.7%1.62.72.42.3 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 602019-07-1728All-ElectricPV-PV/Bost-EffectiveCZUtilityBASECASEEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryTotalEDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWTotalEDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioTotalEDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio1PG&E46.8361.53.315.431.440.2%0.56.01.81.55.641.251.9%0.36.761.51.42PG&E32.8161.12.813.419.420.5%0.54.91.81.42.730.131.5%0.35.511.41.53PG&E33.1141.02.714.618.520.6%0.54.52.21.73.729.331.6%0.25.101.61.64PG&E31.3121.02.714.117.215.5%0.54.52.11.62.828.626.5%0.25.151.51.75PG&E32.5161.02.614.318.219.7%0.54.32.31.83.828.732.7%0.24.841.71.75PG&E/SoCalGas32.5121.02.614.318.219.7%0.54.32.31.83.828.732.7%0.24.841.71.76SCE/SoCalGas29.7120.92.715.514.310.9%0.64.11.21.53.626.118.9%0.34.681.21.57SDG&E27.170.72.615.811.30.7%0.63.71.91.52.924.26.7%0.34.211.31.68SCE/SoCalGas26.1100.82.915.110.98.9%0.64.01.01.54.521.624.9%0.34.541.11.59SCE/SoCalGas28.8130.92.917.311.512.5%0.74.11.11.67.621.325.5%0.44.661.21.610SCE/SoCalGas28.8110.93.017.711.114.0%0.74.21.11.57.621.227.0%0.44.781.21.610SDG&E28.8120.93.017.711.114.0%0.74.21.71.57.621.227.0%0.44.781.51.611PG&E30.0131.13.615.814.216.2%0.65.41.81.66.823.229.2%0.46.111.51.712PG&E30.9131.03.015.215.715.3%0.55.01.71.45.625.429.3%0.35.621.31.513PG&E30.7161.13.817.313.417.4%0.65.41.71.58.222.529.4%0.46.141.41.614SCE/SoCalGas31.381.43.215.815.518.9%0.94.81.21.67.423.930.9%0.65.391.41.614SDG&E31.3391.43.215.815.518.9%0.94.81.81.67.423.930.9%0.65.391.71.615SCE/SoCalGas26.281.35.420.06.216.8%1.15.51.11.612.713.527.0%0.86.251.21.616PG&E46.5391.72.719.627.025.2%0.95.52.11.611.135.434.3%0.66.171.71.610.C.d
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 612019-07-17D29Non-VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 622019-07-1730LLAHU -Low Leakage Air Handling UnitVVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 632019-07-1731PV/VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 642019-07-1732All-ElectricNon-VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 652019-07-1733All-ElectricLLAHU -Low Leakage Air Handling UnitVVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 662019-07-1734All-ElectricVVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 672019-07-1735All-ElectricPV/VVLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 682019-07-17E36-EClimate ZoneUtilityBASECASENon-Preempted Equipment -PreemptedTotalEDREfficiency EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio01PG&E28.660.7232.715.925.157.33.419.3%2.316.01.11.226.458.42.312.2%2.515.91.31.402PG&E25.756.5122.413.924.254.71.89.9%2.313.81.01.723.654.22.312.5%2.213.91.11.503PG&E24.757.8102.113.524.057.20.64.7%2.113.51.01.123.156.21.611.2%1.913.41.11.204PG&E25.556.882.213.624.355.51.37.7%2.113.50.81.223.854.91.910.9%2.013.51.11.705PG&E24.257.4102.112.623.756.90.54.4%2.012.61.01.022.755.91.510.9%1.912.61.21.305PG&E/SoCalGas24.257.4102.112.623.756.90.54.4%2.012.60.81.022.755.91.510.9%1.912.61.11.306SCE/SoCalGas26.863.2102.213.925.861.91.37.0%2.113.80.61.525.561.91.37.4%2.013.91.41.707SDG&E26.864.552.113.226.163.60.95.3%2.113.10.72.225.062.52.012.2%2.013.21.11.408SCE/SoCalGas25.761.8102.214.624.660.31.57.4%2.114.50.71.424.660.71.15.7%2.014.61.41.709SCE/SoCalGas26.459.7132.214.725.057.91.88.2%2.214.41.53.324.156.92.812.9%2.114.41.72.910SCE/SoCalGas27.058.7102.315.125.757.01.77.7%2.214.90.81.724.755.82.913.0%2.114.82.03.310SDG&E27.058.7112.315.125.757.01.77.7%2.214.91.11.724.755.82.913.0%2.114.82.63.311PG&E24.554.5122.416.622.351.62.911.9%2.216.30.71.222.251.33.213.2%2.216.11.83.312PG&E25.955.3112.314.924.353.41.98.8%2.214.81.12.223.552.52.812.8%2.114.71.22.213PG&E26.155.9152.317.523.752.83.112.1%2.117.10.61.323.752.53.413.2%2.116.92.03.814SCE/SoCalGas25.655.9112.814.623.152.83.112.8%2.514.30.71.223.252.63.313.3%2.514.22.03.014SDG&E25.655.9222.814.623.152.83.112.8%2.514.30.91.223.252.63.313.3%2.514.22.53.015SCE/SoCalGas25.059.2112.521.622.755.04.212.9%2.420.41.42.322.654.84.413.5%2.320.4>1>116PG&E29.457.3223.513.426.654.92.411.3%3.013.71.11.226.954.42.913.1%3.113.21.82.1>1escases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 692019-07-1737-ECZUtilityBASECASEEfficiency & PV/BatteryTotal EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingTotal EDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio01PG&E28.6232.715.917.111.529.3%2.116.50.41.302PG&E25.7122.413.914.810.916.9%2.114.20.21.803PG&E24.7102.113.514.410.310.7%1.913.90.11.604PG&E25.582.213.614.311.215.7%1.913.90.21.805PG&E24.2102.112.614.39.99.4%1.813.10.21.605PG&E/SoCalGas24.2102.112.614.39.99.4%1.813.10.21.606SCE/SoCalGas26.8102.213.916.110.710.0%1.814.20.61.507SDG&E26.852.113.215.811.07.3%1.713.60.01.608SCE/SoCalGas25.7102.214.615.89.913.4%1.814.90.81.509SCE/SoCalGas26.4132.214.716.79.715.2%1.814.91.01.710SCE/SoCalGas27.0102.315.116.610.413.7%1.915.31.11.810SDG&E27.0112.315.116.610.413.7%1.915.30.31.811PG&E24.5122.416.614.010.519.9%2.016.70.41.812PG&E25.9112.314.915.610.317.8%2.015.20.32.013PG&E26.1152.317.515.410.720.1%2.017.50.41.814SCE/SoCalGas25.6112.814.616.09.620.8%2.214.71.21.514SDG&E25.6222.814.616.09.620.8%2.214.70.61.515SCE/SoCalGas25.0112.521.616.28.818.9%2.120.91.41.916PG&E29.4223.513.419.59.919.3%2.714.10.51.4escases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 702019-07-1738All-Electric-ECZUtilityBASECASENon-Preempted Equipment -PreemptedTotalEDREfficiency EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioTotalEDREfficiency EDREfficiency EDR Margin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C Ratio01PG&E41.170.6361.615.937.567.03.614.6%1.515.91.61.437.167.33.318.4%1.415.92.42.302PG&E34.363.4161.413.932.461.51.99.1%1.313.91.72.131.160.23.215.1%1.313.91.61.603PG&E33.564.2141.313.533.564.20.00.0%1.313.5--30.461.52.719.5%1.113.51.71.604PG&E32.061.4121.313.630.560.01.48.0%1.213.61.41.529.759.22.212.2%1.213.61.21.105PG&E34.765.4161.312.634.164.80.63.4%1.312.61.10.930.661.83.623.5%1.212.62.12.005PG&E/SoCalGas34.765.4121.312.634.164.80.63.4%1.312.61.10.930.661.83.623.5%1.212.62.12.006SCE/SoCalGas31.965.9121.313.930.964.91.05.9%1.313.90.71.329.863.72.213.0%1.213.91.61.907SDG&E31.766.671.213.231.166.00.64.6%1.213.20.61.029.764.71.913.6%1.113.21.61.708SCE/SoCalGas29.863.6101.314.628.662.41.26.5%1.214.60.91.727.961.71.910.3%1.214.61.61.809SCE/SoCalGas30.461.9131.314.728.760.31.68.1%1.314.71.32.728.860.41.57.4%1.214.71.61.610SCE/SoCalGas31.261.3111.415.129.359.51.88.7%1.315.11.22.029.359.51.88.6%1.315.11.72.010SDG&E31.261.3121.415.129.359.51.88.7%1.315.11.52.029.359.51.88.6%1.315.12.02.011PG&E31.960.6131.416.628.557.13.513.1%1.316.61.41.628.156.73.914.4%1.316.62.02.312PG&E32.059.9131.314.929.457.32.611.4%1.214.90.91.129.057.02.913.0%1.214.91.61.613PG&E32.160.5161.417.528.857.23.312.6%1.217.51.31.628.356.73.814.3%1.217.52.02.314SCE/SoCalGas32.561.681.714.628.957.93.713.8%1.614.61.21.628.757.83.814.3%1.614.61.62.214SDG&E32.561.6391.714.628.957.93.713.8%1.614.61.51.628.757.83.814.3%1.614.62.02.215SCE/SoCalGas28.261.081.821.623.956.64.414.2%1.621.61.52.321.954.66.420.6%1.521.61.21.716PG&E40.266.6391.913.436.262.54.115.0%1.713.42.12.137.163.43.211.4%1.713.41.61.7both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 712019-07-1739MultifAll-Electric--EClimate ZoneUtilityBASECASEEfficiency & PVEfficiency & PV/BatteryTotal EDRCALGreen Tier 1 EDR Targetlbs CO2 per sqftPVkWper BuildingTotalEDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPVkWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/CRatioTotalEDRTotal EDRMargin% Comp Marginlbs CO2 per sqftPV kWper BuildingOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/CRatio01PG&E41.1361.615.918.622.514.6%0.826.92.01.56.634.524.6%0.430.31.41.502PG&E34.3161.413.916.817.59.1%0.721.92.41.83.430.916.1%0.324.81.41.803PG&E33.5141.313.517.416.12.6%0.720.82.41.74.029.58.6%0.323.61.41.704PG&E32.0121.313.617.015.08.0%0.720.22.41.83.128.916.0%0.322.91.41.905PG&E34.7161.312.617.617.13.4%0.719.92.51.84.430.38.4%0.322.51.51.805PG&E/SoCalGas34.7121.312.617.617.13.4%0.719.92.51.84.430.38.4%0.322.51.51.806SCE/SoCalGas31.9121.313.918.113.85.9%1.019.51.21.74.427.58.9%0.522.11.31.707SDG&E31.771.213.218.912.84.6%0.918.12.11.84.627.16.6%0.520.51.31.708SCE/SoCalGas29.8101.314.618.211.66.5%1.019.41.31.85.624.212.5%0.522.01.31.709SCE/SoCalGas30.4131.314.719.111.38.1%1.019.41.31.97.123.315.1%0.622.01.41.810SCE/SoCalGas31.2111.415.120.410.88.7%1.119.91.31.87.923.314.7%0.622.51.31.810SDG&E31.2121.415.120.410.88.7%1.119.92.11.87.923.314.7%0.622.51.51.811PG&E31.9131.416.618.513.413.1%0.822.82.21.86.625.321.1%0.425.81.51.912PG&E32.0131.314.917.614.411.4%0.721.72.11.65.426.620.4%0.424.51.31.813PG&E32.1161.417.519.912.212.6%0.823.32.11.78.223.920.6%0.426.41.41.814SCE/SoCalGas32.581.714.618.514.013.8%1.320.21.41.97.724.821.8%0.822.81.41.914SDG&E32.5391.714.618.514.013.8%1.320.22.21.97.724.821.8%0.822.81.81.915SCE/SoCalGas28.281.821.621.17.114.2%1.523.61.42.111.316.920.2%1.126.61.41.916PG&E40.2391.913.420.619.615.0%1.222.02.61.910.329.923.0%0.824.81.71.810.C.d
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 722019-07-17F40Non-VLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 732019-07-1741VLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 742019-07-1742VLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 752019-07-1743All-ElectricNon-VLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 762019-07-1744All-ElectricVLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 772019-07-1745All-ElectricVLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ductsin Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 782019-07-1746All-ElectricVLLDCSVerified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space10.C.d
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
79 2019-07-17
G
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 802019-07-1747Climate Zone 1PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV SizeChange (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)581n/an/a3.00n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)4805.0(0.08)2.510.49$1,355 3.382.82Efficiency-Equipment04406.5(0.07)2.320.68$1,280 4.924.10Efficiency & PV/Battery(28)48010.50.042.400.60$4,788 0.961.79All-Electric2Code Compliant7,0790n/an/a1.51n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted4,461015.00.001.010.50$7,642 1.791.66Efficiency-Equipment5,93306.50.001.290.22$2,108 2.942.74Efficiency & PV889031.02.670.521.00$18,192 1.811.45Efficiency & PV/Battery(14)041.03.450.281.23$24,247 1.481.43Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant7,07900.00.001.511.49($5,349)0.370.91Efficiency & PV889031.02.670.522.48$12,844 1.432.11Neutral Cost5,27008.01.351.261.74$00.001.09Min Cost Effectiveness3,160018.02.970.952.04($6,372)1.08>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 812019-07-1748Climate Zone 1PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)180n/an/a2.75n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1473.00.002.310.44$9601.101.18Efficiency-Equipment(0)1592.0(0.01)2.480.27$5071.291.41Efficiency & PV/Battery(14)14711.50.072.130.61$2,807 0.391.33All-Electric2Code Compliant2,6240n/an/a1.62n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,32803.50.001.460.15$9491.551.40Efficiency-Equipment2,27803.00.001.410.20$7952.392.26Efficiency & PV499022.51.370.750.86$5,538 2.041.50Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)034.51.800.381.24$8,632 1.381.47Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,62400.00.001.621.13($2,337)0.381.01Efficiency & PV62022.51.370.752.00$3,202 1.63>1Neutral Cost1,69309.50.701.251.50$00.001.57Min Cost Effectiveness1,273014.01.011.091.66($1,052)1.143.761All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 822019-07-1749Climate Zone 2PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)421n/an/a2.23n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted03603.0(0.04)1.940.30$1,504 1.631.66Efficiency-Equipment(0)3523.0(0.03)1.900.33$7243.773.63Efficiency & PV/Battery(22)36010.00.061.820.41$4,871 0.531.73All-Electric2Code Compliant5,0140n/an/a1.11n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted4,07904.50.000.940.18$3,943 1.211.07Efficiency-Equipment4,12205.00.000.940.17$2,108 2.252.10Efficiency & PV847019.02.070.490.63$12,106 1.831.38Efficiency & PV/Battery(15)030.02.710.260.86$17,610 1.411.48Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant5,01400.00.001.111.12($5,349)0.521.59Efficiency & PV847019.02.070.491.75$6,758 1.7639.70Neutral Cost2,89109.51.360.821.41$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 832019-07-1750Climate Zone 2PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)150n/an/a2.37n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted01421.5(0.02)2.250.12$3090.971.75Efficiency-Equipment(0)1342.0(0.01)2.150.22$4971.081.49Efficiency & PV/Battery(11)14210.50.042.070.30$2,125 0.201.81All-Electric2Code Compliant2,1510n/an/a1.38n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,03801.50.001.320.06$3611.732.05Efficiency-Equipment1,92803.00.001.250.13$7951.561.56Efficiency & PV476017.51.000.720.67$3,711 2.421.82Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)030.51.360.351.04$6,546 1.441.82Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,15100.00.001.380.99($2,337)0.531.42Efficiency & PV60017.51.000.721.65$1,375 3.31>1Neutral Cost1,063010.50.700.961.41$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 842019-07-1751Climate Zone 3PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)348n/an/a1.88n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2962.5(0.03)1.630.26$1,552 1.281.31Efficiency-Equipment(0)2734.0(0.03)1.520.37$1,448 1.911.97Efficiency & PV/Battery(20)29610.00.071.500.38$4,915 0.421.53All-Electric2Code Compliant4,3550n/an/a1.00n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,58404.50.000.850.15$1,519 2.602.36Efficiency-Equipment3,67004.00.000.860.14$2,108 1.761.62Efficiency & PV790018.01.770.460.54$8,517 2.221.68Efficiency & PV/Battery(12)029.02.370.230.76$13,857 1.561.64Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant4,35500.00.001.000.89($5,349)0.551.53Efficiency & PV790018.01.770.461.43$3,169 2.88>1Neutral Cost2,217010.51.350.701.18$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 852019-07-1752Climate Zone 3PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)133n/an/a2.13n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1270.5(0.00)2.060.07$1751.001.11Efficiency-Equipment(0)1191.5(0.00)1.940.19$4031.111.23Efficiency & PV/Battery(10)12710.00.051.860.27$1,991 0.121.61All-Electric2Code Compliant1,9440n/an/a1.27n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,94400.00.001.270.00$0--Efficiency-Equipment1,69802.50.001.130.14$7951.731.58Efficiency & PV457016.00.920.690.58$3,272 2.431.73Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)029.51.260.330.94$6,057 1.381.71Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,94400.00.001.270.86($2,337)0.581.46Efficiency & PV57016.00.920.691.43$9364.18>1Neutral Cost845011.50.700.851.28$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 862019-07-1753Climate Zone 4PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0347n/an/a1.88n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted03062.5(0.03)1.680.20$1,556 0.931.15Efficiency-Equipment(0)2942.5(0.02)1.620.26$7582.392.67Efficiency & PV/Battery(18)30610.00.071.550.33$4,911 0.331.64All-Electric2Code Compliant4,3420n/an/a1.00n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,77503.00.000.890.11$1,519 1.921.84Efficiency-Equipment3,74703.50.000.880.12$2,108 1.521.52Efficiency & PV814017.01.840.480.52$8,786 2.131.62Efficiency & PV/Battery(11)028.52.440.250.75$14,141 1.521.67Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant4,34200.00.001.000.88($5,349)0.551.59Efficiency & PV814017.01.840.481.40$3,438 2.64>1Neutral Cost2,166010.01.350.701.18$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 872019-07-1754Climate Zone 4PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)134n/an/a2.16n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1271.0(0.01)2.060.10$3290.751.24Efficiency-Equipment(0)1231.5(0.01)2.010.15$3511.061.74Efficiency & PV/Battery(9)12711.00.041.870.29$2,141 0.191.82All-Electric2Code Compliant1,8870n/an/a1.25n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,79401.00.001.210.05$3611.381.54Efficiency-Equipment1,71202.00.001.150.10$7951.231.09Efficiency & PV453015.00.830.690.57$3,158 2.431.81Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)028.51.170.320.93$5,914 1.371.86Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,88700.00.001.250.90($2,337)0.651.77Efficiency & PV57015.00.830.691.47$8224.96>1Neutral Cost767011.00.700.821.33$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design..10.C.d
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 882019-07-1755Climate Zone 5PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0331n/an/a1.79n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2812.5(0.03)1.550.24$1,571 1.101.22Efficiency-Equipment(0)2792.5(0.02)1.540.25$7722.292.48Efficiency & PV/Battery(14)2819.00.071.430.36$4,911 0.411.46All-Electric2Code Compliant4,4520n/an/a1.01n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,68704.00.000.860.15$1,519 2.582.31Efficiency-Equipment3,73704.00.000.870.14$2,108 1.851.70Efficiency & PV798018.01.720.460.55$8,307 2.311.76Efficiency & PV/Battery(8)028.52.290.240.78$13,525 1.651.70Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant4,45200.00.001.010.78($5,349)0.481.32Efficiency & PV798018.01.720.461.33$2,959 2.72>1Neutral Cost2,172011.01.350.701.10$0>140.071All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 892019-07-1756Climate Zone 5PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0131n/an/a2.10n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1260.5(0.00)2.030.07$1800.991.03Efficiency-Equipment(0)1171.5(0.00)1.920.19$3581.241.34Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)1269.50.051.840.26$1,985 0.171.58All-Electric2Code Compliant2,0440n/an/a1.32n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,99000.50.001.300.03$2471.090.86Efficiency-Equipment1,73803.50.001.150.17$7952.152.03Efficiency & PV465017.00.910.700.62$3,293 2.531.82Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)030.01.240.340.98$6,026 1.501.77Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,04400.00.001.320.78($2,337)0.501.28Efficiency & PV58017.00.910.701.40$9563.80>1Neutral Cost874012.50.700.871.23$0>123.441All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 902019-07-1757Climate Zone 5PG&E/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0331n/an/a1.79n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2812.5(0.03)1.550.24$1,571 0.921.22Efficiency-Equipment(0)2792.5(0.02)1.540.25$7721.982.48Efficiency & PV/Battery(14)2819.00.071.430.36$4,911 0.351.46All-Electric2Code Compliant4,4520n/an/a1.01n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,68704.00.000.860.15$1,519 2.582.31Efficiency-Equipment3,73704.00.000.870.14$2,108 1.851.70Efficiency & PV798018.01.720.460.55$8,307 2.311.76Efficiency & PV/Battery(8)028.52.290.240.78$13,525 1.651.70Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant4,45200.00.001.010.78($5,349)0.481.32Efficiency & PV798018.01.720.461.33$2,959 2.75>1Neutral Cost2,172011.01.350.701.10$0>140.071All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 912019-07-1758Climate Zone 5PG&E/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0131n/an/a2.10n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1260.5(0.00)2.030.07$1800.851.03Efficiency-Equipment(0)1171.5(0.00)1.920.19$3581.091.34Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)1269.50.051.840.26$1,985 0.161.58All-Electric2Code Compliant2,0440n/an/a1.32n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,99000.50.001.300.03$2471.090.86Efficiency-Equipment1,73803.50.001.150.17$7952.152.03Efficiency & PV465017.00.910.700.62$3,293 2.531.82Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)030.01.240.340.98$6,026 1.501.77Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,04400.00.001.320.78($2,337)0.651.28Efficiency & PV58017.00.910.701.40$9564.98>1Neutral Cost874012.50.700.871.23$0>123.441All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 922019-07-1759Climate Zone 6SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)249n/an/a1.57n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted02292.0(0.02)1.470.10$1,003 0.661.15Efficiency-Equipment(0)2181.5(0.01)1.410.15$5811.582.04Efficiency & PV/Battery(13)2299.50.081.220.34$4,367 0.951.42All-Electric2Code Compliant3,0990n/an/a0.87n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,88502.00.000.830.05$9261.311.41Efficiency-Equipment2,74602.50.000.800.08$8462.202.29Efficiency & PV722014.01.370.630.24$6,341 1.191.48Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)026.01.930.330.55$11,513 1.201.50Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant3,09900.00.000.870.69($5,349)1.192.46Efficiency & PV722014.01.370.630.93$9923.07>1Neutral Cost959012.01.360.670.89$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 932019-07-1760Climate Zone 6SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)114n/an/a2.17n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1121.0(0.01)2.140.03$1900.651.49Efficiency-Equipment(0)1031.0(0.00)2.030.15$2131.431.74Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)11210.50.041.760.41$2,007 0.641.55All-Electric2Code Compliant1,5580n/an/a1.28n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,53101.00.001.260.02$2310.651.34Efficiency-Equipment1,43002.00.001.200.08$3611.621.91Efficiency & PV427013.50.700.970.31$2,580 1.241.71Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)027.51.020.490.79$5,303 1.281.67Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,55800.00.001.280.90($2,337)2.592.38Efficiency & PV53013.50.700.971.20$2439.50>1Neutral Cost459012.50.700.991.18$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 942019-07-1761Climate Zone 7SDG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to CostRatio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)196n/an/a1.30n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1960.00.001.300.00$0--Efficiency-Equipment01711.5(0.00)1.180.12$6061.501.40Efficiency & PV/Battery(12)1899.00.101.040.26$3,506 0.071.52All-Electric2Code Compliant2,4790n/an/a0.75n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,47900.00.000.750.00$0--Efficiency-Equipment2,22202.00.000.690.06$8461.601.65Efficiency & PV674011.01.100.580.17$4,436 1.871.55Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)024.01.610.290.46$9,413 1.321.56Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,47900.00.000.750.55($5,349)1.042.54Efficiency & PV674011.01.100.580.72($912)>1>1Neutral Cost267013.51.350.550.75$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 952019-07-1762Climate Zone 7SDG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)110n/an/a2.11n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1080.5(0.01)2.080.03$900.732.24Efficiency-Equipment(0)992.0(0.00)1.960.15$3661.071.41Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)10811.00.051.710.40$1,900 0.041.61All-Electric2Code Compliant1,4340n/an/a1.21n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,41600.50.001.200.01$2020.601.02Efficiency-Equipment1,31901.50.001.140.07$3611.591.71Efficiency & PV412012.50.610.940.27$2,261 2.081.76Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)027.00.920.470.74$4,916 1.261.71Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,43400.00.001.210.90($2,337)1.122.47Efficiency & PV51012.50.610.941.17($75)>1>1Neutral Cost294013.50.700.911.20$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 962019-07-1763Climate Zone 8SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)206n/an/a1.38n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1981.0(0.02)1.340.05$5810.571.41Efficiency-Equipment01811.5(0.01)1.270.12$5861.301.82Efficiency & PV/Battery(13)1988.00.081.110.27$3,944 1.101.48All-Electric2Code Compliant2,5760n/an/a0.80n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,48301.50.000.780.02$9260.571.22Efficiency-Equipment2,35201.50.000.750.05$4122.823.03Efficiency & PV703010.51.130.620.18$5,373 1.001.48Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)021.51.670.320.48$10,493 1.141.49Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,57600.00.000.800.58($5,349)1.832.99Efficiency & PV703010.51.130.620.77$25107.93>1Neutral Cost439011.01.360.600.78$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is theall-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency &PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 972019-07-1764Climate Zone 8SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)109n/an/a2.18n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1061.5(0.02)2.130.05$2500.701.36Efficiency-Equipment(0)991.0(0.00)2.040.14$2131.371.67Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)1069.50.031.770.41$2,066 0.841.50All-Electric2Code Compliant1,4090n/an/a1.26n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,37301.00.001.240.02$2310.871.72Efficiency-Equipment1,27601.50.001.180.08$3611.631.75Efficiency & PV426011.50.600.990.27$2,240 1.261.78Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)024.00.920.530.73$4,962 1.311.68Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,40900.00.001.260.91($2,337)6.692.67Efficiency & PV53011.50.600.991.18($96)>1>1Neutral Cost309012.00.700.981.20$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 982019-07-1765Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefitto Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0229n/an/a1.53n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2162.5(0.04)1.460.07$9120.691.97Efficiency-Equipment02012.5(0.04)1.380.15$5741.803.66Efficiency & PV/Battery(14)2168.50.051.230.30$4,263 1.111.66All-Electric2Code Compliant2,8010n/an/a0.87n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,64502.50.000.840.04$1,180 0.781.96Efficiency-Equipment2,46003.00.000.800.07$8462.113.22Efficiency & PV745011.51.160.660.21$5,778 1.081.64Efficiency & PV/Battery(9)021.01.720.370.50$10,932 1.161.60Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,80100.00.000.870.66($5,349)1.672.90Efficiency & PV745011.51.160.660.87$4297.15>1Neutral Cost594010.01.360.670.86$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is theall-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency &PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 992019-07-1766Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0111n/an/a2.24n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1091.5(0.03)2.190.05$1361.463.35Efficiency-Equipment(0)1012.5(0.03)2.080.16$2741.662.87Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)1099.50.031.840.40$1,947 1.031.71All-Electric2Code Compliant1,4680n/an/a1.33n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,41401.50.001.300.03$2311.292.70Efficiency-Equipment1,33401.50.001.250.08$3611.631.58Efficiency & PV441011.00.601.040.29$2,232 1.341.91Efficiency & PV/Battery(7)023.00.920.580.75$4,949 1.351.77Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,46800.00.001.330.91($2,337)4.382.55Efficiency & PV55011.00.601.041.20($104)>1>1Neutral Cost331011.00.701.031.21$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1002019-07-1767Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)239n/an/a1.61n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2173.0(0.07)1.480.13$1,648 0.631.33Efficiency-Equipment(0)2093.0(0.06)1.450.16$5932.053.84Efficiency & PV/Battery(12)2179.50.031.250.36$4,999 1.001.64All-Electric2Code Compliant2,9810n/an/a0.94n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,67303.00.000.880.07$1,773 0.921.52Efficiency-Equipment2,56303.00.000.850.10$9492.273.19Efficiency & PV762011.01.170.700.24$6,405 1.081.50Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)021.01.740.410.53$11,606 1.161.58Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,98100.00.000.940.67($5,349)1.452.66Efficiency & PV762011.01.170.700.91$1,057 3.04>1Neutral Cost77009.01.360.740.87$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1012019-07-1768Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)112n/an/a2.29n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1081.5(0.02)2.230.06$2780.811.69Efficiency-Equipment(0)1022.5(0.04)2.130.16$2501.963.27Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)10810.00.031.880.41$2,089 1.121.79All-Electric2Code Compliant1,5070n/an/a1.39n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,42501.50.001.340.05$3611.162.00Efficiency-Equipment1,36901.50.001.310.08$3611.711.98Efficiency & PV450010.50.601.090.30$2,371 1.311.79Efficiency & PV/Battery(4)023.00.930.630.76$5,108 1.351.78Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,50700.00.001.390.90($2,337)3.352.36Efficiency & PV56010.50.601.091.20$3470.89>1Neutral Cost372010.50.701.101.19$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1022019-07-1769Climate Zone 10 SDG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefitto Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)239n/an/a1.61n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)2173.0(0.07)1.480.13$1,648.10 0.801.33Efficiency-Equipment(0)2093.0(0.06)1.450.16$593.40 2.643.84Efficiency & PV/Battery(12)2179.50.031.250.36$4,999.50 0.641.64All-Electric2Code Compliant2,9810n/an/a0.94n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,67303.00.000.880.07$1,772.82 1.081.52Efficiency-Equipment2,56303.00.000.850.10$948.63 2.623.19Efficiency & PV762011.01.170.700.24$6,405.39 1.681.50Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)021.01.740.410.53$11,606.13 1.481.58Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,98100.00.000.940.67($5,349)0.902.66Efficiency & PV762011.01.170.700.91$1,057 4.55>1Neutral Cost77009.01.360.740.87$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1032019-07-1770Climate Zone 10 SDG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)112n/an/a2.29n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1081.5(0.02)2.230.06$278.06 1.091.69Efficiency-Equipment(0)1022.5(0.04)2.130.16$249.93 2.603.27Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)10810.00.031.880.41$2,088.94 0.271.79All-Electric2Code Compliant1,5070n/an/a1.39n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,42501.50.001.340.05$360.62 1.532.00Efficiency-Equipment1,36901.50.001.310.08$360.85 2.051.98Efficiency & PV450010.50.601.090.30$2,370.68 2.121.79Efficiency & PV/Battery(4)023.00.930.630.76$5,107.56 1.521.78Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant1,50700.00.001.390.90($2,337)0.732.36Efficiency & PV56010.50.601.091.20$3454.15>1Neutral Cost372010.50.701.101.19$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1042019-07-1771Climate Zone 11PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)378n/an/a2.14n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)3334.0(0.19)1.900.24$3,143 0.781.20Efficiency-Equipment03205.0(0.21)1.830.31$1,222 2.503.68Efficiency & PV/Battery(18)3339.0(0.09)1.780.36$6,503 0.391.64All-Electric2Code Compliant4,5850n/an/a1.15n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,81504.50.000.990.16$3,735 1.241.47Efficiency-Equipment3,53305.50.000.930.22$2,108 2.973.33Efficiency & PV957014.01.790.600.55$10,827 1.841.55Efficiency & PV/Battery(13)023.02.490.360.79$16,555 1.541.66Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant4,58500.00.001.150.99($5,349)0.491.69Efficiency & PV957014.01.790.601.54$5,478 1.64>1Neutral Cost2,42907.01.360.851.29$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1052019-07-1772Climate Zone 11PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)141n/an/a2.38n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted01272.5(0.05)2.180.20$8500.651.17Efficiency-Equipment(0)1263.0(0.06)2.160.22$3171.843.29Efficiency & PV/Battery(9)12710.50.012.000.38$2,663 0.431.77All-Electric2Code Compliant1,9740n/an/a1.42n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,73203.50.001.290.13$1,011 1.401.64Efficiency-Equipment1,70703.50.001.260.16$7952.022.33Efficiency & PV504013.00.770.810.61$3,601 2.221.81Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)025.01.140.450.98$6,472 1.481.89Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,97400.00.001.420.96($2,337)0.561.33Efficiency & PV63013.00.770.811.56$1,264 3.03>1Neutral Cost86609.00.700.991.38$0>173.961All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1062019-07-1773Climate Zone 12PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)390n/an/a2.11n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)3443.5(0.06)1.880.23$1,679 1.181.83Efficiency-Equipment03383.0(0.05)1.850.26$6543.314.65Efficiency & PV/Battery(23)3449.50.041.760.35$5,045 0.481.89All-Electric2Code Compliant4,4920n/an/a1.05n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,95803.50.000.940.10$3,735 0.781.06Efficiency-Equipment3,72105.00.000.900.15$2,108 2.002.51Efficiency & PV867015.51.970.510.53$11,520 1.691.41Efficiency & PV/Battery(15)025.02.620.290.76$17,064 1.331.53Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant4,49200.00.001.051.07($5,349)0.631.89Efficiency & PV867015.51.970.511.60$6,172 1.77>1Neutral Cost2,37408.01.350.761.36$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1072019-07-1774Climate Zone 12PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)143n/an/a2.33n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1351.5(0.02)2.210.12$2911.102.22Efficiency-Equipment01282.5(0.03)2.120.21$4341.252.22Efficiency & PV/Battery(11)13510.00.032.030.30$2,106 0.341.98All-Electric2Code Compliant1,9630n/an/a1.34n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,79202.50.001.240.09$1,011 0.911.12Efficiency-Equipment1,74402.50.001.210.13$7951.561.63Efficiency & PV472014.00.840.730.60$3,835 2.081.65Efficiency & PV/Battery(8)026.51.200.380.96$6,656 1.311.76Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,96300.00.001.341.00($2,337)0.641.66Efficiency & PV59014.00.840.731.60$1,498 2.88>1Neutral Cost87209.50.700.921.42$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1082019-07-1775Climate Zone 13PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)352n/an/a2.02n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)3114.5(0.21)1.800.22$3,060 0.761.28Efficiency-Equipment(0)2925.5(0.24)1.700.32$6115.268.40Efficiency & PV/Battery(19)3119.5(0.11)1.690.33$6,432 0.391.69All-Electric2Code Compliant4,1800n/an/a1.08n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,42805.00.000.920.15$4,154 1.121.40Efficiency-Equipment3,17706.00.000.870.21$2,108 2.883.30Efficiency & PV934013.01.610.570.50$10,532 1.701.47Efficiency & PV/Battery(11)022.02.320.350.73$16,283 1.451.59Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant4,18000.00.001.080.94($5,349)0.541.83Efficiency & PV934013.01.610.571.44$5,184 1.56>1Neutral Cost2,09207.01.360.791.23$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1092019-07-1776Climate Zone 13PG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)135n/an/a2.30n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1233.0(0.05)2.120.18$8310.631.27Efficiency-Equipment(0)1213.0(0.07)2.100.21$2901.953.75Efficiency & PV/Battery(9)12310.50.001.950.35$2,649 0.431.82All-Electric2Code Compliant1,8490n/an/a1.36n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,62903.00.001.240.12$1,011 1.311.56Efficiency-Equipment1,59003.50.001.210.16$7951.982.28Efficiency & PV501012.00.730.800.56$3,462 2.121.71Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)023.51.110.440.92$6,362 1.411.82Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,84900.00.001.360.94($2,337)0.631.54Efficiency & PV63012.00.730.801.50$1,125 3.22>1Neutral Cost77308.50.700.941.36$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1102019-07-1777Climate Zone 14SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)371n/an/a2.35n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)3194.5(0.17)2.060.29$1,662 1.572.46Efficiency-Equipment(0)3055.5(0.19)1.980.36$7993.956.14Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)3199.0(0.08)1.830.52$5,004 1.451.92All-Electric2Code Compliant4,7250n/an/a1.38n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,81905.50.001.190.19$4,154 0.951.46Efficiency-Equipment3,67606.00.001.160.22$2,108 2.293.13Efficiency & PV953015.51.600.930.45$10,459 1.211.62Efficiency & PV/Battery(2)023.52.210.630.75$15,872 1.401.65Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant4,72500.00.001.380.97($5,349)0.721.67Efficiency & PV953015.51.600.931.42$5,111 1.01>1Neutral Cost2,29908.51.351.151.19$00.00>1Min Cost Effectiveness1,853010.01.611.121.23($1,000)1.24>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1112019-07-1778Climate Zone 14SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)141n/an/a2.76n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1263.0(0.04)2.530.23$8740.731.21Efficiency-Equipment(0)1263.0(0.05)2.520.23$3471.962.99Efficiency & PV/Battery(3)1269.50.012.180.58$2,669 1.211.53All-Electric2Code Compliant2,0220n/an/a1.73n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,75903.50.001.580.15$1,011 1.241.65Efficiency-Equipment1,74803.50.001.560.16$7951.592.20Efficiency & PV504014.00.701.260.47$3,356 1.391.91Efficiency & PV/Battery(2)024.51.030.790.94$6,093 1.421.86Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,02200.00.001.731.03($2,337)1.131.48Efficiency & PV63014.00.701.261.50$1,019 2.57>1Neutral Cost772010.00.71.411.35$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1122019-07-1779Climate Zone 14 SDG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefitto Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)371n/an/a2.35n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)3194.5(0.17)2.060.29$1,662 1.922.46Efficiency-Equipment(0)3055.5(0.19)1.980.36$7994.886.14Efficiency & PV/Battery(5)3199.0(0.08)1.830.52$5,004 1.361.92All-Electric2Code Compliant4,7250n/an/a1.38n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted3,81905.50.001.190.19$4,154 1.301.46Efficiency-Equipment3,67606.00.001.160.22$2,108 2.923.13Efficiency & PV953015.51.600.930.45$10,459 1.801.62Efficiency & PV/Battery(2)023.52.210.630.75$15,872 1.731.65Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant4,72500.00.001.380.97($5,349)0.601.67Efficiency & PV953015.51.600.931.42$5,111 1.94>1Neutral Cost2,29908.51.351.151.19$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costsfor these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1132019-07-1780Climate Zone 14 SDG&EMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)141n/an/a2.76n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1263.0(0.04)2.530.23$8740.931.21Efficiency-Equipment(0)1263.0(0.05)2.520.23$3472.482.99Efficiency & PV/Battery(3)1269.50.012.180.58$2,669 0.571.53All-Electric2Code Compliant2,0220n/an/a1.73n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,75903.50.001.580.15$1,011 1.471.65Efficiency-Equipment1,74803.50.001.560.16$7952.002.20Efficiency & PV504014.00.701.260.47$3,356 2.161.91Efficiency & PV/Battery(2)024.51.030.790.94$6,093 1.771.86Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,02200.00.001.731.03($2,337)0.511.48Efficiency & PV63014.00.701.261.50$1,019 2.60>1Neutral Cost772010.00.701.411.35$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1142019-07-1781Climate Zone 15SCE/SoCalGasSingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0149n/an/a1.69n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted01414.5(0.43)1.560.13$2,179 1.001.58Efficiency-Equipment(0)1324.5(0.45)1.510.18($936)>1>1Efficiency & PV/Battery(3)1417.0(0.34)1.380.32$5,521 1.251.65All-Electric2Code Compliant2,1490n/an/a1.32n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted1,23005.50.001.120.20$4,612 1.121.58Efficiency-Equipment86607.00.001.040.28$2,108 3.304.47Efficiency & PV1,03006.00.121.100.22$5,085 1.121.57Efficiency & PV/Battery(2)013.00.830.840.48$10,860 1.221.61Mixed Fuel toAll-Electric3Code Compliant2,14900.00.001.320.37($5,349)1.732.21Efficiency & PV1,03006.00.121.100.59($264)>1>1Neutral Cost2306.01.361.130.57$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is theall-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency &PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1152019-07-1782Climate Zone 15SCE/SoCalGasMultifamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant093n/an/a2.53n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted0924.0(0.15)2.420.11$5101.352.28Efficiency-Equipment0864.0(0.16)2.330.20($157)>1>1Efficiency & PV/Battery(3)928.5(0.10)2.130.40$2,317 1.451.91All-Electric2Code Compliant1,2430n/an/a1.78n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted95404.00.001.610.17$1,011 1.502.28Efficiency-Equipment76406.00.001.500.29$1,954 1.241.72Efficiency & PV54807.00.241.500.28$1,826 1.432.07Efficiency & PV/Battery(3)016.50.621.080.70$4,732 1.421.91Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant1,24300.00.001.780.75($2,337)6.362.35Efficiency & PV6807.00.241.501.03($511)>1>1Neutral Cost7807.50.701.481.05$0>1>11All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1162019-07-1783Climate Zone 16PG&ESingle FamilyAnnual Net kWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant(0)605n/an/a3.31n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted04545.00.012.590.72$3,542 1.621.46Efficiency-Equipment04746.0(0.08)2.660.65$2,441 2.192.20Efficiency & PV/Battery(18)45410.50.102.360.95$6,877 0.931.47All-Electric2Code Compliant7,6940n/an/a1.73n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted5,69609.50.001.380.35$5,731 1.721.69Efficiency-Equipment6,76004.50.001.550.18$2,108 2.362.32Efficiency & PV1,032026.52.750.940.79$16,582 2.091.62Efficiency & PV/Battery(11)035.03.450.641.09$22,315 1.751.58Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant7,69400.00.001.731.58($5,349)0.310.68Efficiency & PV1,032026.52.750.942.37$11,234 1.552.02Neutral Cost5,39808.51.351.511.80$00.000.74Min Cost Effectiveness3,358016.02.561.321.99($4,753)1.241.401All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6).4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages.5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1172019-07-1784Climate Zone 16PG&EMultifamilyAnnual NetkWhAnnual thermsEDRMargin4PV Size Change (kW)5CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf)NPV of LifetimeIncremental Cost ($)Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C)Total ReductionOn-BillTDVMixed Fuel1Code Compliant0206n/an/a3.45n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted(0)1722.00.033.020.44$9371.111.19Efficiency-Equipment(0)1832.5(0.02)3.120.33$4531.762.15Efficiency & PV/Battery(9)1729.50.082.650.80$2,741 0.521.41All-Electric2Code Compliant2,6990n/an/a1.86n/an/an/an/aEfficiency-Non-Preempted2,32904.00.001.700.16$8432.082.05Efficiency-Equipment2,47003.00.001.740.13$7951.591.70Efficiency & PV518019.51.071.230.63$4,423 2.581.89Efficiency & PV/Battery(6)029.51.420.751.11$7,245 1.711.76Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3Code Compliant2,69900.00.001.861.59($2,337)0.431.03Efficiency & PV65019.51.071.232.22$2,087 2.87>1Neutral Cost1,518010.00.701.561.90$0>12.581All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home.2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electriccode compliant home.3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuelcode compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electriccode 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.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
Margin?
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach
Code Cost-Effectiveness Study
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc.
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
EnergySoft
Last Modified: June 22,2020
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
1
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
i
Contents
Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................iii
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1
2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................1
2.1 Building Prototypes .........................................................................................................................1
2.2 Measure Analysis.............................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Federal Preemption................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Energy Efficiency Measures....................................................................................................3
2.2.3 All Electric Measures ..............................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Renewable Energy ..................................................................................................................5
2.3 Package Development.....................................................................................................................6
2.4 Incremental Costs............................................................................................................................6
2.4.1 Energy Efficiency Measure Costs............................................................................................6
2.4.2 All Electric Measure Costs ......................................................................................................8
2.4.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs............................................................................................9
2.5 Cost-effectiveness .........................................................................................................................10
2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost............................................................................................11
2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost.................................................................................................................12
2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................12
3 Results ...................................................................................................................................................13
3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results.........................................................................................................13
Efficiency Only:.....................................................................................................................................13
Efficiency + PV:.....................................................................................................................................14
4 Conclusions & Summary........................................................................................................................20
5 References.............................................................................................................................................22
Appendix A California Climate Zone Map...................................................................................................24
Appendix B Utility Tariff Details..................................................................................................................25
Appendix C PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo......................................................................................47
Appendix D Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel ...................................................................................................50
Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric.....................................................................................................53
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
ii
Table 1: Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................2
Table 2: Incremental Cost Assumptions .....................................................................................................................7
Table 3: Costs for Gas versus Electric Water Heating Equipment over 30-Year Period of Analysis...........................8
Table 4: Solar Thermal Detailed Costs over 30-Year Period of Analysis ....................................................................9
Table 5: Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building .................................................................9
Table 6: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone....................................................................................12
Table 7: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)....................................15
Table 8: Mixed-Fuel Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.3 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)
.................................................................................................................................................................................16
Table 9: All-Electric Package Results: Efficiency Only (SAVINGS/COSTS PER APARTMENT)...................................17
Table 10: All-Electric Package Results: PV + Efficiency 0.1 kWDC per Apartment (SAVINGS/COSTS PER
APARTMENT)...........................................................................................................................................................18
Table 11: Mixed-Fuel Measure Package Summary .................................................................................................19
Table 12: All-Electric Measure Package Summary ..................................................................................................19
Table 13: Mid-Rise Multifamily Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost-Effectiveness.....................................21
Table 14: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ..............................................................................................26
Table 15: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm)........................................................................................................26
Table 16: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone..................................................................................................32
Table 17: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.........................................................................................35
Table 18: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm)..................................................................................................35
Table 19: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................38
Table 20: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/Therm)......................................................................................................41
Table 22: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions........................................................................................46
Table 23: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1..................................50
Table 24: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 .................................51
Table 25: Mixed-Fuel Efficiency + PV Package Results , cont. (SAVINGS/COST PER APARTMENT)1 .......................52
Figure 1: 5-story mid-rise multifamily prototype depiction.......................................................................................2
Figure 2: Prescriptive central heat pump water heater system schematic................................................................5
Figure 3: Map of California climate zones. (Source, California Energy Commission).............................................24
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
iii
Acronyms
2020 PV$Present value costs in 2020
ACM Alternative Calculation Method
B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BSC Building Standards Commission
CBECC-Com 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
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
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IOU Investor Owned Utility
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt Hour
kWDC Kilowatt Direct Current. Nominal rated power of a photovoltaic system
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCC Lifecycle Cost
MF Multifamily
NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SCE Southern California Edison
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
iv
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF Solar Fraction
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
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
W Watts
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
1 2020-06-22
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California 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 mid-rise (four-to seven-story)
multifamily residential construction.The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed-fuel and all-electric
residential construction,documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building
design. Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all 16 California climate zones (CZs) are
presented (see Appendix A California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations).
2
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 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
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed
changes to Title 24 requirements. The CEC recently developed new prototype designs for multifamily buildings
to more closely reflect typical designs for new multifamily buildings across the state. The new prototypes
include two low-rise residential designs, a mid-rise, and a high-rise design. At the time that this report was
written, there was one mid-rise multifamily prototype, which is used in this analysis in development of the
above-code packages (TRC, 2019). The midrise prototype is a 6-story building with one below-grade parking
level, ground floor commercial space, and four stories of residential space. Table 1 describes the basic
characteristics of the mid-rise prototype and Figure 1 shows a depiction of the building.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
2 2020-06-22
1
Characteristic Multifamily 5-Story Mid-Rise
Conditioned Floor Area
113,100 ft2 Total:
33,660 ft2 Nonresidential &
79,440 ft2 Residential
Number of Stories
6 Stories Total:
1 Story Parking Garage (below grade)
1 Story of Nonresidential Space
4 Stories of Residential Space
Number of Dwelling Units /
Bedrooms
(8)studios,
(40)1-bed units,
(32)2-bed units, &
(8)3-bed units
Foundation Concrete podium with underground parking
Wall Assembly Wood frame over a first-floor concrete podium
Roof Assembly Flat roof
Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 22.5%
HVAC System Ducted split heat pumps at each apartment
Domestic Hot Water System Gas central boiler with solar thermal sized to meet the
prescriptive requirements by climate zone
Source: TRC 2019
Source: TRC 2019
1 5--
The methodology used in the analyses for the prototypical building type begins with a design that meets the
minimum 2019 Title 24 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 140.3-B and 140.3-C in the
2019 Title 24 (California Energy Commission, 2018a) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline
design in each climate zone for the nonresidential and high-rise residential spaces, respectively. Other features
are consistent with the Standard Design in the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual (California Energy
Commission, 2019a) with one exception. The apartments use split system heat pumps instead of a split furnace
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
3 2020-06-22
and air conditioner that is prescribed in Table 2 of the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. This modeling
choice was made to better reflect current market data, which shows heat pumps to be the most common
system type and a very low prevalence of gas furnaces for multifamily buildings four stories and greater. This is
based on a report completed by TRC (TRC, 2019)and validated by analysis of CA HERS Registry Data by SCE that
showed 47% of low-rise multifamily new construction in the 2013 and 2016 code cycles had electric space
heating.The analysis also assumed electric cooking in the apartment units to reflect current market data.
Laundry was not addressed in this study. The building prototype assumes central laundry facilities and no
laundry in the units.
2.2 Measure Analysis
EnergyPro 8.1, which uses the California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-Com 2019.1.2,
as the simulation engine, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as
the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. CBECC-Com was used for this analysis to evaluate the mid-rise
building for code compliance under the 2019 non-residential standards. 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 to determine the projected site energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. Annual utility costs
were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Com, and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the
investor owned utilities (IOUs).
This analysis focused on the residential apartments only. A prior study and report demonstrated the cost-
effectiveness of above code packages for nonresidential buildings (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).The
Statewide Reach Code Team selected measures for evaluation based on the residential and nonresidential 2019
reach code analysis ((Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a),(Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019b))as well as
experience with and outreach to architects,builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative
acceptance of many measures.Efficiency measure packages found to be cost-effective in the nonresidential
building reach code analysis were applied to the nonresidential spaces for evaluating performance relative to
compliance, but the incremental costs and energy impacts of these measures on the nonresidential spaces were
not included in this analysis. Refer to the nonresidential reach code study for more details (Statewide Reach
Code Team, 2019a).
2.2.1
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
Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated for the residential spaces 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.
Improved Fenestration Lower U-factor: Reduce window U-factor to 0.25 Btu/hr-ft2-°F.The prescriptive
maximum U-factor is 0.36 in all climates.This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
4 2020-06-22
Improved Fenestration Lower SHGC: Reduce window solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)to 0.22.The
prescriptive maximum SHGC is 0.25 for fixed windows in all climates.The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated
increased SHGC in heating dominated climates (Climate Zone 1, 3, 5, and 16) but results were better with a
lower SHGC. This measure is applied to all windows on floors two through five.
Exterior Wall Insulation:Add one inch of R-4 exterior continuous insulation.To meet the prescriptive wall
requirements,exterior wall insulation is used in the basecase, therefore this measure adds
additional R-value to existing exterior insulation. This measure is applied to all walls on floors two through five.
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. (California Energy Commission,
2018b).
Low Pressure Drop Ducts:Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a
maximum fan efficacy of 0.25 watts per cfm 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.This
measure is applied to the ducted split heat pumps serving the apartments.
Solar Thermal:Prescriptively, central water heating systems require a solar thermal system with a 20% solar
fraction in Climates Zones 1 through 9 and 35% solar fraction in Climate Zones 10 through 16. This measure
upgrades the prescriptive solar thermal system to meet a 50% solar fraction in all climates, assuming there is
available roof space for the additional collectors.
Drain Water Heat Recovery:Add drain water heat recovery with a 50% effectiveness to serve all the
apartments. The assumption is for an unequal flow design where the output of the heat exchanger feeds only
the cold water inlets to the apartment showers, not the water heater cold water makeup.
Efficiency measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code
Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).
2.2.3
This analysis assumes that the basecase prototype model uses individual heat pumps for space heating and all
electric appliances in the apartments. Therefore, the domestic hot water system is the only equipment serving
the apartment spaces to electrify in the all-electric design .The Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated two
configurations for electric heat pump water heaters (HPWHs)described below.
Clustered Heat Pump Water Heater:This clustered design uses residential integrated storage HPWHs to serve
more than one apartment; 4 to 5 bedrooms on average for a total of 32 HPWHs in the 88-unit building. The
water heaters are located in interior closets throughout the building and designed for short plumbing runs
without using a hot water recirculation loop.A minimum efficiency 2.0 UEF HPWH was used for this analysis (to
avoid federal preemption).This approach has been selectively used in multifamily projects because of its
reliance on lower cost small capacity HPWH products. Since it uses residential equipment with each HPWH
serving fewer than 8 apartments the CBECC-Com compliance software had the capability to evaluate this design
strategy, even before central HPWH recirculation options were incorporated into the software.The clustered
strategy is not a prescriptive option but is allowed in the performance path if the water heater serves no more
than 8 units and has no recirculation control. The standard design assumes solar thermal, so the proposed
design is penalized in compliance for no solar thermal and made up with other efficiency measures.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
5 2020-06-22
Prescriptive Central Heat Pump Water Heater:Per Section 150.1(c)8C of the 2019 Standards, the Energy
Commission made an executive determination outlining requirements of a prescriptive approach for central
heat pump water heating systems in December 2019 (California Energy Commission, 2019b). Key aspects of the
prescriptive approach are described below:
The system must be configured with a design similar to what is presented in the schematic in Figure 2 of
the executive determination document.
HPWH must be single-pass split system with the compressor located outdoors and be able to operate
down to -20°F. In CBECC-Com 2019.1.2, the current version at the time of writing this report, the
software only has the capability of modeling Sanden HPWHs.
The system must include either a solar thermal water heating system that meets the current prescriptive
requirements or 0.1 kWDC of photovoltaic system capacity per apartment/dwelling unit.
For this configuration the Statewide Reach Code Team evaluated costs for a central HPWH system using Sanden
compressors that met these prescriptive requirements. Based on the system sizing requirements, 15 Sanden
units and 1,200 gallons of primary storage capacity are required for the 88-unit building.At the time that cost-
effectiveness was initially compared for the two HPWH configurations, the latest CBECC-Com software with the
ability to model central HPWH systems was not yet available. To estimate the energy use for the central
configuration,the water heating energy use for the clustered configuration was used. It is expected that the
energy use of the central system will be higher than the clustered approach primarily as a result of recirculation
pump energy and losses.
2
All-electric measures were applied to the nonresidential spaces based on the 2019 Nonresidential Reach Code
Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019a).
2.2.4
Solar Photovoltaic (PV):There is no existing requirement for PV in the 2019 Title 24 nonresidential code for
high-rise residential buildings (four or more stories). The PV sizing methodology was developed to offset a
portion of annual residential electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM)
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
6 2020-06-22
rules. In all cases, PV is evaluated using the PV simulations within CBECC-Com using a Standard module type, 180
degree azimuth, and 22 degree .tilt. The analysis evaluated PV system capacities equal to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 1
kWDC per apartment.The PV system offsets approximately XX4%, XX8%, XX13%, and 42%, of the apartment
electricity usage, respectively.Assuming 15 Watts per square foot for a typical commercial PV system, 1 kWDC
per apartment,or 88 kWDC total,would take up about 25%of the total roof area.
2.3 Package Development
Four packages were evaluated for each climate zone, as described below.
1)Efficiency Mixed-fuel: This package applies efficiency
including envelope, water heating distribution,and duct distribution efficiency measures.
2)Efficiency All Electric: This package applies efficiency measures
in addition to converting any natural gas appliances to electric appliances.For the residential spaces,
only water heating is converted from natural gas to electric.
3)Efficiency & PV Mixed-fuel: Beginning with the Efficiency Package , PV was added to offset a portion
of the apartment estimated electricity use.
4)Efficiency & PV All Electric: Beginning with the Efficiency Package, PV was added to offset a portion of
the apartment estimated electricity use.
2.4
2.4.1
Table 22 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study relative to the
residential parts of the building.Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and
maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.Replacement costs are applied to PV
inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period.There is no assumed maintenance on the
envelope,HVAC, or DHW measures. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs
were obtained from a source that did not already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of 10% 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 72020-06-222MeasurePerformance LevelIncremental Cost (2020 PV$)Source & NotesNon-Preempted Measures Window U-factor0.25vs 0.36$28,301$6.95/ft2window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 code cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC0.22vs 0.25$0Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost impact (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b). Exterior Wall InsulationAdd 1-inch$14,058$0.86/ft2based on insulation on a wall with some level of existing exterior insulation. Costs are averaged from two sources ((Statewide CASE Team, 2014), (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a))and for expanded polystyrene (EPS)and polyisocyanurateproductswith a 10% mark-up added to account for cost increases over time.HERS Verified Pipe InsulationHERS verified pipe insulation vs no verification$7,260$83per apartment for a HERS Rater to conduct verification of pipe insulation based on feedback from HERS Raters.Low Pressure Drop Ducts0.25W/cfm vs 0.35W/cfm$12,654$144per apartment. Costs assume 1.5hourshrs labor per multifamily apartment. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an averageCity Cost Index for labor for California cities.Solar Thermal50% solar fraction vs prescriptive 20%-35%$79,560Costs based on 2022 multifamily solar thermal measure CASE proposal (Statewide CASE Team, 2020) and include first cost of $70,727and $8,834 present value for replacement/maintenancecosts.DrainWaterHeat Recovery50% effectiveness, flowsto shower$16,984Costs from 2019 DWHR CASE Reportwhich assumes 1 heat exchanger per 4 units(Statewide CASE Team, 2017c).Costs do notincludeadditional cost of water meters at each apartment(per SB7), which would add approx. $175 per dwelling unit.Renewable Energy (PV) PV SystemSystem size varies$3.17/WDCFirst costs are from LBNLTracking the Sun 2018 costs(Barboseet al., 2018) and represent costs for the first half of 2018 of $2.90/WDCfor nonresidential systems500 kWDC. 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/WDCpresent value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC(nominal) andat year 21 at $0.12/WDC(nominal)per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDCpresent value assumes additional$0.02/WDC(nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).10% overhead and profit added to all costs.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
8 2020-06-22
2.4.2
The Statewide Reach Code Team reached out to stakeholders to collect project cost information for central gas
boilers and both clustered and central HPWH designs. Project data sources included Association for Energy
Affordability (AEA), Redwood Energy, Mithun, Ecotope, and the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway
2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). Costs are presented in Table 3.
3 30-Year
Analysis
Central
Gas Boiler
(CZs 1-9)
Central Gas
Boiler
(CZs 10-16)
Clustered
HPWH
Central
HPWH
System Quantity/Description
1 boiler
recirc
32 units
80 gal. each
no recirc
15 units
.1,200-gal
total
recirc
Total Equipment Cost $98,733 $126,778 $213,364
Solar Thermal
(20% SF)
110,096
(35% SF)
$131,817 --
Solar PV ---
$23,580
(8.8 kWDC)
Total First Cost $202,920 $224,641 $126,778 $236,944
Maintenance/Replacement Cost (NPV)$69,283 $69,283 $81,374 $120,683
Total Cost (NPV)$272,203 $293,924 $208,152 $357,627
Incremental Cost CZ 1-9 (NPV)($64,051)$85,424
Incremental Cost CZ 10-16 (NPV)($85,772)$63,703
Typical costs for the water heating systems are based on the following assumptions:
Central Gas Boiler: Based on the average of total estimated project costs from contractors for four multi-family
projects ranging from 32 to 340 apartments and cost estimates for mid-rise and high-rise buildings from the All-
Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020).The cost per
dwelling unit ranged from $547 to $2,089 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $1,122 per dwelling
unit.Costs include installation of gas piping from the building meter to the water heater. Water heater lifetime
is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $63,373.
Clustered HPWH: Based on costs from one project with RHEEM HPWHs used in a clustered design. Costs include
water heater interior closet, electrical outlets,and increased breaker size and sub feed. Water heater based on
2.0 UEF 80-gallon appliance with 32 total HPWHs serving the building (1 per 4 to 5 bedrooms).Water heater
lifetime is assumed to be 15 years and the net present value replacement cost at year 15 is $81,374.This design
assumes 8 water heater closets per floor, at approximately 15 square feet per closet. While this has an impact
on leasable floor area, the design impacts have been found to be minimal when addressed early in design.
Central HPWH:Based on average total installed project costs from four multi-family projects with Sanden
HPWHs ranging from 4 to 16 Sanden units per project. The cost per Sanden HPWH ranged from $13,094 to
$15,766 and the average cost applied in this analysis was $14,224 per HPWH.Based on the prescriptive system
sizing requirements, 15 Sanden units are required for the 88-unit building, resulting in a total first cost of
$213,364. Water heater lifetime is assumed to be 15 years. Because Sanden HPWHS are an emerging technology
in the United States, it is expected that over time their costs will decrease and for replacement at year 15 the
costs are assumed to have decreased by 15%.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
9 2020-06-22
Solar Thermal: Based on system costs provided in the All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway 2022 Draft
CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). First costs reflect the material, labor, and markup costs presented in
the Draft CASE Report for the mid-rise prototype. Replacement and maintenance costs assume replacement of
the solar thermal tank at year 15 at $6,110 and glycol replacement of $1,300 each time at years 9, 18, and 27.
The cost of the remaining useful life of the glycol at year 30 is deducted from the final cost. The Draft CASE
Report included costs for replacing the solar collectors at year 20. Collectors can have longer lifetimes up to 30
years if well maintained, therefore this analysis does not assume any replacement of the collectors over the 30
year analysis period.
4 30-Yea
Solar Fraction 20%35%
Materials $33,975 $48,975
Labor $47,740 $49,776
Markup 27.5%27.5%
First Cost $104,187 $125,908
Replacement/Maintenance (PV)$5,910 $5,910
Total PV Cost $110,096 $131,817
2.4.3 nfrastructure Costs
This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction project, natural gas would not be supplied to the
building. Eliminating natural gas to the building would save costs associated with connecting a service line from
the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly meter connection charges
from the utility. Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure in the mixed-fuel building are presented in Table
5.Cost data for the plan review and service extension was estimated on a per building basis and then
apportioned to the residential and nonresidential portions of the buildings based on annual gas consumption.
For the basecase prototype building 49% to 93% of estimated building annual gas use is attributed to the
residential water heating system across all climate zones. A statewide average of 80% was calculated and
applied to the costs in Table 5 based on housing starts provided by the California Energy Commission for the
2019 Title 24 code development process. The meter costs were based on the service provided to the residential
and nonresidential portion of the building separately. Following the table are descriptions of assumptions for
each of the cost components.Costs for gas piping from the meter to the gas boilers are included in the central
gas boiler costs above. Gas piping distribution costs were typically included in total project costs and could not
be broken out in all cases.
5 -Building
Item Total NonResidential
Portion
Residential
Portion
Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $452 $1,864
Service Extension1 $4,600 $898 $3,702
Meter $7,200 $3,600 $3,600
Total First Cost $14,116 $4,950 $9,166
1Service extension costs include 50% reduction assuming portion of the costs are passed on to gas customers.
Natural Gas Plan Review: Total costs are based on TRC analysis for Palo Alto (TRC, 2019) and
then split between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building proportionately according to annual
gas consumption with 80%of the annual load is attributed to residential units on a statewide basis.
Service Extension: Service extension costs to the building were taken from PG&E memo dated December 5,
2019,to Energy Commission staff, include costs for trenching, and assume non-residential new construction
within a developed area (see Appendix C PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo, PG&E, 2019).The total cost of
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
10 2020-06-22
$9,200 from the memo is reduced by 50% to account for the portion of the costs paid for by all customers due to
application of Utility Gas Main Extensions rules1.The resultant cost is apportioned between the residential and
nonresidential spaces in the building based on annual gas consumption of residential and nonresidential uses,
with 80%of the annual load natural gas use attributed to residential units on a statewide basis.
Meter: Cost per meter provided by PG&E for commercial meters. Assume one meter for nonresidential boilers
serving space heating and service water heating, and another for residential boilers serving domestic hot water.
2.5 Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all 16 California climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy,
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.
Cost-effectiveness is presented using both lifecycle net present value (NPV)savings and benefit-to-cost (B/C)
ratio metrics,which represent the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account
discounting of future savings and costs.
Net Present Value (NPV)Savings:NPV benefits minus NPV costs is reported as a 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 (B/C) Ratio:Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs
over 30 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 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 1.
1
Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit
is represented by annual -utility or TDV savings,and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement
costs. 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). In cases where both
construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the
increased energy costs In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective
immediately (i.e. upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness
Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases,are
positive values.
1 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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
11 2020-06-22
The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 2.
E 2
Where:
n = analysis term
r = real discount rate
t = year at which cost/benefit is incurred
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies.
Analysis term of 30 years
Real discount rate of 3%(does not include inflation)
2.5.1 On-Cost
Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer cost-
effectiveness for the proposed packages. Utility costs of the nonresidential spaces were not evaluated in this
study,only apartment and water heating energy use.The Statewide Reach Code Team obtained the
recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect in 2020.
Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Com,and applying the
utility tariffs summarized in Table 6. Appendix B Utility Tariff Details includes details on the utility rate
schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.For
cases with PV generation, the approved NEM2 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and
mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases annual electric production was always less than annual
electricity consumption;and therefore,no credits for surplus generation were necessary. Future changes 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 Title 24 code cycle (2020-2022).
Based on guidance from the IOUs, the residential electric TOU tariffs that apply to individually metered
residential apartments were also used to calculate electricity costs for the central water heating systems.Where
baseline allowances are included in the tariffs (SCE TOU-D and SDG&E TOU-DR1) the allowances were applied on
a per unit basis for all-electric service.
Based on guidance from the IOUs, master metered multifamily service gas tariffs were used to calculate gas
costs for the central water heating systems.The baseline quantities were applied on a per unit basis, as is
defined in the schedules,and when available water heating only baseline values were used.
Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each
zone according to Table 6. 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 municipal utility rates were also evaluated, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) in Climate Zone 12 and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) in Climate Zone 4.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
12 2020-06-22
6 I B
Climate Zones Electric/Gas
Utility
Electricity
(Apartment
Use)
Electricity
(Central Water
Heating)
Natural Gas
(Central Water
Heating)1
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E E-TOU-C E-TOU-C PG&E GM
5 PG&E/SoCalGas
SoCalGas GM-E6,8-10,14,15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-D
(Option 4-9)
TOU-D
(Option 4-9)
7,10,14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 TOU-DR1 SDG&E GM
12 SMUD/PG&E R-TOD (RT02)GSN-T PG&E GM
4 CPAU E-1 E-2 G-2
1 These rates are allowed assuming no gas is used in the apartments.
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 (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.
2.5.2 TDV Lifec
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy C 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-Com simulation software results are expressed 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 30-year NPV factor is $0.154/TDV kBtu for nonresidential projects
under 2019 Title 24.
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 3.
3
2.6
Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC-
Com simulation software.2 Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year, accounting for time
dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard
2 More information at: : https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
13 2020-06-22
projections. 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 dwelling unit.
3 Results
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for
mid-rise multifamily buildings, under both mixed-fuel and all-electric cases,to support the design of local
ordinances requiring new mid-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 evaluated a package of efficiency measures applied to a mixed-fuel design and a similar package for
an all-electric design. Each design was evaluated using the predominant utility rates in all 16 California climate
zones. Solar PV was also added to the efficiency packages and a sensitivity analysis was conducted at various PV
system capacities to optimize cost-effectiveness.
Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following
measures are included in at least one package:
Improved fenestration
Wall insulation
Low pressure-drop distribution system
HERS verified pipe insulation
The following measures were evaluated but were found to not be cost-effective and were not included in any of
the packages.
Solar thermal system with higher solar fraction than prescriptive requirements
Drain water heat recovery
Cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric case are based upon the clustered HPWH approach only. Lower first
costs with the clustered approach resulted in better cost-effectiveness than the central HPWH design.
3.1 Mid-Results
Table 7 and Table 9 present results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages, respectively. Each table shows
cost-effectiveness results for Efficiency Only packages and Efficiency + PV packages (with a 17.6 kWDC PV system
sized based on 0.2 kWDC per apartment). Both mixed-fuel and all-electric results are relative to the mixed-fuel
2019 Title 24 prescriptive baseline.B/C ratios for all packages are presented according to both the On-Bill and
TDV methodologies for the mixed-fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively.Detailed results are presented in
Appendix D Detailed Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric.
Compliance margins for the Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases range from 5% to 8%, which meets the CALGreen
Tier 1 energy performance requirement for high-rise residential buildings. Mixed-Fuel Efficiency Only cases are
cost-effective based on TDV in all climate zones except for 1 and 16. The cases are cost-effective from an On-Bill
perspective in all climate zones except 1.
The All-Electric Efficiency Only package does not meet minimum code requirements in Climate Zones 1 and 16.
Compliance margins for all other climate zones range from 1% to 5%.All-Electric Efficiency Only cases are cost-
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
14 2020-06-22
effective in all climate zones based on TDV. Cost-effectiveness from an On-Bill perspective is favorable in all
climate zones except 1, 16, and 5 in SCG territory.
Efficiency
Several PV system size options were evaluated for the Efficiency + PV packages. Of the PV system sizes
evaluated, 0.2 kWDC per apartment represents the smallest system that resulted in B/C ratios greater than one
based on both metrics in all climate zones for the mixed-fuel scenario. Adding a 0.1 kWDC per apartment in the
all-electric cases, resulted in B/C ratios greater than one in all climate zones.
Table 11 and Table 12 describe the efficiency measures included in the mixed-fuel and all-electric packages,
respectively.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 152020-06-227Mixed-Results(SAVINGS/COST1Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.ClimateZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityComp. MarginTotal Gas Savings (therms)Total Electric Savings (kWh)GHG Reductions(lb. CO2)Savings (2020 PV$)Incremental Cost(2020 PV$)B/C Ratio1NPVUtilityCost SavingsTDV Savings On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01PGEPGE5.8%02618$133$105$3040.440.35($171)($199)CZ02PGEPGE5.9%04729$391$285$1442.721.98$248 $141 CZ03PGEPGE6.7%04427$345$226$1442.401.57$202 $82 CZ04PGEPGE6.6%06137$465$331$1443.242.31$321 $188 CZ04-2CPAUCPAU6.6%06137$248$331$1441.732.31$104 $188 CZ05PGEPGE6.7%04224$320$206$1442.221.43$176 $62 CZ05-2PGESCG6.7%04224$320$206$1442.221.43$176 $62 CZ06SCESCG7.1%07442$424$351$1442.952.44$280 $207 CZ07SDGESDGE7.6%08148$593$374$1444.132.60$449 $230 CZ08SCESCG7.0%08450$484$420$1443.372.92$341 $276 CZ09SCESCG6.5%08351$468$441$1443.263.06$324 $297 CZ10SCESCG6.5%08250$410$427$1442.852.97$266 $283 CZ10-2SDGESDGE6.5%08250$599$427$1444.162.97$455 $283 CZ11PGEPGE6.8%010470$637$635$6251.021.02$11 $10 CZ12PGEPGE6.8%09360$572$568$3041.881.87$268 $265 CZ12-2SMUDPGE6.8%09371$319$568$3041.051.87$15 $265 CZ13PGEPGE7.3%013289$798$779$6251.281.25$173 $154 CZ14SCESCG6.0%08049$407$449$3041.341.48$103 $145 CZ14-2SDGESDGE6.0%08049$576$449$3041.901.48$273 $145 CZ15SCESCG6.8%014593$719$802$6251.151.28$94 $177 CZ16PGEPGE7.4%011776$646$563$6251.030.90$21 ($62)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 162020-06-228Mixed-Results:0.2kWDC1Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.ClimateZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityComp. MarginTotal Gas Savings (therms)Total Electric Savings (kWh)GHG Reductions(lb. CO2)Savings (2020 PV$)Incremental Cost(2020 PV$)B/C Ratio1NPVUtilityCost SavingsTDV Savings On-Bill TDVOn-Bill TDV CZ01PGEPGE5.8%0291131$1,637$1,090$9371.751.16$701$153CZ02PGEPGE5.9%0360163$2,431$1,469$7773.131.89$1,655$692CZ03PGEPGE6.7%0359161$2,400$1,397$7773.091.80$1,624$620CZ04PGEPGE6.6%0385176$2,579$1,562$7773.322.01$1,802$785CZ04-2CPAUCPAU6.6%061176$1,335$1,562$7771.722.01$558$785CZ05PGEPGE6.7%0379168$2,480$1,461$7773.191.88$1,704$685CZ05-2PGESCG6.7%0379168$2,480$1,461$7773.191.88$1,704$685CZ06SCESCG7.1%0392178$1,987$1,587$7772.562.04$1,210$810CZ07SDGESDGE7.6%0411189$2,770$1,647$7773.572.12$1,993$870CZ08SCESCG7.0%0402186$2,059$1,708$7772.652.20$1,282$931CZ09SCESCG6.5%0410192$1,876$1,742$7772.412.24$1,099$965CZ10SCESCG6.5%0409190$1,797$1,681$7772.312.16$1,020$904CZ10-2SDGESDGE6.5%0409190$2,646$1,681$7773.412.16$1,869$904CZ11PGEPGE6.8%0422206$2,438$1,877$1,2581.941.49$1,180$619CZ12PGEPGE6.8%0406193$2,352$1,794$9372.511.91$1,415$857CZ12-2SMUDPGE6.8%0406193$1,226$1,794$9371.311.91$289$857CZ13PGEPGE7.3%0441221$2,548$1,965$1,2582.031.56$1,290$707CZ14SCESCG6.0%0439201$1,923$1,901$9372.052.03$987$964CZ14-2SDGESDGE6.0%0439201$2,819$1,901$9373.012.03$1,882$964CZ15SCESCG6.8%0478234$2,128$2,110$1,2581.691.68$870$852CZ16PGEPGE7.4%0457222$2,567$1,818$1,2582.041.44$1,309$56010.C.d
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 172020-06-229All-(SAVINGS/COSTS1Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2incremental measurecost savings and energy cost savings.ClimateZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityComp. MarginTotal Gas Savings (therms)Total Electric Savings (kWh)GHG Reductions(lb. CO2)Savings (2020 PV$)Incremental Cost(2020 PV$)B/C Ratio1,2NPVUtilityCost SavingsTDV Savings On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01PGEPGE-0.4%125-8731040-$674$199-$4460.7>1($228)$645CZ02PGEPGE1.6%114-762971-$238$528-$6062.5>1$368 $1,134CZ03PGEPGE1.1%115-767975-$287$390-$6062.1>1$319 $996CZ04PGEPGE3.4%111-714952-$102$625-$6066.0>1$504 $1,231CZ04-2CPAUCPAU3.4%111-714952$345$625-$606>1>1$951 $1,231CZ05PGEPGE1.3%117-788991-$350$391-$6061.7>1$255 $996CZ05-2PGESCG1.3%117-788991-$827$391-$6060.7>1($221)$996CZ06SCESCG3.7%107-670933$153$612-$606>1>1$759 $1,218CZ07SDGESDGE4.8%106-653930-$58$665-$60610.4>1$547 $1,271CZ08SCESCG3.9%104-633912$227$693-$606>1>1$833 $1,298CZ09SCESCG3.8%104-633912$212$739-$606>1>1$817 $1,345CZ10SCESCG1.8%90-626743-$214$396-$8534.0>1$639 $1,249CZ10-2SDGESDGE1.8%90-626743-$478$396-$8531.8>1$375 $1,249CZ11PGEPGE2.0%91-619769-$241$430-$3711.5>1$130 $802CZ12PGEPGE1.4%94-662773-$414$288-$6931.7>1$279 $980CZ12-2SMUDPGE1.4%94-662773$1,060$288-$693>1>1$1,753 $980CZ13PGEPGE2.6%90-579777-$62$505-$3716.0>1$309 $876CZ14SCESCG1.1%92-653759-$258$305-$6932.7>1$435 $998CZ14-2SDGESDGE1.1%92-653759-$532$305-$6931.3>1$161 $998CZ15SCESCG4.4%74-409679$332$832-$371>1>1$704 $1,203CZ16PGEPGE-5.8%108-777895-$621$127-$3710.6>1($250)$49810.C.d
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 182020-06-2210-1kWDC(SAVINGS/COSTS1Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2incremental measurecost savings and energy cost savings.ClimateZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityComp. MarginTotal Gas Savings (therms)Total Electric Savings (kWh)GHG Reductions(lb. CO2)Savings (2020 PV$)Incremental Cost(2020 PV$)B/C Ratio1,2NPVUtilityCost SavingsTDV Savings On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01PGEPGE-0.4%125-7411,097$78$692-$129>1>1$208$821CZ02PGEPGE1.6%114-6061,038$782$1,120-$289>1>1$1,071$1,409CZ03PGEPGE1.1%115-6091,042$741$975-$289>1>1$1,030$1,264CZ04PGEPGE3.4%111-5521,021$955$1,240-$289>1>1$1,244$1,529CZ04-2CPAUCPAU3.4%111-7141,021$904$1,240-$289>1>1$1,194$1,529CZ05PGEPGE1.3%117-6191,063$730$1,018-$289>1>1$1,019$1,307CZ05-2PGESCG1.3%117-6191,063$254$1,018-$289>1>1$543$1,307CZ06SCESCG3.7%107-5121,001$935$1,231-$289>1>1$1,224$1,520CZ07SDGESDGE4.8%106-4881,000$1,049$1,302-$289>1>1$1,339$1,591CZ08SCESCG3.9%104-474981$1,014$1,337-$289>1>1$1,304$1,626CZ09SCESCG3.8%104-469983$924$1,390-$289>1>1$1,213$1,679CZ10SCESCG1.8%90-463813$480$1,023-$536>1>1$1,016$1,559CZ10-2SDGESDGE1.8%90-463813$546$1,023-$536>1>1$1,082$1,559CZ11PGEPGE2.0%91-460837$660$1,052-$55>1>1$714$1,106CZ12PGEPGE1.4%94-505839$476$900-$376>1>1$852$1,276CZ12-2SMUDPGE1.4%94-505839$1,513$900-$376>1>1$1,890$1,276CZ13PGEPGE2.6%90-424843$813$1,098-$55>1>1$867$1,153CZ14SCESCG1.1%92-473835$500$1,031-$376>1>1$877$1,407CZ14-2SDGESDGE1.1%92-473835$589$1,031-$376>1>1$965$1,407CZ15SCESCG4.4%74-242750$1,037$1,485-$55>1>1$1,091$1,540CZ16PGEPGE-5.8%108-608969$339$754-$55>1>1$394$80910.C.d
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
19 2020-06-22
11 Mixed-Summary
Climate
Zone
Compliance
Margin
MEASURE SPECIFICATION
Window
U-value
Window
SHGC
Add
Wall
Ins.
Fan Watt
Draw
HERS
Pipe Ins.
CZ01 5.8%+ 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ02 5.9%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ03 6.7%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ04 6.6%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ05 6.7%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ06 7.1%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ07 7.6%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ08 7.0%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ09 6.5%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ10 6.5%0.22 0.25 W/cfm No
CZ11 6.8%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ12 7.3%0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ13 7.3%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ14 6.8%0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ15 6.8%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
CZ16 7.4%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm No
12 All-Summary
Climate
Zone
MEASURE SPECIFICATION
Compliance
Margin
Window
U-value
Window
SHGC
Add
Wall
Ins.
Fan Watt
Draw
HERS
Pipe Ins.
CZ01 -0.4%+ 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ02 1.6%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ03 1.1%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ04 3.4%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ05 1.3%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ06 3.7%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ07 4.8%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ08 3.9%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ09 3.8%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ10 1.8%0.22 0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ11 2.0%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ12 2.0%0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ13 2.6%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ14 2.0%0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ15 4.4%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
CZ16 -5.8%0.25 0.22 + 1"0.25 W/cfm Yes
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
20 2020-06-22
4
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-specifications for newly
constructed mid-rise multifamily buildings. The analysis included application of efficiency measures, electric
appliances,and PV in all 16 California climate zones, and found cost-effective packages across the state. For the
building designs 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 ratio and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost ratio.
For mixed-fuel buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective Efficiency Only packages that
achieve a minimum 5% compliance margin in most climate zones. The exception is Climate Zone 1 where the
package was not cost-effective based on either the TDV or the On-Bill methodology. In all other cases the
package is cost-effective for at least one of the metrics.
When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included,all climate zones are cost-effective based on at least one of the
metrics. The addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC total for the building, results in an incremental cost
for the PV system of $27,855.When 0.2 kWDC per apartment is included,all climate zones are cost-effective
based on both metrics.The addition of 0.2 kWDC per apartment, or 17.6 kWDC for the building, results in an
incremental cost for the PV system of $55,711.
This study evaluated electrification of residential loads in new mid-rise multifamily buildings. Based on typical
construction across California, the basecase condition incorporated all electric appliances within the apartment
spaces. As a result, only central water heating was converted from natural gas to electric as part of this analysis.
For all-electric buildings, this analysis demonstrates that there are cost-effective All-Electric Efficiency Only
packages that meet minimum Title 24 code compliance in all climate zones except 1 and 16. The package is cost-
effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones. It is cost-effective based on the On-Bill
methodology in Climate Zones 2 through 15, except for Climate Zones 5 in SCG territory.
When 0.1 kWDC per apartment is included,all climate zones are cost-effective based on both metrics.The
addition of 0.1 kWDC per apartment, or 8.8 kWDC for the building, results in an incremental cost for the PV system
of $27,855.
Additional considerations
This study found that electrification of central domestic hot water loads, in combination with efficiency
measures, can result in a benefit to the consumer through lower utility bills under certain electricity and
gas tariff scenarios (Climate Zones 6, 8, 9, 15, 4 in CPAU territory, and 12 in SMUD territory territory).
The all-electric results demonstrate a trend with On-Bill cost-effectiveness across the different electric
utilities.Net Present Value in SCE and SDG&E territories, as well as SMUD and CPAU territories, are
typically higher than the cases in PG&E territory.This indicates that rate design can play an important
role in encouraging or discouraging electrification.
This study did not evaluate federally preempted high efficiency appliances. Specifying high efficiency
equipment is a viable approach to meeting Title 24 code compliance and local ordinance requirements
and is commonly used by project teams.Other studies have found that efficiency packages and
electrification packages that employ high efficiency equipment can be quite cost-effective ((Statewide
Reach Code Team, 2019b), (Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019)).
If PV capacity is added to both the mixed-fuel and all-electric efficiency packages,all cases are cost-
effective based on at least one of the two evaluated metrics. In some cases,cost-effectiveness improves,
and in other cases it decreases relative to the case with efficiency and/or electrification measures only.
The cost-effectiveness of adding PV up to 1 kW per apartment, as an independent measure,results in
On-Bill benefit-to-cost ratios between 2.3 and 3.1 for PGE territory, 2.1 to 2.3 for SCE territory, and 3.2
to 3.5 for SDG&E territory. The TDV B/C ratio for PV alone is approximately 2.0 for most climate zones
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
21 2020-06-22
for all service territories. Adding PV in addition to the efficiency packages improves cost-effectiveness
where the B/C ratios for the efficiency measures alone are lower than the B/C ratios for PV alone, and
vice versa where they are higher.Annual basecase electricity costs and annual utility savings from PV are
lower in SCE territory than in PG&E and SDG&E territories. This is due to lower off-peak cost and a
bigger difference in peak versus off-peak rate for the TOU-D SCE electricity rate tariff. Most PV
production occurs during off-peak times (4 pm to 9 pm peak period).
Table 13 summarizes compliance margin and cost-effectiveness results for the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases.
Compliance margin is reported in the cells and cost-effectiveness is indicated by the color of the cell according
to the following:
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 margin and cost-effective results using either the
On-Bill or TDV approach but not both.
Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin (red text) or a package that was not
cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
For more detail on the results, please refer to Section 3.1 Mid-Rise Multifamily Results, Appendix D Detailed
Results Mixed-Fuel and Appendix E Detailed Results All-Electric.
13 Mid--Effectiveness
Climate
Zone
Elec
Utility
Gas
Utility
Mixed-Fuel All-Electric
No PV
0.1
kWDC
/Apt
0.2
kWDC
/Apt
0.3
kWDC
/Apt No PV
0.1 kWDC
/Apt
0.2 kWDC
/Apt
0.3 kWDC
/Apt
CZ01 PGE PGE 5.8%5.8%5.8%5.8%-0.4%-0.4%-0.4%-0.4%
CZ02 PGE PGE 5.9%5.9%5.9%5.9%1.6%1.6%1.6%1.6%
CZ03 PGE PGE 6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%
CZ04 PGE PGE 6.6%6.6%6.6%6.6%3.4%3.4%3.4%3.4%
CZ04-2 CPAU CPAU 6.6%6.6%6.6%6.6%3.4%3.4%3.4%3.4%
CZ05 PGE PGE 6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%1.3%1.3%1.3%1.3%
CZ05-2 PGE SCG 6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%1.3%1.3%1.3%1.3%
CZ06 SCE SCG 7.1%7.1%7.1%7.1%3.7%3.7%3.7%3.7%
CZ07 SDGE SDGE 7.6%7.6%7.6%7.6%4.8%4.8%4.8%4.8%
CZ08 SCE SCG 7.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%3.9%3.9%3.9%3.9%
CZ09 SCE SCG 6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%3.8%3.8%3.8%3.8%
CZ10 SCE SCG 6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%1.8%1.8%1.8%1.8%
CZ10-2 SDGE SDGE 6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%1.8%1.8%1.8%1.8%
CZ11 PGE PGE 6.8%6.8%6.8%6.8%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
CZ12 PGE PGE 6.8%6.8%6.8%6.8%1.4%1.4%1.4%1.4%
CZ12-2 SMUD PGE 6.8%6.8%6.8%6.8%1.4%1.4%1.4%1.4%
CZ13 PGE PGE 7.3%7.3%7.3%7.3%2.6%2.6%2.6%2.6%
CZ14 SCE SCG 6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%
CZ14-2 SDGE SDGE 6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%
CZ15 SCE SCG 6.8%6.8%6.8%6.8%4.4%4.4%4.4%4.4%
CZ16 PGE PGE 7.4%7.4%7.4%7.4%-5.8%-5.8%-5.8%-5.8%
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
22 2020-06-22
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 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. 2018b. 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. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual.
CEC-400-2019-006-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2019b. Executive Director Determination Pursuant to Section 150.1(c)8C for
Central Heat Pump Water Heating System. December 26, 2019.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231318&DocumentContentId=63067
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
Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07-
09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/
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 CASE Team. 2014. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Nonresidential Opaque
Envelope. December 2014. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016-T24-CASE-
Report-NR-Opaque-Envelope-Dec2014-V3.pdf
Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. 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. 2017b. 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. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery
Final Report. July 2017. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-
Report_DWHR_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 CASE Team. 2020. All-Electric Multifamily Compliance Pathway Draft CASE Report.
https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2022-T24-Draft-CASE-Report_MF-All-Electric.pdf
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
23 2020-06-22
Statewide Reach Code Team. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness
Study. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC. July 25, 2019.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/801/file_path/fieldList/2019%20NR%20NC%20Cost%20Effectiveness%
20Study-2019-07-25.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Te am. 2019b. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. August 1, 2019.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes
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
TRC. 2019. Multifamily Prototypes. June 7, 2019. Submitted to Southern California Edison.
https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCE-
MFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
24 2020-06-22
Fi 3 (Source,California Energy Commission3)
3 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
25 2020-06-22
B
PG&E .............................................................................................................................................................26
SCE ...............................................................................................................................................................32
SoCalGas .......................................................................................................................................................35
SDG&E...........................................................................................................................................................38
SMUD.............................................................................................................................................................42
Escalation Assumptions ..............................................................................................................................44
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
26 2020-06-22
PG&E
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 14
describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
14 ma
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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April
2020 according to the rates shown in Table 15.Rates are based on historical data provided by PG&E.4
15 ($/Therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.45813 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.45525 $2.05353
Feb 2020 $0.44791 $0.99712 $1.59540 $1.44503 $2.04331
Mar 2020 $0.35346 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.48472 $2.00207
Apr 2020 $0.23856 $1.13126 $1.64861 $1.36982 $1.88717
May 2019 $0.21791 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.21724 $1.81683
June 2019 $0.20648 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.20581 $1.80540
July 2019 $0.28462 $0.99933 $1.59892 $1.28395 $1.88354
Aug 2019 $0.30094 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.26746 $1.84737
Sept 2019 $0.25651 $0.96652 $1.54643 $1.22303 $1.80294
Oct 2019 $0.27403 $0.98932 $1.58292 $1.26335 $1.85695
Nov 2019 $0.33311 $0.96729 $1.54767 $1.30040 $1.88078
Dec 2019 $0.401787/$0.96729 $1.54767 $1.36907 $1.94945
4The PG&E procurement and transportation charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRF.SHTML#RESGAS
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
27 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
28 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
29 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
30 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
31 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
32 2020-06-22
SCE
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study.Table 16 describes the
baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
16 SCE
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
33 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
34 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
35 2020-06-22
SoCalGas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study.Table 17 describes the baseline territories
that were assumed for each climate zone.
17
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April
2020 according to the rates shown in Table 18.Historical natural gas rate data was only available for
procurement charges5. To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were
assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs.
18
Month Procurement
Charge
Transmission Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.34730 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.16472 $1.51916
Feb 2020 $0.28008 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09750 $1.45194
Mar 2020 $0.22108 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.03850 $1.39294
Apr 2020 $0.20307 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.02049 $1.37493
May 2019 $0.23790 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.05532 $1.40976
June 2019 $0.24822 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.06564 $1.42008
July 2019 $0.28475 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.10217 $1.45661
Aug 2019 $0.27223 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.08965 $1.44409
Sept 2019 $0.26162 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.07904 $1.43348
Oct 2019 $0.30091 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.11833 $1.47277
Nov 2019 $0.27563 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.09305 $1.44749
Dec 2019 $0.38067 $0.81742 $1.17186 $1.19809 $1.55253
5 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
36 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
37 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
38 2020-06-22
SDG&E
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study.Table 19 describes the baseline
territories that were assumed for each climate zone.All-Electric baseline allowances were applied.
19
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
39 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
40 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
41 2020-06-22
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending April
2020 according to the rates shown in Table 20.Historical natural gas rate data was only available f
procurement charges6. To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were
assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on April 2020 costs.
20 SDG&E
Month Procurement
Charge
Transmission Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2020 $0.34761 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.70927 $1.93927
Feb 2020 $0.28035 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.64201 $1.87201
Mar 2020 $0.22130 $1.36166 $1.59166 $1.58296 $1.81296
Apr 2020 $0.20327 $1.35946 $1.59125 $1.56273 $1.79452
May 2019 $0.23804 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.30153 $1.49057
June 2019 $0.24838 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.31187 $1.50091
July 2019 $0.28491 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.34840 $1.53744
Aug 2019 $0.27239 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33588 $1.52492
Sept 2019 $0.26178 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.32527 $1.51431
Oct 2019 $0.30109 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.36458 $1.55362
Nov 2019 $0.27580 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.33929 $1.52833
Dec 2019 $0.38090 $1.06349 $1.25253 $1.44439 $1.63343
6 The SDG&E procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following sets of documents:
http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2020.pdf
http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-SCHEDS_GM_2019.pdf
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
42 2020-06-22
SMUD
Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study.
RTOD Rate Schedule
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
43 2020-06-22
GSN_T Rate Schedule:
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
44 2020-06-22
CPAU
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study.
E1 Rate Schedule:
E2 Rate Schedule:
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
45 2020-06-22
G-2 Rate Schedule:
G2 Monthly Per Therm Rates:
Effective
Date
Commodity
Rate
Cap and Trade
Compliance
Charge
Transportation
Charge
Carbon
Offset
Charge
G2 Total
Volumetric
Rate
1/1/20 $0.3289 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.11151
2/1/20 0.2466 0.033 0.09941 0.040 1.02921
3/1/20 0.2416 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.02371
4/1/20 0.2066 0.033 0.09891 0.040 0.98871
5/1/20 0.2258 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.00791
6/1/20 0.2279 0.033 0.09891 0.040 1.01001
7/1/19 0.2471 0.033 0.11757 0.040 1.04787
j8/1/19 0.2507 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.03456
9/1/19 0.2461 0.033 0.10066 0.040 1.02996
10/1/19 0.2811 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.06718
11/1/19 0.2923 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.07838
12/1/19 0.3781 0.033 0.10288 0.040 1.16418
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
46 2020-06-22
The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and
Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019).These rates are
applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a 30-year period beginning in 2020.SDG&E was not covered in the E3
study. The Statewide Reach Code Team applied the same approach that E3
applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022.The statewide
electricity escalation rates were also applied to the analysis for SMUD and CPAU. PG&E gas escalation rates were
applied to CPAU as the best available estimate since CPAU uses PG&E gas infrastructure.
21 sumptions
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%
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
47 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
48 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Mid-Rise Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study
49 2020-06-22
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 502020-06-22DMixed-Fuel22Mixed-1ApartmentsCentral Water HeatingTotalSavings (2020 PV$)B/C Ratio1Climate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityGas Savings (therms)Elec Savings (kWh)Year 1 Utility Cost SavingsGas Savings (therms)Elec Savings (kWh)Year 1 Utility Cost SavingsYear 1 Utility Cost SavingsOn-Bill Utility Cost SavingsTDV Cost SavingsTotal Inc. Cost ($)On-BillTDVCZ01PGEPGE0.026$60.00$0$6$133$105$3040.440.35CZ02PGEPGE0.047$170.00$0$17$391$285$1442.721.98CZ03PGEPGE0.044$150.00$0$15$345$226$1442.401.57CZ04PGEPGE0.061$200.00$0$20$465$331$1443.242.31CZ04-2CPAUCPAU0.061$100.00$0$10$248$331$1441.732.31CZ05PGEPGE0.042$140.00$0$14$320$206$1442.221.43CZ05-2PGESCG0.042$140.00$0$14$320$206$1442.221.43CZ06SCESCG0.074$180.00$0$18$424$351$1442.952.44CZ07SDGESDGE0.081$250.00$0$25$593$374$1444.132.60CZ08SCESCG0.084$200.00$0$20$484$420$1443.372.92CZ09SCESCG0.083$200.00$0$20$468$441$1443.263.06CZ10SCESCG0.082$170.00$0$17$410$427$1442.852.97CZ10-2SDGESDGE0.082$250.00$0$25$599$427$1444.162.97CZ11PGEPGE0.0104$270.00$0$27$637$635$6251.021.02CZ12PGEPGE0.093$240.00$0$24$572$568$3041.881.87CZ12-2SMUDPGE0.093$130.00$0$13$319$568$3041.051.87CZ13PGEPGE0.0132$340.00$0$34$798$779$6251.281.25CZ14SCESCG0.080$170.00$0$17$407$449$3041.341.48CZ14-2SDGESDGE0.080$240.00$0$24$576$449$3041.901.48CZ15SCESCG0.0145$300.00$0$30$719$802$6251.151.28CZ16PGEPGE0.0117$270.00$0$27$646$563$6251.030.901Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 512020-06-2223Mixed-APARTMENT)10.1 kWDCper Apartment0.2kWDCper ApartmentClimate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc.CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc. CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioCZ01PGEPGE$885$597$6201.430.96$1,637$1,090$9371.751.16CZ02PGEPGE$1,411$877$4603.071.91$2,431$1,469$7773.131.89CZ03PGEPGE$1,373$812$4602.981.76$2,400$1,397$7773.091.80CZ04PGEPGE$1,522$947$4603.312.06$2,579$1,562$7773.322.01CZ04-2CPAUCPAU$807$947$4601.752.06$1,335$1,562$7771.722.01CZ05PGEPGE$1,400$834$4603.041.81$2,480$1,461$7773.191.88CZ05-2PGESCG$1,400$834$4603.041.81$2,480$1,461$7773.191.88CZ06SCESCG$1,206$969$4602.622.11$1,987$1,587$7772.562.04CZ07SDGESDGE$1,701$1,010$4603.692.19$2,770$1,647$7773.572.12CZ08SCESCG$1,272$1,064$4602.762.31$2,059$1,708$7772.652.20CZ09SCESCG$1,181$1,091$4602.572.37$1,876$1,742$7772.412.24CZ10SCESCG$1,104$1,054$4602.402.29$1,797$1,681$7772.312.16CZ10-2SDGESDGE$1,622$1,054$4603.522.29$2,646$1,681$7773.412.16CZ11PGEPGE$1,537$1,256$9421.631.33$2,438$1,877$1,2581.941.49CZ12PGEPGE$1,462$1,181$6202.361.90$2,352$1,794$9372.511.91CZ12-2SMUDPGE$772$1,181$6201.251.90$1,226$1,794$9371.311.91CZ13PGEPGE$1,673$1,372$9421.781.46$2,548$1,965$1,2582.031.56CZ14SCESCG$1,165$1,175$6201.881.89$1,923$1,901$9372.052.03CZ14-2SDGESDGE$1,697$1,175$6202.741.89$2,819$1,901$9373.012.03CZ15SCESCG$1,423$1,456$9421.511.55$2,128$2,110$1,2581.691.68CZ16PGEPGE$1,606$1,191$9421.711.26$2,567$1,818$1,2582.041.441Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 522020-06-2224Mixed-FuelResults10.3kWDCper Apartment1 kWDCper ApartmentClimate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc.CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc.CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioCZ01PGEPGE$2,389$1,582$1,2531.911.26$7,466$5,029$3,4692.151.45CZ02PGEPGE$3,452$2,061$1,0933.161.88$9,590$6,203$3,3092.901.87CZ03PGEPGE$3,428$1,982$1,0933.141.81$9,687$6,079$3,3092.931.84CZ04PGEPGE$3,635$2,177$1,0933.321.99$9,992$6,483$3,3093.021.96CZ04-2CPAUCPAU$1,863$2,177$1,0931.701.99$5,184$6,483$3,3091.571.96CZ05PGEPGE$3,561$2,089$1,0933.261.91$10,109$6,482$3,3093.051.96CZ05-2PGESCG$3,561$2,089$1,0933.261.91$10,109$6,482$3,3093.051.96CZ06SCESCG$2,769$2,206$1,0932.532.02$7,593$6,534$3,3092.291.97CZ07SDGESDGE$3,805$2,283$1,0933.482.09$10,818$6,739$3,3093.272.04CZ08SCESCG$2,838$2,352$1,0932.602.15$7,543$6,861$3,3092.282.07CZ09SCESCG$2,570$2,393$1,0932.352.19$7,285$6,948$3,3092.202.10CZ10SCESCG$2,490$2,308$1,0932.282.11$7,197$6,697$3,3092.172.02CZ10-2SDGESDGE$3,670$2,308$1,0933.362.11$10,636$6,697$3,3093.212.02CZ11PGEPGE$3,338$2,498$1,5752.121.59$9,480$6,846$3,7912.501.81CZ12PGEPGE$3,242$2,406$1,2532.591.92$9,299$6,694$3,4692.681.93CZ12-2SMUDPGE$1,680$2,406$1,2531.341.92$4,855$6,694$3,4691.401.93CZ13PGEPGE$3,423$2,558$1,5752.171.62$9,402$6,709$3,7912.481.77CZ14SCESCG$2,682$2,626$1,2532.142.10$7,820$7,707$3,4692.252.22CZ14-2SDGESDGE$3,940$2,626$1,2533.142.10$11,557$7,707$3,4693.332.22CZ15SCESCG$2,832$2,764$1,5751.801.76$7,676$7,342$3,7912.031.94CZ16PGEPGE$3,527$2,445$1,5752.241.55$10,032$6,836$3,7912.651.801Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 532020-06-22E-Electric25:All-1,2ApartmentsCentral Water HeatingTotalSavings (2020 PV$)B/C RatioClimate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityGas Savings (therms)Elec Savings (kWh)Year 1 Utility Cost SavingsGas Savings (therms)Elec Savings (kWh)Year 1 Utility Cost SavingsYear 1 Utility Cost SavingsOn-Bill Utility Cost SavingsTDV Cost SavingsTotal Inc. Cost ($)On-BillTDVCZ01PGEPGE0.026$6124.6-899-$46-$40-$674$199-$4460.7>1CZ02PGEPGE0.048$17114.3-810-$38-$21-$238$528-$6062.5>1CZ03PGEPGE0.044$15114.9-811-$38-$23-$287$390-$6062.1>1CZ04PGEPGE0.062$20110.7-775-$35-$15-$102$625-$6066.0>1CZ04-2CPAUCPAU0.062$11110.7-775-$5$5$345$625-$606>1>1CZ05PGEPGE0.042$14117.3-830-$40-$26-$350$391-$6061.7>1CZ05-2PGESCG0.042$14117.3-830-$66-$53-$827$391-$6060.7>1CZ06SCESCG0.074$18107.0-744-$28-$10$153$612-$606>1>1CZ07SDGESDGE0.081$25105.9-734-$43-$18-$58$665-$60610.4>1CZ08SCESCG0.084$20103.6-717-$27-$6$227$693-$606>1>1CZ09SCESCG0.083$20103.5-716-$27-$7$212$739-$606>1>1CZ10SCESCG0.083$1790.0-709-$40-$23-$214$396-$8534.0>1CZ10-2SDGESDGE0.083$2590.0-709-$59-$34-$478$396-$8531.8>1CZ11PGEPGE0.0104$2791.1-723-$46-$19-$241$430-$3711.5>1CZ12PGEPGE0.093$2493.9-755-$51-$27-$414$288-$6931.7>1CZ12-2SMUDPGE0.093$1393.9-755$22$36$1,060$288-$693>1>1CZ13PGEPGE0.0132$3489.6-711-$45-$11-$62$505-$3716.0>1CZ14SCESCG0.080$1792.2-733-$42-$25-$258$305-$6932.7>1CZ14-2SDGESDGE0.080$2492.2-733-$61-$36-$532$305-$6931.3>1CZ15SCESCG0.0145$3073.8-554-$28$3$332$832-$371>1>1CZ16PGEPGE0.0119$28107.8-896-$64-$37-$621$127-$3710.6>11Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.210.C.d
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 542020-06-222619All-1,20.1kWDCper Apartment0.2kWDCper ApartmentClimate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc.CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc. CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioCZ01PGEPGE$78$692-$129>1>1$830$1,184$1874.446.33CZ02PGEPGE$782$1,120-$289>1>1$1,802$1,712$2765.8562.55CZ03PGEPGE$741$975-$289>1>1$1,768$1,560$2764.6257.02CZ04PGEPGE$955$1,240-$289>1>1$2,012$1,855$2773.5167.79CZ04-2CPAUCPAU$904$1,240-$289>1>1$1,432$1,855$2752.3367.79CZ05PGEPGE$730$1,018-$289>1>1$1,810$1,646$2766.1460.14CZ05-2PGESCG$254$1,018-$289>1>1$1,334$1,646$2748.7460.14CZ06SCESCG$935$1,231-$289>1>1$1,716$1,849$2762.7167.56CZ07SDGESDGE$1,049$1,302-$289>1>1$2,118$1,938$2777.4170.82CZ08SCESCG$1,014$1,337-$289>1>1$1,802$1,981$2765.8372.37CZ09SCESCG$924$1,390-$289>1>1$1,619$2,040$2759.1674.56CZ10SCESCG$480$1,023-$536>1>1$1,173$1,650-$219>1>1CZ10-2SDGESDGE$546$1,023-$536>1>1$1,570$1,650-$219>1>1CZ11PGEPGE$660$1,052-$55>1>1$1,560$1,673$2625.966.39CZ12PGEPGE$476$900-$376>1>1$1,366$1,513-$60>1>1CZ12-2SMUDPGE$1,513$900-$376>1>1$1,967$1,513-$60>1>1CZ13PGEPGE$813$1,098-$55>1>1$1,687$1,691$2626.446.46CZ14SCESCG$500$1,031-$376>1>1$1,259$1,757-$60>1>1CZ14-2SDGESDGE$589$1,031-$376>1>1$1,710$1,757-$60>1>1CZ15SCESCG$1,037$1,485-$55>1>1$1,741$2,139$2626.658.17CZ16PGEPGE$339$754-$55>1>1$1,299$1,381$2624.965.271Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2savings and energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.010.C.d
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019Mid-Rise Residential New ConstructionCost-Effectiveness Study 552020-06-2227All-1,20.3kWDCper Apartment1.0kWDCper ApartmentClimate ZoneElec UtilityGas UtilityOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc.CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioOn-Bill Utility Cost Savings (2020 PV$)TDV Cost Savings (2020 PV$)Total Inc. CostOn-Bill B/C RatioTDV B/C RatioCZ01PGEPGE$1,582$1,676$5043.143.33$6,660$5,123$2,7192.451.88CZ02PGEPGE$2,822$2,304$3448.216.70$8,960$6,446$2,5603.502.52CZ03PGEPGE$2,796$2,146$3448.136.24$9,055$6,242$2,5603.542.44CZ04PGEPGE$3,069$2,470$3448.927.18$9,425$6,777$2,5603.682.65CZ04-2CPAUCPAU$1,960$2,470$3445.707.18$5,281$6,777$2,5602.062.65CZ05PGEPGE$2,890$2,274$3448.406.61$9,439$6,667$2,5603.692.60CZ05-2PGESCG$2,414$2,274$3447.026.61$8,962$6,667$2,5603.502.60CZ06SCESCG$2,498$2,467$3447.267.17$7,322$6,796$2,5602.862.65CZ07SDGESDGE$3,154$2,575$3449.177.49$10,166$7,030$2,5603.972.75CZ08SCESCG$2,581$2,625$3447.517.63$7,286$7,133$2,5602.852.79CZ09SCESCG$2,314$2,691$3446.737.83$7,028$7,247$2,5602.752.83CZ10SCESCG$1,866$2,277$9719.2223.46$6,573$6,666$2,3132.842.88CZ10-2SDGESDGE$2,594$2,277$9726.7223.46$9,560$6,666$2,3134.132.88CZ11PGEPGE$2,461$2,294$5784.253.97$8,602$6,641$2,7943.082.38CZ12PGEPGE$2,256$2,125$2578.788.28$8,313$6,413$2,4733.362.59CZ12-2SMUDPGE$2,421$2,125$2579.438.28$5,596$6,413$2,4732.262.59CZ13PGEPGE$2,562$2,284$5784.433.95$8,541$6,435$2,7943.062.30CZ14SCESCG$2,017$2,482$2577.859.67$7,155$7,563$2,4732.893.06CZ14-2SDGESDGE$2,831$2,482$25711.029.67$10,448$7,563$2,4734.233.06CZ15SCESCG$2,445$2,793$5784.234.83$7,289$7,371$2,7942.612.64CZ16PGEPGE$2,260$2,009$5783.913.47$8,764$6,399$2,7943.142.291Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.2energy cost savings. Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.010.C.d
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
1 Ca Package verview
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
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).
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
2
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
2.2
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?).
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
52 2019-07-15
3
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 SW
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study32019-07-154SpecificatioMeasureBaseline T24 RequirementMeasure Applicability1A, 1B, 3A, 3CIncrementalCostSources & NotesMed OfficeMed RetailSmall HotelGuest roomsComm SpacesEnvelopeModify SHGC FenestrationSHGC of 0.25$1.60/ft2windowfor SHGC decreases, $0/ft2 for SHGC increasesCosts from one manufacturer.Fenestration as a Function of Orientation Limit on total window area and west-facing window area as a function of wall area.$0 No additional cost associated with the measure which is a designconsideration not an equipment cost.HVACand SHWDrain Water Heat RecoveryNo heat recovery required$841/unitAssume 1 heat recovery unit for every 3 guestrooms. Costs from three manufacturers. VAV Box Minimum Flow20 percent of maximum (design) airflow$0 No additional cost associated with the measure which is a design consideration not an equipment cost.Economizers on Small Capacity SystemsEconomizers required for units > 54,000 Btu/hr$2,857 /unitCosts from one manufacturer’s representative and one mechanical contractor.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study42019-07-15MeasureBaseline T24 RequirementMeasure Applicability1A, 1B, 3A, 3CIncrementalCostSources & NotesMed OfficeMed RetailSmall HotelGuest roomsComm SpacesSolar Thermal Hot WaterFor central heat pump water heaters, there is no prescriptive baseline requirement.(electric only)$33/therm-yrInstalled costs reported in the California Solar Initiative Thermal Program Database, 2015-present.8Costs include tank and were only available for gas backup systems. Costs are reduced by 19 percent per federal income tax credit average through 2022.LightingInterior Lighting Reduced LPDPer Area Category Method, varies by Primary Function Area. Office area 0.60 – 0.70 W/ft2depending on area of space. Hotel function area 0.85 W/ft2. Retail Merchandise Sales 1.00 W/ft2$0 Industry report on LED pricing analysis shows that costs are not correlated with efficacy.98http://www.csithermalstats.org/download.html9http://calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_-_Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf10.C.d
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study52019-07-15MeasureBaseline T24 RequirementMeasure Applicability1A, 1B, 3A, 3CIncrementalCostSources & NotesMed OfficeMed RetailSmall HotelGuest roomsComm SpacesInstitutional TuningNorequirement, butPower Adjustment Factor (PAF) credit of 0.10 available for luminaires in non-daylit areas and 0.05 for luminaires in daylit areas10$0.06/ft2Industry report on institutional tuning11Daylight Dimming Plus OffNo requirement, but PAF credit of 0.10available.$0 Given the amount of lighting controls already required, this measure is no additional cost.Occupant Sensing in Open Plan OfficesNo requirement, but PAF credit of0.30 available.$189/sensor; $74/powered relay; $108/secondary relay 2 workstations per sensor;1 fixture per workstation;4 workstations per master relay;120 ft2/workstation in open office area, which is 53% of total floor area of the medium office10Power Adjustment Factors allow designers to tradeoff increased lighting power densities for more efficient designs. In this study, PAF-related measures assume that the more efficient design is incorporated without a tradeoff for increased lighting power density.11https://slipstreaminc.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/task-tuning-report-mndoc-2015.pdf10.C.d
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
6 2019-07-15
3.2 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
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.
5
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
7 2019-07-15
6 Pe
7
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
8 2019-07-15
8
Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.)Source
Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)Q1 201613
Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report14
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 PV+Battery
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 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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
10 2019-07-15
9 -
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
12 2019-07-15
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
13 2019-07-15
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
All-
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
15 2019-07-15
-
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
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.
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
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).
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study192019-07-15MedMixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reduc-tions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV(On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1A: Mixed Fuel+ EE CZ01PG&E34,421-8084.518%$66,649 $125,902 $71,307 1.91.1$59,253 $4,658 CZ02PG&E40,985-5058.117%$66,649 $163,655 $99,181 2.51.5$97,005 $32,532 CZ03PG&E36,266-4637.020%$66,649 $141,897$84,051 2.11.3$75,248 $17,401 CZ04PG&E40,590-5477.714%$66,649 $162,139 $95,410 2.41.4$95,489 $28,761 CZ04-2CPAU40,590-5477.714%$66,649 $85,537 $95,410 1.31.4$18,887 $28,761 CZ05PG&E38,888-4997.418%$66,649 $154,044$91,115 2.31.4$87,395 $24,465 CZ05-2SCG38,888-4997.418%$66,649 $156,315 $91,115 2.31.4$89,665 $24,465 CZ06SCE39,579-3058.720%$66,649 $86,390 $100,469 1.31.5$19,741 $33,820 CZ06-2LADWP39,579-3058.720%$66,649 $51,828 $100,469 0.81.5($14,821)$33,820 CZ07SDG&E41,817-611.320%$66,649 $204,394 $112,497 3.11.7$137,745 $45,848 CZ08SCE41,637-6010.818%$66,649 $89,783 $113,786 1.31.7$23,134 $47,137 CZ08-2LADWP41,637-6010.818%$66,649 $54,876 $113,786 0.81.7($11,773)$47,137 CZ09SCE42,539-21010.116%$66,649 $95,636 $115,647 1.41.7$28,987 $48,998 CZ09-2LADWP42,539-21010.116%$66,649 $58,168 $115,647 0.91.7($8,481)$48,998 CZ10SDG&E41,857-2169.817%$66,649 $210,303 $108,726 3.21.6$143,654 $42,077 CZ10-2SCE41,857-2169.817%$66,649 $92,736 $108,726 1.41.6$26,087 $42,077 CZ11PG&E42,523-3909.113%$66,649 $166,951 $104,001 2.51.6$100,301 $37,352 CZ12PG&E41,521-4668.414%$66,649 $161,594 $100,135 2.41.5$94,945 $33,486 CZ12-2SMUD41,521-4668.414%$66,649 $71,734 $100,135 1.11.5$5,085 $33,486 CZ13PG&E42,898-4349.013%$66,649 $169,107 $99,992 2.51.5$102,457 $33,343 CZ14SDG&E42,224-4418.614%$66,649 $211,529 $106,913 3.21.6$144,880 $40,264 CZ14-2SCE42,224-4418.614%$66,649 $95,809 $106,913 1.41.6$29,160 $40,264 CZ15SCE45,723-14711.212%$66,649 $102,714 $118,034 1.51.8$36,065 $51,384 CZ16PG&E37,758-7365.814%$66,649 $145,947 $79,755 2.21.2$79,297 $13,106 CZ16-2LADWP37,758-7365.814%$66,649 $40,115 $79,755 0.61.2($26,534)$13,106 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study202019-07-15Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (mtons)Comp-liance Margin (%)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + PV + BatteryCZ01PG&E211,225-80839.918%$397,405 $645,010 $454,284 1.61.1$247,605 $56,879 CZ02PG&E255,787-50550.617%$397,405 $819,307 $573,033 2.11.4$421,902 $175,628 CZ03PG&E245,421-46348.820%$397,405 $777,156 $536,330 2.01.3$379,751 $138,925 CZ04PG&E267,612-54752.714%$397,405 $836,221 $597,471 2.11.5$438,816 $200,066 CZ04-2CPAU267,612-54752.714%$397,405 $621,879 $597,471 1.61.5$224,474 $200,066 CZ05PG&E264,581-49952.518%$397,405$897,216 $578,856 2.31.5$499,811 $181,451 CZ05-2SCG264,581-49952.518%$397,405 $899,487 $578,856 2.31.5$502,082 $181,451 CZ06SCE257,474-30552.120%$397,405 $484,229 $594,416 1.21.5$86,824 $197,011 CZ06-2LA257,474-30552.120%$397,405 $282,360 $594,416 0.71.5($115,045)$197,011 CZ07SDG&E264,530-655.720%$397,405 $817,528 $610,548 2.11.5$420,123 $213,143 CZ08SCE258,348-6054.018%$397,405 $479,073 $625,249 1.21.6$81,668 $227,844 CZ08-2LA258,348-6054.018%$397,405 $275,704 $625,249 0.71.6($121,701)$227,844 CZ09SCE262,085-21054.316%$397,405 $480,241 $622,528 1.21.6$82,836 $225,123 CZ09-2LA262,085-21054.316%$397,405 $282,209 $622,528 0.71.6($115,196)$225,123 CZ10SDG&E258,548-21653.417%$397,405 $839,931 $595,323 2.11.5$442,526 $197,918 CZ10-2SCE258,548-21653.417%$397,405 $485,523 $595,323 1.21.5$88,118 $197,918 CZ11PG&E253,623-39050.913%$397,405 $826,076 $585,682 2.11.5$428,671 $188,277 CZ12PG&E252,868-46650.314%$397,405 $802,715 $582,866 2.01.5$405,310 $185,461 CZ12-2SMUD252,868-46650.314%$397,405 $415,597 $582,866 1.01.5$18,192 $185,461 CZ13PG&E250,915-43450.413%$397,405 $806,401 $573,606 2.01.4$408,996 $176,201 CZ14SDG&E283,684-44156.414%$397,405 $874,753 $676,271 2.21.7$477,348 $278,866 CZ14-2SCE283,684-44156.414%$397,405 $493,888 $676,271 1.21.7$96,483 $278,866 CZ15SCE274,771-14756.012%$397,405 $476,327 $640,379 1.21.6$78,922 $242,974 CZ16PG&E266,490-73651.814%$397,405 $842,205 $575,563 2.11.4$444,800 $178,158 CZ16-2LA266,490-73651.814%$397,405 $260,372 $575,563 0.71.4($137,033)$178,158 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study212019-07-15Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1C: Mixed Fuel+ HECZ01PG&E2886884.13%$61,253 $18,656 $12,314 0.30.2($42,597)($48,939)CZ02PG&E3,7955504.34%$68,937 $36,683 $24,676 0.50.4($32,254)($44,261)CZ03PG&E1,2414392.93%$57,529 $20,150 $11,885 0.40.2($37,379)($45,644)CZ04PG&E5,5995294.75%$72,074 $44,915 $30,928 0.60.4($27,158)($41,145)CZ04-2CPAU5,5995294.75%$72,074 $24,175 $30,928 0.30.4($47,898)($41,145)CZ05PG&E3,4704533.64%$60,330 $35,072 $18,232 0.60.3($25,258)($42,097)CZ05-2SCG3,4704533.64%$60,330 $32,777 $18,232 0.50.3($27,553)($42,097)CZ06SCE3,3742982.63%$55,594 $19,446 $16,132 0.30.3($36,148)($39,462)CZ06-2LADWP3,3742982.63%$55,594 $13,450 $16,132 0.20.3($42,145)($39,462)CZ07SDG&E5,2571402.34%$54,111 $41,086 $19,903 0.80.4($13,025)($34,208)CZ08SCE5,9211762.74%$60,497 $22,210 $24,055 0.40.4($38,287)($36,442)CZ08-2LADWP5,9211762.74%$60,497 $14,064 $24,055 0.20.4($46,434)($36,442)CZ09SCE7,5602243.54%$61,311 $28,576 $31,835 0.50.5($32,735)($29,476)CZ09-2LADWP7,5602243.54%$61,311 $18,262 $31,835 0.30.5($43,049)($29,476)CZ10SDG&E5,7862883.24%$62,685 $50,717 $24,628 0.80.4($11,968)($38,057)CZ10-2SCE5,7862883.24%$62,685 $24,575 $24,628 0.40.4($38,110)($38,057)CZ11PG&E8,1284414.95%$71,101 $54,188 $37,849 0.80.5($16,912)($33,252)CZ12PG&E6,5034784.75%$68,329 $47,329 $34,556 0.70.5($20,999)($33,773)CZ12-2SMUD6,5034784.75%$68,329 $24,003 $34,556 0.40.5($44,325)($33,773)CZ13PG&E8,3984325.05%$69,474 $51,347 $37,229 0.70.5($18,128)($32,246)CZ14SDG&E7,9274705.05%$69,463 $62,744 $37,133 0.90.5($6,718)($32,329)CZ14-2SCE7,9274705.05%$69,463 $32,517 $37,133 0.50.5($36,946)($32,329)CZ15SCE15,1402195.55%$66,702 $43,773 $52,359 0.70.8($22,929)($14,344)CZ16PG&E3,1119126.35%$71,765 $36,002 $24,914 0.50.3($35,763)($46,851)CZ16-2LADWP3,1119126.35%$71,765 $23,057 $24,914 0.30.3($48,708)($46,851)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study222019-07-15All-ElectricFederalnimumCZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 2: All-ElectricFederal Code MinimumCZ01PG&E-53,657496710.1-15%($87,253)($98,237)($58,420)0.91.5($10,984)$28,833 CZ02PG&E-49,68438685.0-7%($73,695)($101,605)($41,429)0.71.8($27,910)$32,266 CZ03PG&E-35,88631425.6-7%($82,330)($57,345)($29,592)1.42.8$24,986 $52,738 CZ04PG&E-48,82937594.7-6%($69,012)($90,527)($40,570)0.81.7($21,515)$28,443 CZ04-2CPAU-48,82937594.7-6%($69,012)($19,995)($40,570)3.51.7$49,018 $28,443 CZ05PG&E-40,53132404.5-8%($84,503)($63,663)($39,997)1.32.1$20,840 $44,506 CZ06SCE-26,17421173.1-4%($76,153)$24,908 ($20,571)>13.7$101,061 $55,581 CZ06-2LADWP-26,17421173.1-4%($76,153)$26,366 ($20,571)>13.7$102,518 $55,581 CZ07SDG&E-12,9029500.9-2%($70,325)$46,879 ($11,407)>16.2$117,204 $58,918 CZ08SCE-15,68012191.5-2%($68,774)$17,859 ($12,648)>15.4$86,633 $56,125 CZ08-2LADWP-15,68012191.5-2%($68,774)$18,603 ($12,648)>15.4$87,376 $56,125 CZ09SCE-19,76716052.4-2%($63,102)$20,920 ($14,462)>14.4$84,022 $48,640 CZ09-2LADWP-19,76716052.4-2%($63,102)$21,929 ($14,462)>14.4$85,030 $48,640 CZ10SDG&E-27,41420532.2-4%($47,902)$38,918 ($23,339)>12.1$86,820 $24,562 CZ10-2SCE-27,41420532.2-4%($47,902)$20,765 ($23,339)>12.1$68,666 $24,562 CZ11PG&E-40,15630623.6-4%($63,987)($72,791)($32,837)0.91.9($8,804)$31,150 CZ12PG&E-43,41133274.1-5%($68,343)($85,856)($35,463)0.81.9($17,512)$32,880 CZ12-2SMUD-43,41133274.1-5%($68,343)($5,109)($35,463)13.41.9$63,234 $32,880 CZ13PG&E-39,64930633.8-4%($62,726)($70,705)($32,408)0.91.9($7,980)$30,318 CZ14SDG&E-44,32232663.4-5%($65,156)$6,043 ($38,422)>11.7$71,199 $26,735 CZ14-2SCE-44,32232663.4-5%($65,156)$4,798 ($38,422)>11.7$69,954 $26,735 CZ15SCE-19,91715371.8-2%($36,176)$12,822 ($15,464)>12.3$48,998 $20,711 CZ16PG&E-94,06261855.6-27%($64,096)($212,158)($150,871)0.30.4($148,062)($86,775)CZ16-2LADWP-94,06261855.6-27%($64,096)$1,493 ($150,871)>10.4$65,589 ($86,775)* The Incremental Package Cost is equal to thesumof theincremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure10, the electricalinfrastructure incremental costof $27,802(see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental costs of $(18,949) (see section 3.3.2.2).10.C.d
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study232019-07-15All-EECZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3A: All-Electric+EE CZ01PG&E-19,115496719.47%($20,604)$20,630 $28,112 >1>1$41,234 $48,716 CZ02PG&E-11,811386815.210%($7,046)$39,260 $58,563 >1>1$46,306 $65,609 CZ03PG&E2,530314216.216%($15,681)$85,241 $68,682 >1>1$100,922 $84,363 CZ04PG&E-10,839375914.89%($2,363)$59,432 $58,420 >1>1$61,795 $60,783 CZ04-2CPAU-10,839375914.89%($2,363)$70,680 $58,420 >1>1$73,043 $60,783 CZ05PG&E-2,316324014.612%($17,854)$85,380 $58,802 >1>1$103,234 $76,656 CZ06SCE15,399211714.318%($9,503)$114,962 $89,921 >1>1$124,466 $99,425 CZ06-2LADWP15,399211714.318%($9,503)$82,389 $89,921 >1>1$91,893 $99,425 CZ07SDG&E33,31895013.820%($3,676)$256,704 $111,399 >1>1$260,380 $115,076 CZ08SCE30,231121914.218%($2,124)$110,144 $111,781 >1>1$112,268 $113,906 CZ08-2LADWP30,231121914.218%($2,124)$76,069 $111,781 >1>1$78,194$113,906 CZ09SCE24,283160514.315%$3,547 $119,824 $108,249 33.830.5$116,277 $104,702 CZ09-2LADWP24,283160514.315%$3,547 $83,549 $108,249 23.630.5$80,001 $104,702 CZ10SDG&E12,344205312.613%$18,748 $230,553 $82,905 12.34.4$211,806 $64,158 CZ10-2SCE12,344205312.613%$18,748 $105,898 $82,905 5.64.4$87,150 $64,158 CZ11PG&E929306214.510%$2,662 $85,988 $75,030 32.328.2$83,326 $72,368 CZ12PG&E-3,419332714.810%($1,694)$68,866 $69,589 >1>1$70,560 $71,283 CZ12-2SMUD-3,419332714.810%($1,694)$71,761 $69,589 >1>1$73,455 $71,283 CZ13PG&E1,398306314.89%$3,923 $89,799 $71,307 22.918.2$85,875 $67,384 CZ14SDG&E-5,469326613.59%$1,493 $206,840 $69,016 138.646.2$205,347 $67,523 CZ14-2SCE-5,469326613.59%$1,493 $94,143 $69,016 63.146.2$92,650 $67,523 CZ15SCE25,375153713.710%$30,474 $114,909 $104,335 3.83.4$84,435 $73,862 CZ16PG&E-65,877618512.7-15%$2,553 ($91,477)($85,673)-35.8-33.6($94,030)($88,226)CZ16-2LADWP-65,877618512.7-15%$2,553 $72,780 ($85,673)28.5-33.6$70,227 ($88,226)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study242019-07-15All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (mtons)Compliance Margin (%)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + PV + BCZ01PG&E157,733496754.97%$310,152 $518,421 $410,946 1.71.3$208,269 $100,794 CZ02PG&E203,026386857.810%$323,710 $692,336 $532,273 2.11.6$368,626 $208,563 CZ03PG&E211,706314258.016%$315,075 $708,235 $520,866 2.21.7$393,160 $205,791 CZ04PG&E216,204375959.99%$328,393 $741,382 $560,576 2.31.7$412,989 $232,183 CZ04-2CPAU216,204375959.99%$328,393 $607,074 $560,576 1.81.7$278,681 $232,183 CZ05PG&E223,399324059.812%$312,902 $799,992 $546,592 2.61.7$487,090 $233,690 CZ06SCE233,299211757.718%$321,252 $509,969 $583,963 1.61.8$188,716 $262,711 CZ06-2LA233,299211757.718%$321,252 $311,931 $583,963 1.01.8($9,322)$262,711 CZ07SDG&E256,03495058.320%$327,079 $870,156 $609,498 2.71.9$543,076 $282,419 CZ08SCE246,944121957.418%$328,631 $499,506 $623,292 1.51.9$170,874 $294,661 CZ08-2LA246,944121957.418%$328,631 $296,991 $623,292 0.91.9($31,640)$294,661 CZ09SCE243,838160558.515%$334,303 $504,498 $615,178 1.51.8$170,195 $280,875 CZ09-2LA243,838160558.515%$334,303 $307,626 $615,178 0.91.8($26,677)$280,875 CZ10SDG&E229,044205356.213%$349,503 $851,810 $569,549 2.41.6$502,306 $220,046 CZ10-2SCE229,044205356.213%$349,503 $491,383 $569,549 1.41.6$141,880 $220,046 CZ11PG&E212,047306256.410%$333,418 $743,403 $556,758 2.21.7$409,985 $223,340 CZ12PG&E207,955332756.710%$329,062 $713,054 $552,415 2.21.7$383,993 $223,353 CZ12-2SMUD207,955332756.710%$329,062 $414,371 $552,415 1.31.7$85,310 $223,353 CZ13PG&E209,431306356.39%$334,679 $728,822 $544,969 2.21.6$394,143 $210,289 CZ14SDG&E236,002326661.39%$332,249 $865,181 $638,517 2.61.9$532,933 $306,269 CZ14-2SCE236,002326661.39%$332,249 $488,163 $638,517 1.51.9$155,914 $306,269 CZ15SCE254,426153758.510%$361,229 $487,715 $626,728 1.41.7$126,486 $265,499 CZ16PG&E162,915618558.6-15%$333,309 $580,353 $406,746 1.71.2$247,044 $73,437 CZ16-2LA162,915618558.6-15%$333,309 $290,566 $406,746 0.91.2($42,742)$73,437 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study252019-07-15All-CZUtility Elec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3C: All-Electric+ HECZ01PG&E-53,390496710.2-14%($43,987)($93,740)($57,752)0.50.8($49,753)($13,765)CZ02PG&E-45,91638686.1-5%($22,722)($77,212)($26,394)0.30.9($54,490)($3,672)CZ03PG&E-34,65631426.0-6%($38,261)($45,796)($25,153)0.81.5($7,535)$13,108 CZ04PG&E-43,24837596.3-3%($15,229)($56,932)($18,996)0.30.8($41,703)($3,767)CZ04-2CPAU-43,24837596.3-3%($15,229)($5,298)($18,996)2.90.8$9,932 ($3,767)CZ05PG&E-37,06832405.4-6%($40,434)($38,330)($29,544)1.11.4$2,104 $10,890 CZ06SCE-22,80521174.0-2%($30,237)$39,812 ($9,594)>13.2$70,050 $20,644 CZ06-2LADWP-22,80521174.0-2%($30,237)$35,414 ($9,594)>13.2$65,651 $20,644 CZ07SDG&E-7,6469502.51%($22,564)$86,159 $6,062 >1>1$108,722 $28,625 CZ08SCE-9,76112193.21%($18,443)$37,375 $8,305 >1>1$55,818 $26,748 CZ08-2LADWP-9,76112193.21%($18,443)$29,973 $8,305 >1>1$48,416 $26,748 CZ09SCE-12,21116054.52%($10,282)$46,335 $13,364 >1>1$56,617 $23,646 CZ09-2LADWP-12,21116054.52%($10,282)$37,030 $13,364 >1>1$47,313 $23,646 CZ10SDG&E-21,64220533.7-1%$11,340 $84,901 ($3,818)7.5-0.3$73,561 ($15,158)CZ10-2SCE-21,64220533.7-1%$11,340 $40,659 ($3,818)3.6-0.3$29,319 ($15,158)CZ11PG&E-32,05230625.90%($8,519)($29,013)($3,007)0.32.8($20,495)$5,512 CZ12PG&E-36,92633276.0-1%($15,443)($48,955)($9,546)0.31.6($33,511)$5,898 CZ12-2SMUD-36,92633276.0-1%($15,443)$9,916 ($9,546)>11.6$25,359 $5,898 CZ13PG&E-31,25330636.30%($7,257)($27,782)($3,055)0.32.4($20,525)$4,202 CZ14SDG&E-36,40232665.7-1%($10,651)$61,605 ($9,832)>11.1$72,256 $819 CZ14-2SCE-36,40232665.7-1%($10,651)$30,625 ($9,832)>11.1$41,276 $819 CZ15SCE-4,77515376.03%$28,927 $52,955 $32,790 1.81.1$24,028 $3,863 CZ16PG&E-90,94961856.5-26%($8,467)($194,115)($142,041)0.00.1($185,648)($133,574)CZ16-2LADWP-90,94961856.5-26%($8,467)$37,127 ($142,041)>10.1$45,594 ($133,574)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
26 2019-07-15
4.2 E R
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study272019-07-15Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1A: Mixed Fuel+ EE CZ01PG&E15,210120911.1018%$2,712 $68,358 $60,189 25.222.2$65,646 $57,478 CZ02PG&E18,8856138.7313%$5,569 $76,260 $59,135 13.710.6$70,691 $53,566 CZ03PG&E18,7724627.8716%$5,569 $66,813 $57,135 12.010.3$61,244 $51,566 CZ04PG&E19,1004397.8414%$5,569 $75,989 $58,036 13.610.4$70,420 $52,467 CZ04-2CPAU19,1004397.8414%$5,569 $51,556 $58,036 9.310.4$45,987 $52,467 CZ05PG&E17,9554157.4116%$5,569 $63,182 $55,003 11.39.9$57,613 $49,435 CZ05-2SCG17,9554157.4116%$5,569 $61,810 $55,003 11.19.9$56,241 $49,435 CZ06SCE12,3753475.5410%$2,712 $31,990 $41,401 11.815.3$29,278 $38,689 CZ06-2LADWP12,3753475.5410%$2,712 $21,667 $41,401 8.015.3$18,956 $38,689 CZ07SDG&E17,1701365.6513%$5,569 $73,479 $49,883 13.29.0$67,910 $44,314 CZ08SCE12,2842835.1510%$2,712 $30,130 $41,115 11.115.2$27,419 $38,403 CZ08-2LADWP12,2842835.1510%$2,712 $20,243 $41,115 7.515.2$17,531 $38,403 CZ09SCE13,4733025.5110%$5,569 $32,663 $46,126 5.98.3$27,094 $40,557 CZ09-2LADWP13,4733025.5110%$5,569 $22,435 $46,126 4.08.3$16,866 $40,557 CZ10SDG&E19,8732676.9912%$5,569 $83,319 $58,322 15.010.5$77,751 $52,753 CZ10-2SCE19,8732676.9912%$5,569 $39,917 $58,322 7.210.5$34,348 $52,753 CZ11PG&E21,1205789.1413%$5,569 $86,663 $67,485 15.612.1$81,095 $61,916 CZ12PG&E20,3705628.8513%$5,569 $81,028 $64,409 14.611.6$75,459 $58,840 CZ12-2SMUD20,3705628.8513%$5,569 $44,991 $64,409 8.111.6$39,422 $58,840 CZ13PG&E22,1156209.9815%$2,712 $109,484 $83,109 40.430.6$106,772 $80,398 CZ14SDG&E25,5794069.3813%$2,712 $116,354 $80,055 42.929.5$113,643 $77,343 CZ14-2SCE26,3273839.4213%$2,712 $57,290 $83,065 21.130.6$54,578 $80,354 CZ15SCE26,4331698.3512%$2,712 $57,152 $79,506 21.129.3$54,440 $76,794 CZ16PG&E15,9757528.7213%$2,712 $72,427 $55,025 26.720.3$69,715 $52,314 CZ16-2LADWP15,9757528.7213%$2,712 $31,906 $55,025 11.820.3$29,194 $52,314 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study282019-07-15Mixed-CZIOU territoryElec Savings(kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Compliance Margin (%)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + PV + BatteryCZ01PG&E158,584120940.7918%$277,383 $509,092 $383,683 1.81.4$231,709 $106,300 CZ02PG&E189,40061343.7513%$280,240 $590,043 $465,474 2.11.7$309,803 $185,234 CZ03PG&E191,01646243.5216%$280,240 $578,465 $452,795 2.11.6$298,224 $172,554 CZ04PG&E195,01443944.1414%$280,240 $605,369 $480,989 2.21.7$325,129 $200,748 CZ04-2CPAU195,01443944.1414%$280,240 $451,933 $480,989 1.61.7$171,693 $200,748 CZ05PG&E196,65441544.3016%$280,240 $589,771 $464,749 2.11.7$309,530 $184,509 CZ05-2SCG196,65441544.3016%$280,240 $588,407 $464,749 2.11.7$308,167 $184,509 CZ06SCE185,90334741.6110%$277,383 $322,495 $456,596 1.21.6$45,111 $179,213 CZ06-2LA185,90334741.6110%$277,383 $191,428$456,596 0.71.6($85,955)$179,213 CZ07SDG&E197,65013643.2413%$280,240 $496,786 $477,582 1.81.7$216,545 $197,342 CZ08SCE187,86928341.4810%$277,383 $326,810 $478,132 1.21.7$49,427 $200,749 CZ08-2LA187,86928341.4810%$277,383 $190,379 $478,132 0.71.7($87,004)$200,749 CZ09SCE191,39930242.3210%$280,240 $334,869 $472,770 1.21.7$54,629 $192,530 CZ09-2LA191,39930242.3210%$280,240 $201,759 $472,770 0.71.7($78,481)$192,530 CZ10SDG&E200,03326744.0112%$280,240 $547,741 $472,880 2.01.7$267,501 $192,640 CZ10-2SCE200,03326744.0112%$280,240 $340,822 $472,880 1.21.7$60,582 $192,640 CZ11PG&E192,84657844.0713%$280,240 $582,969 $490,855 2.11.8$302,728 $210,615 CZ12PG&E191,72056243.7013%$280,240 $586,836 $485,076 2.11.7$306,596 $204,836 CZ12-2SMUD191,72056243.7013%$280,240 $319,513 $485,076 1.11.7$39,273 $204,836 CZ13PG&E195,03162045.1915%$277,383 $605,608 $486,285 2.21.8$328,225 $208,901 CZ14SDG&E217,18340647.8613%$277,383 $559,148 $534,915 2.01.9$281,765 $257,532 CZ14-2SCE217,92738347.9114%$277,383 $354,757 $538,058 1.31.9$77,373 $260,674 CZ15SCE208,66216944.5112%$277,383 $338,772 $496,107 1.21.8$61,389 $218,724 CZ16PG&E210,24275248.7613%$277,383 $608,779 $490,262 2.21.8$331,395 $212,879 CZ16-2LA210,24275248.7613%$277,383 $207,160 $490,262 0.71.8($70,223)$212,879 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study292019-07-15CostMixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1C: Mixed Fuel+ HECZ01PG&E573462.042%$9,006 $6,301 $6,065 0.70.7($2,705)($2,941)CZ02PG&E2,2882292.013%$9,726 $23,016 $13,998 2.41.4$13,291 $4,273 CZ03PG&E1,0871711.312%$9,063 $6,782 $7,186 0.70.8($2,282)($1,877)CZ04PG&E1,8621591.463%$9,004 $17,891 $10,878 2.01.2$8,887 $1,874 CZ04-2CPAU1,8621591.463%$9,004 $7,821 $10,878 0.91.2($1,182)$1,874 CZ05PG&E6641621.111%$9,454 $5,119 $4,725 0.50.5($4,335)($4,729)CZ05-2SCG6641621.111%$9,454 $4,558 $4,725 0.50.5($4,896)($4,729)CZ06SCE2,648901.243%$8,943 $11,646 $11,427 1.31.3$2,703 $2,484 CZ06-2LADWP2,648901.243%$8,943 $7,329 $11,427 0.81.3($1,614)$2,484 CZ07SDG&E2,376490.952%$9,194 $20,103 $9,779 2.21.1$10,909 $585 CZ08SCE2,822721.203%$9,645 $11,989 $12,877 1.21.3$2,344 $3,233 CZ08-2LADWP2,822721.203%$9,645 $7,427 $12,877 0.81.3($2,218)$3,233 CZ09SCE4,206881.734%$10,446 $16,856 $18,745 1.61.8$6,410 $8,299 CZ09-2LADWP4,206881.734%$10,446 $10,604 $18,745 1.01.8$158 $8,299 CZ10SDG&E4,2261191.884%$9,514 $36,412 $19,008 3.82.0$26,898 $9,494 CZ10-2SCE4,2261191.884%$9,514 $17,094 $19,008 1.82.0$7,580 $9,494 CZ11PG&E4,1882252.564%$10,479 $31,872 $22,393 3.02.1$21,392 $11,913 CZ12PG&E3,6752142.344%$10,409 $29,653 $20,525 2.82.0$19,243 $10,115 CZ12-2SMUD3,6752142.344%$10,409$12,823 $20,525 1.22.0$2,414 $10,115 CZ13PG&E4,8181802.464%$9,809 $34,149 $23,623 3.52.4$24,340 $13,814 CZ14SDG&E6,4391532.714%$12,103 $44,705 $26,348 3.72.2$32,601 $14,245 CZ14-2SCE6,4391532.714%$12,103 $22,032 $26,348 1.82.2$9,929 $14,245 CZ15SCE8,802482.765%$12,534 $25,706 $31,402 2.12.5$13,171 $18,868 CZ16PG&E2,3163902.973%$11,999 $22,663 $13,888 1.91.2$10,665 $1,890 CZ16-2LADWP2,3163902.973%$11,999 $11,921 $13,888 1.01.2($78)$1,890 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study302019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 2: All-ElectricFederal Code MinimumCZ01PG&E-29,155389313.85-4.1%($23,048)($8,333)($13,910)2.81.7$14,715 $9,138CZ02PG&E-21,78624487.49-1.0%($27,464)($16,476)($4,483)1.76.1$10,987 $22,981 CZ03PG&E-14,58318686.26-0.4%($24,111)$263 ($1,450)>116.6$24,374 $22,661 CZ04PG&E-14,18617065.30-0.1%($22,896)($8,753)($220)2.6104.2$14,143$22,676 CZ04-2CPAU-14,18617065.30-0.1%($22,896)$12,493 ($220)>1104.2$35,389 $22,676 CZ05PG&E-14,33417465.47-1.2%($25,507)($1,567)($4,197)16.36.1$23,940 $21,309 CZ06SCE-7,52710023.320.5%($21,762)$18,590 $1,868 >1>1$40,351 $23,630 CZ06-2LADWP-7,52710023.320.5%($21,762)$19,309 $1,868 >1>1$41,071 $23,630 CZ07SDG&E-3,8125221.760.3%($23,762)$54,345 $1,318 >1>1$78,107 $25,080 CZ08SCE-5,8057932.700.4%($26,922)$16,735 $1,846 >1>1$43,658 $28,768 CZ08-2LADWP-5,8057932.700.4%($26,922)$17,130 $1,846 >1>1$44,052 $28,768 CZ09SCE-7,2419703.320.4%($32,113)$18,582 $1,978 >1>1$50,695 $34,091 CZ09-2LADWP-7,2419703.320.4%($32,113)$19,089 $1,978 >1>1$51,202 $34,091 CZ10SDG&E-10,33612623.990.1%($27,272)$54,453 $505 >1>1$81,724 $27,777 CZ10-2SCE-10,33612623.990.1%($27,272)$20,996 $505 >1>1$48,268 $27,777 CZ11PG&E-19,25124157.950.5%($32,202)($7,951)$2,615 4.1>1$24,251$34,817 CZ12PG&E-19,47123097.28-0.1%($32,504)($14,153)($461)2.370.4$18,351 $32,042 CZ12-2SMUD-19,47123097.28-0.1%($32,504)$12,939 ($461)>170.4$45,443 $32,042 CZ13PG&E-16,81919836.15-0.4%($28,158)($10,575)($2,022)2.713.9$17,582 $26,136 CZ14SDG&E-13,20816725.440.7%($26,656)$41,117 $4,461 >1>1$67,772 $31,117 CZ14-2SCE-13,20816725.440.7%($26,656)$18,467 $4,461 >1>1$45,123 $31,117 CZ15SCE-2,4635182.140.9%($29,544)$16,796 $5,823 >1>1$46,339 $35,367 CZ16PG&E-41,418430413.23-12.2%($25,771)($49,862)($52,542)0.50.5($24,091)($26,771)CZ16-2LADWP-41,418430413.23-12.2%($25,771)$39,319 ($52,542)>10.5$65,090 ($26,771)* The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 11andthe natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savingsof $28,027(see section 3.3.2.2).10.C.d
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study312019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3A: All-Electric+EE CZ01PG&E-5,478389320.6415%($20,336)$63,593 $51,224 >1>1$83,929 $71,560 CZ02PG&E2,843244814.5813%($21,895)$74,997 $56,893 >1>1$96,892 $78,788 CZ03PG&E7,791186812.7316%($18,542)$68,968 $56,586 >1>1$87,511 $75,128 CZ04PG&E8,572170611.8914%($17,327)$81,957 $57,904 >1>1$99,284 $75,231 CZ04-2CPAU8,572170611.8914%($17,327)$63,082 $57,904>1>1$80,408 $75,231 CZ05PG&E6,973174611.6815%($19,938)$63,677 $51,949 >1>1$83,615 $71,887 CZ06SCE7,43110027.7211%($19,050)$47,072 $42,610 >1>1$66,122 $61,660 CZ06-2LADWP7,43110027.7211%($19,050)$37,078 $42,610 >1>1$56,128 $61,660 CZ07SDG&E14,3505226.9813%($18,193)$127,461 $50,828 >1>1$145,654 $69,021 CZ08SCE8,5247936.9010%($24,210)$43,679 $42,258 >1>1$67,890 $66,468 CZ08-2LADWP8,5247936.9010%($24,210)$34,038 $42,258 >1>1$58,248 $66,468 CZ09SCE8,4039707.8110%($26,545)$47,819 $47,356 >1>1$74,364 $73,901 CZ09-2LADWP8,4039707.8110%($26,545)$37,934 $47,356 >1>1$64,478 $73,901 CZ10SDG&E11,737126210.2312%($21,703)$137,436 $58,761 >1>1$159,139 $80,464 CZ10-2SCE11,737126210.2312%($21,703)$58,257 $58,761 >1>1$79,959 $80,464 CZ11PG&E5,892241515.1312%($26,633)$85,256 $65,859 >1>1$111,889 $92,492 CZ12PG&E5,548230914.4612%($26,935)$80,631 $63,903 >1>1$107,566 $90,838 CZ12-2SMUD5,548230914.4612%($26,935)$59,311 $63,903 >1>1$86,246 $90,838 CZ13PG&E10,184198314.1514%($25,446)$110,105 $80,604 >1>1$135,551 $106,050 CZ14SDG&E16,583167213.8315%($23,944)$171,200 $88,471 >1>1$195,145 $112,415 CZ14-2SCE16,583167213.8315%($23,944)$656,178 $159,604 >1>1$680,122 $183,548 CZ15SCE23,6425189.4412%($26,832)$65,573 $76,781 >1>1$92,404 $103,612 CZ16PG&E-18,232430419.803%($23,059)$38,796 $14,152 >1>1$61,855 $37,211 CZ16-2LADWP-18,232430419.803%($23,059)$67,793 $14,152 >1>1$90,852 $37,211 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study322019-07-15All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Compliance Margin (%)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + PV + BCZ01PG&E137,956389350.5115%$254,335 $510,831 $374,432 2.01.5$256,496 $120,097 CZ02PG&E173,387244849.8713%$252,777 $590,112 $463,431 2.31.8$337,336 $210,654 CZ03PG&E180,055186848.5516%$256,129 $585,861 $452,399 2.31.8$329,732 $196,270 CZ04PG&E184,499170648.3814%$257,345 $608,814 $481,011 2.41.9$351,470 $223,666 CZ04-2CPAU184,499170648.3814%$257,345 $465,690 $481,011 1.81.9$208,345 $223,666 CZ05PG&E185,690174648.8415%$254,734 $600,933 $461,804 2.41.8$346,199 $207,071 CZ06SCE180,968100243.9111%$255,621 $335,909 $457,959 1.31.8$80,288 $202,337 CZ06-2LADWP180,968100243.9111%$255,621 $206,021 $457,959 0.81.8($49,601)$202,337 CZ07SDG&E194,83752244.6713%$256,478 $550,714 $478,637 2.11.9$294,236 $222,159 CZ08SCE184,12079343.3210%$250,461 $340,301 $479,406 1.41.9$89,840 $228,945 CZ08-2LADWP184,12079343.3210%$250,461 $203,813 $479,406 0.81.9($46,648)$228,945 CZ09SCE186,34697044.7710%$248,127 $349,524 $474,176 1.41.9$101,397 $226,049 CZ09-2LADWP186,34697044.7710%$248,127 $216,654 $474,176 0.91.9($31,473)$226,049 CZ10SDG&E191,923126247.4612%$252,969 $593,514 $473,605 2.31.9$340,545 $220,636 CZ10-2SCE191,923126247.4612%$252,969 $356,958 $473,605 1.41.9$103,989 $220,636 CZ11PG&E177,639241550.2612%$248,039 $585,689 $489,317 2.42.0$337,650 $241,278 CZ12PG&E176,919230949.4612%$247,736 $591,104 $484,702 2.42.0$343,368 $236,966 CZ12-2SMUD176,919230949.4612%$247,736 $335,286 $484,702 1.42.0$87,550 $236,966 CZ13PG&E183,129198349.4814%$249,226 $608,560 $483,670 2.41.9$359,334 $234,444 CZ14SDG&E208,183167252.5415%$250,727 $593,232 $544,079 2.42.2$342,505 $293,351 CZ14-2SCE264,589167280.9715%$250,727 $656,178 $580,403 2.62.3$405,450 $329,676 CZ15SCE205,86951845.6712%$247,840 $347,125 $493,339 1.42.0$99,285 $245,499 CZ16PG&E176,114430460.133%$251,612 $567,822 $446,795 2.31.8$316,210 $195,183 CZ16-2LADWP176,114430460.133%$251,612 $241,757 $446,795 1.01.8($9,856)$195,183 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study332019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3C: All-Electric+ HECZ01PG&E-26,199389314.76-2%($587)$369 ($5,757)>10.1$956 ($5,170)CZ02PG&E-16,98924488.953%($4,211)$12,323 $11,251 >1>1$16,534 $15,463 CZ03PG&E-11,70318687.152%($2,213)$9,159 $6,944 >1>1$11,372 $9,157 CZ04PG&E-10,67517066.373%($316)$14,317 $11,383 >1>1$14,633 $11,700 CZ04-2CPAU-10,67517066.373%($316)$20,599 $11,383 >1>1$20,915 $11,700 CZ05PG&E-11,96917466.191%($2,298)$5,592 $1,824 >1>1$7,890 $4,122 CZ06SCE-3,91910024.353%$1,418 $29,751 $13,734 21.09.7$28,333 $12,316 CZ06-2LADWP-3,91910024.353%$1,418 $25,891 $13,734 18.39.7$24,473 $12,316 CZ07SDG&E-9555222.593%($710)$74,518 $11,229 >1>1$75,227 $11,939 CZ08SCE-2,2247933.744%($3,719)$28,067 $15,075 >1>1$31,785 $18,793 CZ08-2LADWP-2,2247933.744%($3,719)$23,848 $15,075 >1>1$27,566 $18,793 CZ09SCE-2,0899704.844%($8,268)$34,648 $21,162 >1>1$42,916 $29,430 CZ09-2LADWP-2,0899704.844%($8,268)$28,837 $21,162 >1>1$37,105 $29,430 CZ10SDG&E-4,86812625.584%($5,222)$91,136 $20,041 >1>1$96,358 $25,263 CZ10-2SCE-4,86812625.584%($5,222)$37,200 $20,041 >1>1$42,422 $25,263 CZ11PG&E-12,65124159.955%($8,217)$29,015 $26,172 >1>1$37,232 $34,389 CZ12PG&E-13,47923099.104%($9,239)$20,839 $21,228 >1>1$30,078 $30,466 CZ12-2SMUD-13,47923099.104%($9,239)$26,507 $21,228 >1>1$35,746 $30,466 CZ13PG&E-9,93519838.234%($4,975)$30,123 $24,063 >1>1$35,097 $29,037 CZ14SDG&E-5,40716727.715%$121 $88,669 $31,029 732.5256.3$88,547 $30,908 CZ14-2SCE-5,40716727.715%$121 $40,709 $31,029 336.3256.3$40,588 $30,908 CZ15SCE6,7825184.776%($2,508)$42,238 $37,379 >1>1$44,745 $39,887 CZ16PG&E-35,297430415.03-8%$1,102 ($21,384)($33,754)-19.4-30.6($22,486)($34,856)CZ16-2LADWP-35,297430415.03-8%$1,102 $48,625 ($33,754)44.1-30.6$47,523 ($34,856)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
34 2019-07-15
4.3 E R otel
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study362019-07-15Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1A: Mixed Fuel+ EE CZ01PG&E3,85512885.659%$20,971 $34,339 $36,874 1.61.8$13,368 $15,903 CZ02PG&E3,8029763.917%$20,971 $26,312 $29,353 1.31.4$5,341 $8,381 CZ03PG&E4,15310464.4810%$20,971 $31,172 $35,915 1.51.7$10,201 $14,944 CZ04PG&E5,0073950.856%$21,824 $24,449 $24,270 1.11.1$2,625 $2,446 CZ04-2CPAU4,9164220.986%$21,824 $18,713 $24,306 0.91.1($3,111)$2,483 CZ05PG&E3,53010184.139%$20,971 $28,782 $34,448 1.41.6$7,810 $13,477 CZ05-2SCG3,53010184.139%$20,971 $23,028 $34,448 1.11.6$2,057 $13,477 CZ06SCE5,1374181.168%$21,824 $16,001 $26,934 0.71.2($5,823)$5,110 CZ06-2LADWP5,1374181.168%$21,824 $11,706 $26,934 0.51.2($10,118)$5,110 CZ07SDG&E5,3524241.318%$21,824 $26,699 $27,975 1.21.3$4,876 $6,152 CZ08SCE5,1514191.217%$21,824 $15,931 $23,576 0.71.1($5,893)$1,752 CZ08-2LADWP5,1514191.217%$21,824 $11,643 $23,576 0.51.1($10,180)$1,752 CZ09SCE5,2294061.166%$21,824 $15,837 $22,365 0.71.0($5,987)$541 CZ09-2LADWP5,2294061.166%$21,824 $11,632 $22,365 0.51.0($10,192)$541 CZ10SDG&E4,6073420.925%$21,824 $25,506 $22,219 1.21.0$3,683 $396 CZ10-2SCE4,6073420.925%$21,824 $13,868 $22,219 0.61.0($7,956)$396 CZ11PG&E4,8013250.874%$21,824 $22,936 $19,503 1.10.9$1,112 ($2,321)CZ12PG&E5,2763270.905%$21,824 $22,356 $21,305 1.00.98$532 ($519)CZ12-2SMUD5,2763270.905%$21,824 $15,106 $21,305 0.70.98($6,717)($519)CZ13PG&E4,9753100.874%$21,824 $23,594 $19,378 1.10.9$1,770 ($2,445)CZ14SDG&E4,8843700.824%$21,824 $24,894 $21,035 1.10.96$3,070 ($789)CZ14-2SCE4,8843700.824%$21,824 $14,351 $21,035 0.70.96($7,473)($789)CZ15SCE5,1872781.233%$21,824 $13,645 $18,089 0.60.8($8,178)($3,735)CZ16PG&E2,99211974.956%$20,971 $27,813 $30,869 1.31.5$6,842 $9,898 CZ16-2LADWP2,99211974.956%$20,971 $19,782 $30,869 0.91.5($1,190)$9,898 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study372019-07-15Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1B: Mixed Fuel+EE + PV + BCZ01PG&E107,694128828.739%$228,341 $366,509 $295,731 1.61.3$138,168 $67,390 CZ02PG&E130,14497631.147%$228,341 $359,248 $336,575 1.61.5$130,907 $108,233 CZ03PG&E129,107104631.5710%$228,341 $430,737 $335,758 1.91.5$202,396 $107,416 CZ04PG&E132,64839528.466%$229,194 $355,406 $338,455 1.61.5$126,212 $109,262 CZ04-2CPAU132,55642228.596%$229,194 $322,698 $338,492 1.41.5$93,504 $109,298 CZ05PG&E136,318101832.739%$228,341 $452,611 $352,342 2.01.5$224,269 $124,001 CZ05-2SCG136,318101832.739%$228,341 $446,858 $352,342 2.01.5$218,516 $124,001 CZ06SCE131,05141828.478%$229,194 $217,728 $336,843 0.91.5($11,466)$107,649 CZ06-2LADWP131,05141828.478%$229,194 $131,052 $336,843 0.61.5($98,142)$107,649 CZ07SDG&E136,35942429.638%$229,194 $306,088 $345,378 1.31.5$76,894 $116,184 CZ08SCE132,53941928.857%$229,194 $227,297 $353,013 1.01.5($1,897)$123,819 CZ08-2LADWP132,53941928.857%$229,194 $134,739 $353,013 0.61.5($94,455)$123,819 CZ09SCE131,42240628.826%$229,194 $230,791 $343,665 1.01.5$1,597 $114,471 CZ09-2LADWP131,42240628.826%$229,194 $136,024 $343,665 0.61.5($93,170)$114,471 CZ10SDG&E134,14634229.055%$229,194 $339,612 $342,574 1.51.5$110,418 $113,380 CZ10-2SCE134,14634229.055%$229,194 $226,244 $342,574 1.01.5($2,949)$113,380 CZ11PG&E128,91632527.624%$229,194 $352,831 $337,208 1.51.5$123,637 $108,014 CZ12PG&E131,22632728.045%$229,194 $425,029 $338,026 1.91.5$195,835 $108,832 CZ12-2SMUD131,22632728.045%$229,194 $213,176 $338,026 0.91.5($16,018)$108,832 CZ13PG&E127,25831027.334%$229,194 $351,244 $324,217 1.51.4$122,050 $95,023 CZ14SDG&E147,01737030.964%$229,194 $861,445 $217,675 3.80.9$632,251 ($11,518)CZ14-2SCE147,01737030.964%$229,194 $244,100 $381,164 1.11.7$14,906 $151,970 CZ15SCE137,18027829.123%$229,194 $225,054 $348,320 1.01.5($4,140)$119,127 CZ16PG&E141,478119734.606%$228,341 $377,465 $357,241 1.71.6$149,124 $128,899 CZ16-2LADWP141,478119734.606%$228,341 $136,563 $357,241 0.61.6($91,778)$128,899 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study382019-07-1533Mixed-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 1C: Mixed Fuel+ HECZ01PG&E106323.762%$22,839 $11,015 $10,218 0.50.4($11,823)($12,621)CZ02PG&E9814022.693%$23,092 $16,255 $11,808 0.70.5($6,837)($11,284)CZ03PG&E813832.302%$20,510 $7,066 $6,850 0.30.3($13,444)($13,660)CZ04PG&E1613732.262%$22,164 $8,593 $7,645 0.40.3($13,571)($14,519)CZ04-2CPAU1613732.262%$22,164 $7,097 $7,645 0.30.3($15,067)($14,519)CZ05PG&E1543612.192%$21,418$6,897 $6,585 0.30.3($14,521)($14,833)CZ05-2SCG1543612.192%$21,418 $4,786 $6,585 0.20.3($16,632)($14,833)CZ06SCE2372011.272%$20,941 $3,789 $4,882 0.20.2($17,152)($16,059)CZ06-2LADWP2372011.272%$20,941 $3,219 $4,882 0.20.2($17,722)($16,059)CZ07SDG&E1,1171581.282%$19,625 $13,771 $7,342 0.70.4($5,854)($12,283)CZ08SCE1,3021691.392%$20,678 $8,378 $8,591 0.40.4($12,300)($12,088)CZ08-2LADWP1,3021691.392%$20,678 $5,802 $8,591 0.30.4($14,877)($12,088)CZ09SCE1,7331781.563%$20,052 $10,489 $11,164 0.50.6($9,563)($8,888)CZ09-2LADWP1,7331781.563%$20,052 $7,307 $11,164 0.40.6($12,745)($8,888)CZ10SDG&E3,1702202.294%$22,682 $35,195 $19,149 1.60.8$12,513 ($3,533)CZ10-2SCE3,1702202.294%$22,682 $16,701 $19,149 0.70.8($5,981)($3,533)CZ11PG&E3,3433232.964%$23,344 $27,633 $20,966 1.20.9$4,288 ($2,379)CZ12PG&E1,7243202.444%$22,302 $11,597 $15,592 0.50.7($10,705)($6,710)CZ12-2SMUD1,7243202.444%$22,302 $11,156 $15,592 0.50.7($11,146)($6,710)CZ13PG&E3,0833162.813%$22,882 $23,950 $17,068 1.00.7$1,068 ($5,814)CZ14SDG&E3,7143122.994%$23,299 $35,301 $21,155 1.50.9$12,002 ($2,144)CZ14-2SCE3,7143122.994%$23,299 $18,460 $21,155 0.80.9($4,839)($2,144)CZ15SCE8,684973.215%$20,945 $26,738 $31,600 1.31.5$5,792 $10,655 CZ16PG&E8367004.423%$24,616 $18,608 $14,494 0.80.6($6,007)($10,121)CZ16-2LADWP8367004.423%$24,616 $15,237 $14,494 0.60.6($9,378)($10,121)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study392019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp- liance MarginIncremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 2: All-ElectricFederal Code MinimumCZ01PG&E-159,8021691753.92-28%($1,296,784)($582,762)($115,161)2.211.3$714,022 $1,181,623 CZ02PG&E-118,7391267740.00-12%($1,297,757)($245,434)($51,620)5.325.1$1,052,322 $1,246,137 CZ03PG&E-110,5951232240.48-14%($1,300,029)($326,633)($51,166)4.025.4$973,396 $1,248,863 CZ04PG&E-113,4041192736.59-13%($1,299,864)($225,307)($53,134)5.824.5$1,074,556 $1,246,730 CZ04-2CPAU-113,4041192736.59-13%($1,299,864)($17,768)($53,134)73.224.5$1,282,096 $1,246,730 CZ05PG&E-108,6051196038.34-15%($1,299,917)($350,585)($54,685)3.723.8$949,332 $1,245,232 CZ06SCE-78,293891229.36-5%($1,300,058)($61,534)($28,043)21.146.4$1,238,524 $1,272,015 CZ06-2LA-78,293891229.36-5%($1,300,058)$43,200 ($28,043)>146.4$1,343,258 $1,272,015 CZ07SDG&E-69,819818828.04-7%($1,298,406)($137,638)($23,199)9.456.0$1,160,768 $1,275,207 CZ08SCE-71,914835328.21-6%($1,296,376)($53,524)($22,820)24.256.8$1,242,852 $1,273,556 CZ08-2LA-71,914835328.21-6%($1,296,376)$42,841 ($22,820)>156.8$1,339,217 $1,273,556 CZ09SCE-72,262840228.38-6%($1,298,174)($44,979)($21,950)28.959.1$1,253,196 $1,276,224 CZ09-2LA-72,262840228.38-6%($1,298,174)$46,679 ($21,950)>159.1$1,344,853 $1,276,224 CZ10SDG&E-80,062841826.22-8%($1,295,176)($172,513)($36,179)7.535.8$1,122,663 $1,258,997 CZ10-2SCE-80,062841826.22-8%($1,295,176)($63,974)($36,179)20.235.8$1,231,202 $1,258,997 CZ11PG&E-99,4841025230.99-10%($1,295,985)($186,037)($49,387)7.026.2$1,109,948 $1,246,598 CZ12PG&E-99,4721040332.08-10%($1,297,425)($340,801)($45,565)3.828.5$956,624 $1,251,860 CZ12-2SMUD-99,0671040332.21-10%($1,297,425)$5,794 ($44,354)>129.3$1,303,219 $1,253,071 CZ13PG&E-96,8291002930.60-10%($1,295,797)($184,332)($50,333)7.025.7$1,111,465 $1,245,464 CZ14SDG&E-101,3981005629.68-11%($1,296,156)($325,928)($56,578)4.022.9$970,228 $1,239,578 CZ14-2SCE-101,3981005629.68-11%($1,296,156)($121,662)($56,578)10.722.9$1,174,494 $1,239,578 CZ15SCE-49,853557918.07-4%($1,294,276)$209 ($21,420)>160.4$1,294,485 $1,272,856 CZ16PG&E-216,7081759941.89-50%($1,300,552)($645,705)($239,178)2.05.4$654,847 $1,061,374 CZ16-2LA-216,7081759941.89-50%($1,300,552)$30,974 ($239,178)>15.4$1,331,526 $1,061,374 * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 12, the electricalinfrastructureincremental costof $26,800(see section3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savingsof $56,020(see section 3.3.2.2).10.C.d
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study402019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings$TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3A: All-Electric+EE CZ01PG&E-113,2591691762.381.3%($1,251,544)($200,367)$5,460 6.2>1$1,051,177 $1,257,005 CZ02PG&E-90,0331267745.464%($1,265,064)($108,075)$15,685 11.7>1$1,156,989 $1,280,749 CZ03PG&E-83,8921232245.936%($1,267,509)($198,234)$20,729 6.4>1$1,069,274 $1,288,237 CZ04PG&E-91,1971192740.360.2%($1,263,932)($112,892)$703 11.2>1$1,151,041 $1,264,635 CZ04-2CPAU-90,9811192740.420.2%($1,263,932)$32,557 $918 >1>1$1,296,489 $1,264,850 CZ05PG&E-82,4911196043.625%($1,267,355)($221,492)$18,488 5.7>1$1,045,863 $1,285,843 CZ06SCE-61,523891232.457%($1,267,916)($33,475)$15,142 37.9>1$1,234,441 $1,283,057 CZ06-2LADWP-61,523891232.457%($1,267,916)$57,215 $15,142 >1>1$1,325,130 $1,283,057 CZ07SDG&E-53,308818831.227%($1,266,354)($81,338)$22,516 15.6>1$1,185,015 $1,288,870 CZ08SCE-55,452835331.333%($1,264,408)($23,893)$9,391 52.9>1$1,240,515 $1,273,800 CZ08-2LADWP-55,452835331.333%($1,264,408)$57,058 $9,391 >1>1$1,321,466 $1,273,800 CZ09SCE-55,887840231.402%($1,266,302)($19,887)$9,110 63.7>1$1,246,415 $1,275,412 CZ09-2LADWP-55,887840231.402%($1,266,302)$60,441 $9,110 >1>1$1,326,743 $1,275,412 CZ10SDG&E-60,239841829.962%($1,256,002)($126,072)$7,365 10.0>1$1,129,930 $1,263,367 CZ10-2SCE-60,239841829.962%($1,256,002)($33,061)$7,365 38.0>1$1,222,940 $1,263,367 CZ11PG&E-77,3071025235.121%($1,256,149)($80,187)$3,114 15.7>1$1,175,962 $1,259,263 CZ12PG&E-75,0981040336.732%($1,256,824)($234,275)$9,048 5.4>1$1,022,550 $1,265,872 CZ12-2SMUD-75,0981040336.732%($1,256,824)$54,941 $9,048 >1>1$1,311,765 $1,265,872 CZ13PG&E-75,0521002934.720.3%($1,256,109)($79,378)$1,260 15.8>1$1,176,731 $1,257,369 CZ14SDG&E-76,3751005634.280.1%($1,255,704)($170,975)$543 7.3>1$1,084,729 $1,256,247 CZ14-2SCE-76,3751005634.280.1%($1,255,704)($34,418)$543 36.5>1$1,221,286 $1,256,247 CZ15SCE-33,722557921.432%($1,257,835)$26,030 $12,262 >1>1$1,283,864 $1,270,097 CZ16PG&E-139,6761759955.25-14%($1,255,364)($197,174)($66,650)6.418.8$1,058,190 $1,188,714 CZ16-2LADWP-139,6761759955.25-14%($1,255,364)$165,789 ($66,650)>118.8$1,421,153 $1,188,714 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study412019-07-15All-ElectCZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3B: All-Electric +EE + PV+ BCZ01PG&E-8,9001691787.151%($1,044,174)$90,964 $324,376 >1>1$1,135,139 $1,368,551 CZ02PG&E36,4911267773.034%($1,057,694)$242,514 $313,711 >1>1$1,300,208 $1,371,405 CZ03PG&E41,2391232273.436%($1,060,139)$155,868 $308,385 >1>1$1,216,007 $1,368,524 CZ04PG&E36,6281192769.700.2%($1,056,562)$240,799 $308,682 >1>1$1,297,361 $1,365,244 CZ04-2CPAU36,8441192769.760.2%($1,056,562)$336,813 $418,836 >1>1$1,393,375 $1,475,398 CZ05PG&E36,3651196073.115%($1,059,985)$119,173 $317,952 >1>1$1,179,158 $1,377,937 CZ06SCE64,476891260.477%($1,060,545)$156,327 $311,730 >1>1$1,216,872 $1,372,275 CZ06-2LADWP64,476891260.477%($1,060,545)$180,648 $311,730 >1>1$1,241,193 $1,372,275 CZ07SDG&E77,715818860.457%($1,058,983)$197,711 $330,458 >1>1$1,256,694 $1,389,441 CZ08SCE71,990835359.493%($1,057,038)$165,393 $320,814 >1>1$1,222,432 $1,377,852 CZ08-2LADWP71,990835360.243%($1,057,038)$180,367 $443,809 >1>1$1,237,405 $1,500,847 CZ09SCE70,465840259.292%($1,058,932)$175,602 $301,459 >1>1$1,234,534 $1,360,391 CZ09-2LADWP70,465840259.292%($1,058,932)$183,220 $301,459 >1>1$1,242,152 $1,360,391 CZ10SDG&E69,581841858.042%($1,048,632)$161,513 $294,530 >1>1$1,210,145 $1,343,162 CZ10-2SCE69,581841858.042%($1,048,632)$164,837 $294,530 >1>1$1,213,469 $1,343,162 CZ11PG&E47,2601025261.571%($1,048,779)$253,717 $286,797 >1>1$1,302,496 $1,335,576 CZ12PG&E51,1151040364.072%($1,049,454)$104,523 $305,446 >1>1$1,153,977 $1,354,900 CZ12-2SMUD51,1151040364.992%($1,049,454)$253,197 $430,977 >1>1$1,302,651 $1,480,431 CZ13PG&E47,7571002960.770.3%($1,048,739)$251,663 $281,877 >1>1$1,300,402 $1,330,616 CZ14SDG&E66,0841005664.540.1%($1,048,334)$148,510 $334,938 >1>1$1,196,844 $1,383,272 CZ14-2SCE66,0841005664.540.1%($1,048,334)$185,018 $334,938 >1>1$1,233,352 $1,383,272 CZ15SCE98,755557949.042.1%($1,050,465)$233,308 $311,121 >1>1$1,283,772 $1,361,585 CZ16PG&E-8731759984.99-14%($1,047,994)$191,994 $240,724 >1>1$1,239,987 $1,288,718 CZ16-2LADWP-8731759984.99-14%($1,047,994)$291,279 $240,724 >1>1$1,339,273 $1,288,718 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study422019-07-15All-CZUtilityElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG Reductions(mtons)Comp-liance MarginIncremental Package CostLifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Package 3C: All-Electric+ HECZ01PG&E-154,8401691756.24-24%($1,281,338)($606,619)($101,272)2.112.7$674,719 $1,180,066 CZ02PG&E-118,2841267741.18-11%($1,283,243)($395,641)($44,505)3.228.8$887,602 $1,238,738 CZ03PG&E-113,4131232240.80-14%($1,288,782)($522,458)($51,582)2.525.0$766,324 $1,237,200 CZ04PG&E-115,9281192737.09-13%($1,287,878)($383,177)($53,285)3.424.2$904,701 $1,234,593 CZ04-2CPAU-115,9281192737.09-13%($1,287,878)($24,170)($53,285)53.324.2$1,263,708 $1,234,593 CZ05PG&E-111,0751196038.75-15%($1,288,242)($530,740)($56,124)2.423.0$757,502 $1,232,119 CZ06SCE-83,000891229.41-15%($1,288,695)($154,625)($32,244)8.340.0$1,134,069 $1,256,451 CZ06-2LADWP-83,000891229.41-15%($1,288,695)($17,626)($32,244)73.140.0$1,271,068 $1,256,451 CZ07SDG&E-73,823818828.32-7%($1,285,759)($268,207)($24,069)4.853.4$1,017,552 $1,261,690 CZ08SCE-75,573835328.56-6%($1,281,241)($157,393)($21,912)8.158.5$1,123,848 $1,259,329 CZ08-2LADWP-75,573835328.56-6%($1,281,241)($18,502)($21,912)69.258.5$1,262,739 $1,259,329 CZ09SCE-74,790840229.04-4%($1,285,139)($138,746)($16,992)9.375.6$1,146,393 $1,268,147 CZ09-2LADWP-74,790840229.04-4%($1,285,139)($6,344)($16,992)202.675.6$1,278,794 $1,268,147 CZ10SDG&E-80,248841827.57-5%($1,278,097)($235,479)($24,107)5.453.0$1,042,617 $1,253,990 CZ10-2SCE-80,248841827.57-5%($1,278,097)($123,371)($24,107)10.453.0$1,154,726 $1,253,990 CZ11PG&E-98,0411025232.73-7%($1,279,528)($278,242)($35,158)4.636.4$1,001,286 $1,244,370 CZ12PG&E-100,0801040333.24-9%($1,282,834)($480,347)($38,715)2.733.1$802,487 $1,244,119 CZ12-2SMUD-100,0801040333.24-9%($1,282,834)($23,362)($38,715)54.933.1$1,259,472 $1,244,119 CZ13PG&E-94,6071002932.47-7%($1,279,301)($276,944)$244,552 4.6>1$1,002,357 $1,523,853 CZ14SDG&E-97,9591005631.91-7%($1,279,893)($302,123)($37,769)4.233.9$977,770 $1,242,124 CZ14-2SCE-97,9591005631.91-7%($1,279,893)($129,082)($37,769)9.933.9$1,150,811 $1,242,124 CZ15SCE-45,226557920.170.04%($1,276,847)($6,533)$227 195.4>1$1,270,314 $1,277,074 CZ16PG&E-198,8401759947.73-39%($1,288,450)($605,601)($185,438)2.16.9$682,848 $1,103,011 CZ16-2LADWP-198,8401759947.73-39%($1,288,450)$40,268 ($185,438)>16.9$1,328,718 $1,103,011 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
43 2019-07-15
4.4 PV-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. Compliance 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study452019-07-1510.C.d
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study462019-07-15for10.C.d
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study472019-07-15Battery10.C.d
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
48 2019-07-15
5 Summary Conclusions
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
49 2019-07-15
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%
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
50 2019-07-15
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%
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
51 2019-07-15
Figure
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
53 2019-07-15
6 Appendices
6.1
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
54 2019-07-15
6.2 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.
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings
for each prototype.
Utility
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)
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
56 2019-07-15
6.5
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.
47
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
57 2019-07-15
48
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
58 2019-07-15
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 Effectiveness
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
50 Hotel -
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
60 2019-07-15
51 Hotel ll-
Electric
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
52 Hotel ll-
Electric
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study
61 2019-07-15
53 Hotel
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study622019-07-156.7PV-PV+Battery-The Reach Code Teaevaluated cost effectiveness of installing a PV system and battery storage in six different measurecombinations over a 2019 code-compliant baseline for all climate zones. The baseline for all nonresidential buildings is a mixed-fuel design.All mixed fuel modelsare compliant with 2019 Title24, whereas all electric modelscan show negative compliance. The compliance margin is the sameas that of their respective federal minimum design and is not affected by addition of solar PV or battery. These scenariosevaluate the cost effectiveness of PV and/or battery measure individually. The climate zones where all-electric design is not compliantwill have the flexibility to ramp up the efficiency of appliance or add another measure to be code compliant, as per package 1B and 3B in main body of the report. The large negative lifecycle costs in all electric packages are due to lower all-electric HVAC system costs and avoided natural gas infrastructure costs. This is commonly applied across all climate zones and packages over any additional costs for PV and battery. 6.7.1Figure 54through Figure 61containthe cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages. Notable findings for each package include:Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packagesare mostly cost effectiveon a TDV basisexcept in CZ1. As compared to the 3 kWPVonly package, battery reduces cost effectiveness.This package is not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD territoriesusing an On-Billapproach.Mixed-Fuel + PV only: The packages are less cost effective as compared to 3 kWPV packages in most climate zones. In areas served byLADWP, the B/C ratio is narrowly less than 1and not costeffective.Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: The packages are cost effective in all climate zones except for in the areas served by LADWP. On-Billand TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package.All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages areon-bill cost effective in ten of sixteenclimate zones. Climate zones 1,2,4,12, and 16 were not found tobe cost-effective from an on-bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E’s service area. Packages are cost effective using TDV in allclimate zones except CZ16.All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Packages are slightly more cost effective than the previous minimal PV only package.Packagesareon-bill cost effective inmost climate zones except for 1,2 and 16 from an on-bill perspective. These zones are within PG&E’s service area.Packages are cost effective using TDV in all climate zones except CZ16.All-Electric + PV only: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study632019-07-15All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. On-Bill andTDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study642019-07-1554CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle $-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01PG&E3,94100.8$5,566 $15,743 $8,448 2.81.5$10,177 $2,882 CZ02PG&E4,78500.9$5,566 $20,372 $10,500 3.71.9$14,806 $4,934 CZ03PG&E4,66000.9$5,566 $20,603 $9,975 3.71.8$15,037 $4,409 CZ04PG&E5,05601.0$5,566 $20,235 $11,073 3.62.0$14,669 $5,507 CZ04-2CPAU5,05601.0$5,566 $11,945 $11,073 2.12.0$6,379 $5,507 CZ05PG&E5,02701.0$5,566 $23,159 $10,834 4.21.9$17,593 $5,268 CZ06SCE4,85300.9$5,566 $10,968 $10,930 2.02.0$5,402 $5,364 CZ06-2LADWP4,85300.9$5,566 $6,575 $10,930 1.22.0$1,009 $5,364 CZ07SDG&E4,96001.0$5,566 $17,904 $11,025 3.22.0$12,338 $5,459 CZ08SCE4,82600.9$5,566 $10,768 $11,359 1.92.0$5,202 $5,793 CZ08-2LADWP4,82600.9$5,566 $6,503 $11,359 1.22.0$937 $5,793 CZ09SCE4,88901.0$5,566 $10,622 $11,216 1.92.0$5,056 $5,650 CZ09-2LADWP4,88901.0$5,566 $6,217 $11,216 1.12.0$651 $5,650 CZ10SDG&E4,82600.9$5,566 $21,280 $10,787 3.81.9$15,714 $5,221 CZ10-2SCE4,82600.9$5,566 $11,598 $10,787 2.11.9$6,032 $5,221 CZ11PG&E4,70100.9$5,566 $19,869 $10,644 3.61.9$14,303 $5,078 CZ12PG&E4,70700.9$5,566 $19,643 $10,644 3.51.9$14,077 $5,078 CZ12-2SMUD4,70700.9$5,566 $8,005 $10,644 1.41.9$2,439 $5,078 CZ13PG&E4,63300.9$5,566 $19,231 $10,262 3.51.8$13,665 $4,696 CZ14SDG&E5,37701.0$5,566 $18,789 $12,600 3.42.3$13,223 $7,034 CZ14-2SCE5,37701.0$5,566 $10,512 $12,600 1.92.3$4,946 $7,034 CZ15SCE5,09901.0$5,566 $10,109 $11,550 1.82.1$4,543 $5,984 CZ16PG&E5,09601.0$5,566 $21,836 $10,882 3.92.0$16,270 $5,316 CZ16-2LADWP5,09601.0$5,566 $6,501 $10,882 1.22.0$935 $5,316 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study652019-07-15Figu55BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh BatteryCZ01PG&E3,94100.8$9,520 $15,743 $8,448 1.70.9$6,223 ($1,072)CZ02PG&E4,78500.9$9,520 $20,372 $10,500 2.11.1$10,852 $980 CZ03PG&E4,66000.9$9,520 $20,603 $9,975 2.21.0$11,083 $455 CZ04PG&E5,05601.0$9,520 $20,235 $11,073 2.11.2$10,714 $1,553 CZ04-2CPAU5,05601.0$9,520 $11,945 $11,073 1.31.2$2,425 $1,553 CZ05PG&E5,02701.0$9,520 $23,159 $10,834 2.41.1$13,639 $1,314 CZ06SCE4,85300.9$9,520 $10,968 $10,930 1.21.1$1,448 $1,410 CZ06-2LADWP4,85300.9$9,520 $6,575 $10,930 0.71.1($2,945)$1,410 CZ07SDG&E4,96001.0$9,520 $17,904 $11,025 1.91.2$8,384 $1,505 CZ08SCE4,82600.9$9,520 $10,768 $11,359 1.11.2$1,248 $1,839 CZ08-2LADWP4,82600.9$9,520 $6,503 $11,359 0.71.2($3,017)$1,839 CZ09SCE4,88901.0$9,520 $10,622 $11,216 1.11.2$1,102 $1,696 CZ09-2LADWP4,88901.0$9,520 $6,217 $11,216 0.71.2($3,303)$1,696 CZ10SDG&E4,82600.9$9,520 $21,280 $10,787 2.21.1$11,760 $1,267 CZ10-2SCE4,82600.9$9,520 $11,598 $10,787 1.21.1$2,078 $1,267 CZ11PG&E4,70100.9$9,520 $19,869 $10,644 2.11.1$10,349 $1,123 CZ12PG&E4,70700.9$9,520 $19,643 $10,644 2.11.1$10,123 $1,123 CZ12-2SMUD4,70700.9$9,520 $8,005 $10,644 0.81.1($1,515)$1,123 CZ13PG&E4,63300.9$9,520 $19,231 $10,262 2.01.1$9,711 $742 CZ14SDG&E5,37701.0$9,520 $18,789 $12,600 2.01.3$9,269 $3,080 CZ14-2SCE5,37701.0$9,520 $10,512 $12,600 1.11.3$992 $3,080 CZ15SCE5,09901.0$9,520 $10,109 $11,550 1.11.2$589 $2,030 CZ16PG&E5,09601.0$9,520 $21,836 $10,882 2.31.1$12,316 $1,362CZ16-2LADWP5,09601.0$9,520 $6,501 $10,882 0.71.1($3,019)$1,362 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study662019-07-1556CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel +135kW PVCZ01PG&E177,340034.3$302,856 $526,352 $380,399 1.71.3$223,497 $77,544 CZ02PG&E215,311041.5$302,856 $666,050 $471,705 2.21.6$363,194 $168,849 CZ03PG&E209,717040.7$302,856 $645,010 $449,797 2.11.5$342,154 $146,942 CZ04PG&E227,535044.0$302,856 $686,434 $497,431 2.31.6$383,578 $194,575 CZ04-2CPAU227,535044.0$302,856 $537,521 $497,431 1.81.6$234,665 $194,575 CZ05PG&E226,195044.1$302,856 $753,230 $486,596 2.51.6$450,374 $183,741 CZ06SCE218,387042.3$302,856 $401,645 $492,515 1.31.6$98,789 $189,659 CZ06-2LADWP218,387042.3$302,856 $233,909 $492,515 0.81.6($68,947)$189,659 CZ07SDG&E223,185043.3$302,856 $623,078 $496,667 2.11.6$320,223 $193,811 CZ08SCE217,171042.0$302,856 $389,435 $510,270 1.31.7$86,579 $207,414 CZ08-2LADWP217,171042.0$302,856 $222,066 $510,270 0.71.7($80,790)$207,414 CZ09SCE220,010043.2$302,856 $387,977 $505,783 1.31.7$85,122 $202,928 CZ09-2LADWP220,010043.2$302,856 $226,516 $505,783 0.71.7($76,340)$202,928 CZ10SDG&E217,148042.5$302,856 $632,726 $485,451 2.11.6$329,870 $182,595 CZ10-2SCE217,148042.5$302,856 $394,884 $485,451 1.31.6$92,028 $182,595 CZ11PG&E211,556040.9$302,856 $671,691 $478,912 2.21.6$368,835 $176,056 CZ12PG&E211,824040.9$302,856 $653,242 $478,101 2.21.6$350,386 $175,245 CZ12-2SMUD211,824040.9$302,856 $345,255 $478,101 1.11.6$42,399 $175,245 CZ13PG&E208,465040.5$302,856 $651,952 $462,732 2.21.5$349,096 $159,876 CZ14SDG&E241,965046.7$302,856 $659,487 $566,351 2.21.9$356,632 $263,496 CZ14-2SCE241,965046.7$302,856 $401,712 $566,351 1.31.9$98,856 $263,496 CZ15SCE229,456043.9$302,856 $378,095 $520,102 1.21.7$75,239 $217,246 CZ16PG&E229,317044.8$302,856 $707,095 $489,508 2.31.6$404,239 $186,652 CZ16-2LADWP229,3170 44.8$302,856 $223,057 $489,508 0.71.6($79,799)$186,652 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study672019-07-1557CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/CRatio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E176,903035.3$330,756 $525,948 $381,450 1.61.2$195,192 $50,694 CZ02PG&E214,861042.6$330,756 $665,864 $472,898 2.01.4$335,108 $142,142 CZ03PG&E209,255041.8$330,756 $644,170 $451,611 1.91.4$313,414 $120,855 CZ04PG&E227,076045.0$330,756 $685,605 $502,108 2.11.5$354,849 $171,352 CZ04-2CPAU227,076045.0$330,756 $536,463 $502,108 1.61.5$205,707 $171,352 CZ05PG&E225,752045.1$330,756 $753,558 $487,742 2.31.5$422,803 $156,986 CZ06SCE217,939043.4$330,756 $401,356 $494,042 1.21.5$70,601 $163,286 CZ06-2LADWP217,939043.4$330,756 $233,673 $494,042 0.71.5($97,083)$163,286 CZ07SDG&E222,746044.4$330,756 $628,383 $498,147 1.91.5$297,627 $167,391 CZ08SCE216,724043.1$330,756 $389,184 $511,511 1.21.5$58,428 $180,755 CZ08-2LADWP216,724043.1$330,756 $221,839 $511,511 0.71.5($108,917)$180,755 CZ09SCE219,563044.2$330,756 $387,728 $506,929 1.21.5$56,972$176,173 CZ09-2LADWP219,563044.2$330,756 $226,303 $506,929 0.71.5($104,453)$176,173 CZ10SDG&E216,700043.5$330,756 $638,040 $486,644 1.91.5$307,284 $155,888 CZ10-2SCE216,700043.5$330,756 $394,633 $486,644 1.21.5$63,877 $155,888 CZ11PG&E211,129041.9$330,756 $670,932 $481,298 2.01.5$340,177 $150,543 CZ12PG&E211,386041.9$330,756 $652,465 $482,826 2.01.5$321,709 $152,070 CZ12-2SMUD211,386041.9$330,756 $344,668 $482,826 1.01.5$13,913 $152,070 CZ13PG&E208,045041.5$330,756 $651,191 $473,280 2.01.4$320,435 $142,524 CZ14SDG&E241,502047.7$330,756 $672,601 $569,454 2.01.7$341,846 $238,698 CZ14-2SCE241,502047.7$330,756 $401,450 $569,454 1.21.7$70,694 $238,698 CZ15SCE229,062044.8$330,756 $377,827 $521,963 1.11.6$47,071 $191,208 CZ16PG&E228,825045.9$330,756 $706,201 $496,190 2.11.5$375,445 $165,434 CZ16-2LADWP228,825045.9$330,756 $222,802 $496,190 0.71.5($107,953)$165,434 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study682019-07-1558All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01PG&E-49,716496710.9($80,523)($84,765)($49,972)0.91.6($4,242)$30,551 CZ02PG&E-44,89938686.0($66,965)($83,115)($30,928)0.82.2($16,150)$36,037 CZ03PG&E-31,22631426.5($75,600)($39,441)($19,617)1.93.9$36,159 $55,983 CZ04PG&E-43,77237595.7($62,282)($70,999)($29,496)0.92.1($8,717)$32,786 CZ04-2CPAU-43,77237595.7($62,282)($8,050)($29,496)7.72.1$54,232 $32,786 CZ05PG&E-35,50432405.5($77,773)($42,559)($29,162)1.82.7$35,214 $48,611 CZ06SCE-21,32121174.0($69,422)$35,862 ($9,641)>17.2$105,284 $59,781 CZ06-2LADWP-21,32121174.0($69,422)$32,936 ($9,641)>17.2$102,358 $59,781 CZ07SDG&E-7,9439501.9($63,595)$64,781 ($382)>1166.6$128,376 $63,214 CZ08SCE-10,85412192.5($62,043)$28,651 ($1,289)>148.1$90,694 $60,755 CZ08-2LADWP-10,85412192.5($62,043)$25,122 ($1,289)>148.1$87,165 $60,755 CZ09SCE-14,87816053.3($56,372)$31,542 ($3,246)>117.4$87,913 $53,126 CZ09-2LADWP-14,87816053.3($56,372)$28,145 ($3,246)>117.4$84,517 $53,126 CZ10SDG&E-22,58820533.1($41,171)$59,752 ($12,553)>13.3$100,924 $28,619 CZ10-2SCE-22,58820533.1($41,171)$32,039 ($12,553)>13.3$73,211 $28,619 CZ11PG&E-35,45530624.5($57,257)($53,776)($22,194)1.12.6$3,481 $35,063 CZ12PG&E-38,70433275.0($61,613)($66,808)($24,819)0.92.5($5,195)$36,794 CZ12-2SMUD-38,70433275.0($61,613)$2,897 ($24,819)>12.5$64,510 $36,794 CZ13PG&E-35,01630634.7($55,996)($52,159)($22,146)1.12.5$3,836 $33,849 CZ14SDG&E-38,94532664.5($58,426)$24,867 ($25,821)>12.3$83,293 $32,605 CZ14-2SCE-38,94532664.5($58,426)$15,338 ($25,821)>12.3$73,764 $32,605 CZ15SCE-14,81815372.8($29,445)$22,852 ($3,914)>17.5$52,298 $25,532 CZ16PG&E-88,96661856.6($57,366)($193,368)($139,989)0.30.4($136,002)($82,623)CZ16-2LADWP-88,96661856.6($57,366)$36,354 ($139,989)>10.4$93,720 ($82,623)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study692019-07-1559All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E-49,716496710.9($78,897)($84,765)($49,972)0.91.6($5,868)$28,925 CZ02PG&E-44,89938686.0($78,897)($83,115)($30,928)0.92.6($4,218)$47,969 CZ03PG&E-31,22631426.5($78,897)($39,441)($19,617)2.04.0$39,456 $59,280 CZ04PG&E-43,77237595.7($78,897)($70,999)($29,496)1.12.7$7,898 $49,400 CZ04-2CPAU-43,77237595.7($78,897)($8,050)($29,496)9.82.7$70,847 $49,400 CZ05PG&E-35,50432405.5($78,897)($42,559)($29,162)1.92.7$36,338 $49,735 CZ06SCE-21,32121174.0($78,897)$35,862 ($9,641)>18.2$114,759 $69,256 CZ06-2LADWP-21,32121174.0($78,897)$32,936 ($9,641)>18.2$111,833 $69,256 CZ07SDG&E-7,9439501.9($78,897)$64,781 ($382)>1206.6$143,678 $78,515 CZ08SCE-10,85412192.5($78,897)$28,651 ($1,289)>161.2$107,548 $77,608 CZ08-2LADWP-10,85412192.5($78,897)$25,122 ($1,289)>161.2$104,019 $77,608 CZ09SCE-14,87816053.3($78,897)$31,542 ($3,246)>124.3$110,439 $75,651 CZ09-2LADWP-14,87816053.3($78,897)$28,145 ($3,246)>124.3$107,042 $75,651 CZ10SDG&E-22,58820533.1($78,897)$59,752 ($12,553)>16.3$138,649 $66,344 CZ10-2SCE-22,58820533.1($78,897)$32,039 ($12,553)>16.3$110,936 $66,344 CZ11PG&E-35,45530624.5($78,897)($53,776)($22,194)1.53.6$25,121 $56,703 CZ12PG&E-38,70433275.0($78,897)($66,808)($24,819)1.23.2$12,089 $54,078 CZ12-2SMUD-38,70433275.0($78,897)$2,897 ($24,819)>13.2$81,794 $54,078 CZ13PG&E-35,01630634.7($78,897)($52,159)($22,146)1.53.6$26,738 $56,751 CZ14SDG&E-38,94532664.5($78,897)$24,867 ($25,821)>13.1$103,764 $53,076 CZ14-2SCE-38,94532664.5($78,897)$15,338 ($25,821)>13.1$94,235 $53,076 CZ15SCE-14,81815372.8($78,897)$22,852 ($3,914)>120.2$101,749 $74,983 CZ16PG&E-88,96661856.6($78,897)($193,368)($139,989)0.40.6($114,472)($61,092)CZ16-2LADWP-88,96661856.6($78,897)$36,354 ($139,989)>10.6$115,250 ($61,092)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study702019-07-1560All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 135kW PVCZ01PG&E123,683496744.5$163,217 $405,731 $321,979 2.52.0$242,514 $158,762 CZ02PG&E165,627386846.6$176,775 $562,528 $430,276 3.22.4$385,753 $253,501 CZ03PG&E173,831314246.3$168,140 $575,864 $420,205 3.42.5$407,725 $252,066CZ04PG&E178,706375948.7$181,458 $601,431 $456,861 3.32.5$419,973 $275,403 CZ04-2CPAU178,706375948.7$181,458 $517,526 $456,861 2.92.5$336,069 $275,403 CZ05PG&E185,664324048.6$165,967 $664,842 $446,600 4.02.7$498,875 $280,633 CZ06SCE192,214211745.3$174,317 $423,657 $471,944 2.42.7$249,340 $297,626 CZ06-2LADWP192,214211745.3$174,317 $259,270 $471,944 1.52.7$84,953 $297,626 CZ07SDG&E210,28295044.3$180,145 $669,979 $485,260 3.72.7$489,834 $305,115 CZ08SCE201,491121943.5$181,696 $407,277 $497,622 2.22.7$225,580 $315,925 CZ08-2LADWP201,491121943.5$181,696 $240,657 $497,622 1.32.7$58,960 $315,925 CZ09SCE200,242160545.6$187,368 $408,922 $491,322 2.22.6$221,554 $303,953 CZ09-2LADWP200,242160545.6$187,368 $248,452 $491,322 1.32.6$61,084 $303,953 CZ10SDG&E189,734205344.7$202,568 $667,551 $462,111 3.32.3$464,982 $259,543 CZ10-2SCE189,734205344.7$202,568 $412,659 $462,111 2.02.3$210,091 $259,543 CZ11PG&E171,399306244.5$186,483 $597,807 $446,074 3.22.4$411,324 $259,592 CZ12PG&E168,413332745.0$182,127 $571,758 $442,638 3.12.4$389,632 $260,511 CZ12-2SMUD168,413332745.0$182,127 $343,602 $442,638 1.92.4$161,475 $260,511 CZ13PG&E168,817306344.3$187,744 $581,964 $430,324 3.12.3$394,220 $242,580 CZ14SDG&E197,643326650.1$185,314 $667,762 $527,930 3.62.8$482,449 $342,616 CZ14-2SCE197,643326650.1$185,314 $408,424 $527,930 2.22.8$223,110 $342,616 CZ15SCE209,539153745.7$214,294 $390,267 $504,638 1.82.4$175,972 $290,343 CZ16PG&E135,255618550.4$186,374 $470,199 $338,637 2.51.8$283,825 $152,263 CZ16-2LADWP135,255618550.4$186,374$250,807 $338,637 1.31.8$64,433 $152,263 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study712019-07-15All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/CRatio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E123,280496745.4$191,117 $404,994 $323,077 2.11.7$213,877 $131,960 CZ02PG&E165,200386847.7$204,675 $561,747 $431,469 2.72.1$357,072 $226,795 CZ03PG&E173,384314247.4$196,040 $575,043 $422,019 2.92.2$379,003 $225,979 CZ04PG&E178,259375949.8$209,358 $600,621 $461,634 2.92.2$391,263 $252,276 CZ04-2CPAU178,259375949.8$209,358 $516,495 $461,634 2.52.2$307,137 $252,276 CZ05PG&E185,229324049.7$193,867 $664,046 $447,793 3.42.3$470,179 $253,926 CZ06SCE191,767211746.5$202,217 $423,369 $473,519 2.12.3$221,152 $271,301 CZ06-2LADWP191,767211746.5$202,217 $259,033 $473,519 1.32.3$56,816 $271,301 CZ07SDG&E209,84895045.4$208,045 $675,307 $486,787 3.22.3$467,262 $278,743 CZ08SCE201,047121944.7$209,596 $407,027 $498,910 1.92.4$197,430 $289,314 CZ08-2LADWP201,047121944.7$209,596 $240,432 $498,910 1.12.4$30,835 $289,314 CZ09SCE199,802160546.6$215,268 $408,676 $492,515 1.92.3$193,408 $277,246 CZ09-2LADWP199,802160546.6$215,268 $248,242 $492,515 1.22.3$32,974 $277,246 CZ10SDG&E189,293205345.7$230,468 $672,867 $463,352 2.92.0$442,399 $232,884 CZ10-2SCE189,293205345.7$230,468 $412,412 $463,352 1.82.0$181,944 $232,884 CZ11PG&E170,987306245.5$214,383 $597,062 $448,509 2.82.1$382,680 $234,126 CZ12PG&E167,995332746.0$210,027 $571,002 $447,411 2.72.1$360,975 $237,384 CZ12-2SMUD167,995332746.0$210,027 $343,043 $447,411 1.62.1$133,017 $237,384 CZ13PG&E168,408306345.3$215,644 $581,225 $440,920 2.72.0$365,580 $225,275 CZ14SDG&E197,188326651.2$213,214 $680,893 $531,080 3.22.5$467,679 $317,866 CZ14-2SCE197,188326651.2$213,214 $408,166 $531,080 1.92.5$194,952 $317,866 CZ15SCE209,148153746.6$242,194 $390,000 $506,499 1.62.1$147,806 $264,305 CZ16PG&E134,809618551.4$214,274 $469,378 $341,978 2.21.6$255,105 $127,704 CZ16-2LADWP134,809618551.4$214,274 $250,580 $341,978 1.21.6$36,306 $127,704 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study722019-07-156.7.2EffectFigure 62through Figure 69contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include:Mixed-Fuel + 3 kWPV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones using the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWhBattery: The packages are less cost effectiveas compared to the 3 kWPV only package and not costeffective for LADWP and SMUDservice area.Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages achieve positive energy cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach for all climate zonesexcept for LADWP territory (CZs 6, 8, 9 and 16). Packages achieve positive savings and are cost effective using the TDV approach for allclimate zones.Mixed Fuel + PV + 5 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones exceptfor LADWP territory. Packages achieve savings and cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate zones.All-Electric + 3 kWPV: Packages arecost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&Eservice.All-Electric + 3 kWPV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PVonly package, adding battery iscost effective as well using the On-Bill andTDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service.All-Electric + PVonly:Packages are cost effective and achieve savings in all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approachesAll-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reducesB/C ratios for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages are notcost effective for all climate zonesexcept CZ6, CZ8 and CZ9 under LADWP service area.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study732019-07-15Figu62Mixed-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01PG&E3,94100.76$5,566 $12,616 $8,460 2.31.5$7,050 $2,894 CZ02PG&E4,68500.91$5,566 $17,635 $10,262 3.21.8$12,069 $4,696 CZ03PG&E4,73300.92$5,566 $15,146 $10,152 2.71.8$9,580 $4,586 CZ04PG&E4,83400.94$5,566 $18,519 $10,614 3.31.9$12,953 $5,048 CZ04-2CPAU4,83400.94$5,566 $11,507 $10,614 2.11.9$5,941 $5,048 CZ05PG&E4,91000.95$5,566 $15,641 $10,548 2.81.9$10,075 $4,982 CZ06SCE4,76900.93$5,566 $11,374 $10,724 2.01.9$5,808 $5,158 CZ06-2LA4,76900.93$5,566 $7,069 $10,724 1.31.9$1,503 $5,158 CZ07SDG&E4,96000.96$5,566 $22,452 $11,031 4.02.0$16,886 $5,465 CZ08SCE4,82600.93$5,566 $11,838 $11,339 2.12.0$6,272 $5,773 CZ08-2LA4,82600.93$5,566 $7,342 $11,339 1.32.0$1,776 $5,773 CZ09SCE4,88900.96$5,566 $11,187 $11,229 2.02.0$5,621 $5,663 CZ09-2LA4,88900.96$5,566 $6,728 $11,229 1.22.0$1,162 $5,663 CZ10SDG&E4,94800.97$5,566 $20,999 $10,987 3.82.0$15,433 $5,421 CZ10-2SCE4,94800.97$5,566 $11,384 $10,987 2.02.0$5,818 $5,421 CZ11PG&E4,71800.91$5,566 $15,381 $10,680 2.81.9$9,815 $5,114 CZ12PG&E4,70700.91$5,566 $16,442 $10,614 3.01.9$10,876 $5,048 CZ12-2SMUD4,70700.91$5,566 $8,247 $10,614 1.51.9$2,681 $5,048 CZ13PG&E4,75000.92$5,566 $16,638 $10,592 3.01.9$11,072 $5,026 CZ14SDG&E5,25801.01$5,566 $19,576 $12,218 3.52.2$14,010 $6,652 CZ14-2SCE5,25801.01$5,566 $10,227 $12,218 1.82.2$4,661 $6,652 CZ15SCE4,99700.96$5,566 $10,476 $11,339 1.92.0$4,910 $5,773 CZ16PG&E5,33601.04$5,566 $20,418 $11,361 3.72.0$14,852 $5,795 CZ16-2LA5,33601.04$5,566 $6,987 $11,361 1.32.0$1,421 $5,795 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study742019-07-1563BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E3,94100.76$9,520 $12,616 $8,460 1.30.9$3,096 ($1,060)CZ02PG&E4,68500.91$9,520 $17,635 $10,262 1.91.1$8,115 $742 CZ03PG&E4,73300.92$9,520 $15,146 $10,152 1.61.1$5,626 $632 CZ04PG&E4,83400.94$9,520 $18,519 $10,614 1.91.1$8,999 $1,094 CZ04-2CPAU4,83400.94$9,520 $11,507 $10,614 1.21.1$1,987 $1,094 CZ05PG&E4,91000.95$9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.61.1$6,120 $1,028 CZ05-2SCG4,91000.95$9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.61.1$6,120 $1,028 CZ06SCE4,76900.93$9,520 $11,374 $10,724 1.21.1$1,854 $1,204 CZ06-2LA4,76900.93$9,520 $7,069 $10,724 0.71.1($2,452)$1,204 CZ07SDG&E4,96000.96$9,520 $22,452 $11,031 2.41.2$12,932 $1,511 CZ08SCE4,82600.93$9,520 $11,838 $11,339 1.21.2$2,317 $1,819 CZ08-2LA4,82600.93$9,520 $7,342 $11,339 0.81.2($2,178)$1,819 CZ09SCE4,88900.96$9,520 $11,187 $11,229 1.21.2$1,667 $1,709 CZ09-2LA4,88900.96$9,520 $6,728 $11,229 0.71.2($2,792)$1,709 CZ10SDG&E4,94800.97$9,520 $20,999 $10,987 2.21.2$11,479 $1,467 CZ10-2SCE4,94800.97$9,520 $11,384 $10,987 1.21.2$1,863 $1,467 CZ11PG&E4,71800.91$9,520 $15,381 $10,680 1.61.1$5,861 $1,160 CZ12PG&E4,70700.91$9,520 $16,442 $10,614 1.71.1$6,922 $1,094 CZ12-2SMUD4,70700.91$9,520 $8,247 $10,614 0.91.1($1,273)$1,094 CZ13PG&E4,75000.92$9,520 $16,638 $10,592 1.71.1$7,117 $1,072 CZ14SDG&E5,25801.01$9,520 $19,576 $12,218 2.11.3$10,056 $2,698 CZ14-2SCE5,25801.01$9,520 $10,227 $12,218 1.11.3$707 $2,698 CZ15SCE4,99700.96$9,520 $10,476 $11,339 1.11.2$956 $1,819 CZ16PG&E5,33601.04$9,520 $20,418 $11,361 2.11.2$10,898 $1,841 CZ16-2LA5,33601.04$9,520 $6,987 $11,361 0.71.2($2,533)$1,841 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study752019-07-1564Mixed-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/CRatio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 110kW PVCZ01PG&E144,499027.97$201,904 $454,462 $309,935 2.31.5$252,558 $108,031 CZ02PG&E171,790033.31$201,904 $477,584 $376,300 2.41.9$275,681 $174,396 CZ03PG&E173,534033.55$201,904 $538,530 $372,146 2.71.8$336,626 $170,243 CZ04PG&E177,229034.42$201,904 $489,934 $389,067 2.41.9$288,030 $187,163 CZ04-2CPAU177,229034.42$201,904 $418,173 $389,067 2.11.9$216,269 $187,163 CZ05PG&E180,044034.84$201,904 $556,787 $386,958 2.81.9$354,883 $185,054 CZ06SCE174,855033.92$201,904 $288,188 $393,198 1.41.9$86,284 $191,295 CZ06-2LA174,855033.92$201,904 $165,538 $393,198 0.81.9($36,366)$191,295 CZ07SDG&E181,854035.32$201,904 $373,974 $404,713 1.92.0$172,070 $202,809 CZ08SCE176,954034.23$201,904 $284,481 $415,789 1.42.1$82,577 $213,885 CZ08-2LA176,954034.23$201,904 $161,366 $415,789 0.82.1($40,538)$213,885 CZ09SCE179,267035.18$201,904 $289,050 $412,097 1.42.0$87,146 $210,193 CZ09-2LA179,267035.18$201,904 $168,822 $412,097 0.82.0($33,082)$210,193 CZ10SDG&E181,443035.41$201,904 $410,310 $402,999 2.02.0$208,406 $201,095 CZ10-2SCE181,443035.41$201,904 $291,236 $402,999 1.42.0$89,332 $201,095 CZ11PG&E172,983033.46$201,904 $464,776 $391,550 2.31.9$262,872 $189,646 CZ12PG&E172,597033.33$201,904 $467,870 $389,573 2.31.9$265,966 $187,669 CZ12-2SMUD172,597033.33$201,904 $267,086 $389,573 1.31.9$65,182 $187,669 CZ13PG&E174,151033.81$201,904 $478,857 $387,968 2.41.9$276,953 $186,065 CZ14SDG&E192,789036.97$201,904 $396,181 $448,268 2.02.2$194,277 $246,364 CZ14-2SCE192,789036.97$201,904 $288,782 $448,268 1.42.2$86,878 $246,364 CZ15SCE183,214035.12$201,904 $277,867 $415,789 1.42.1$75,963 $213,885 CZ16PG&E195,665037.97$201,904 $522,352 $416,558 2.62.1$320,448 $214,654 CZ16-2LA195,665037.97$201,904 $171,802 $416,558 0.92.1($30,101)$214,654 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study762019-07-1565Mixed-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDVSavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV + 50 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E143,423029.48$229,804 $452,119 $324,373 2.01.4$222,315 $94,569 CZ02PG&E170,542035.14$229,804 $486,704 $398,363 2.11.7$256,900 $168,559 CZ03PG&E172,266035.66$229,804 $535,974 $395,374 2.31.7$306,170 $165,570 CZ04PG&E175,940036.32$229,804 $525,788 $422,579 2.31.8$295,984 $192,775 CZ04-2CPAU175,940036.32$229,804 $416,019 $422,579 1.81.8$186,216 $192,775 CZ05PG&E178,728036.91$229,804 $554,968 $409,086 2.41.8$325,164 $179,283 CZ06SCE173,567035.99$229,804 $290,599 $412,690 1.31.8$60,795 $182,886 CZ06-2LA173,567035.99$229,804 $169,786 $412,690 0.71.8($60,018)$182,886 CZ07SDG&E180,508037.61$229,804 $425,793 $427,040 1.91.9$195,989 $197,236 CZ08SCE175,616036.29$229,804 $296,318 $434,687 1.31.9$66,514 $204,883 CZ08-2LA175,616036.29$229,804 $170,489 $434,687 0.71.9($59,315)$204,883 CZ09SCE177,966036.74$229,804 $300,540 $421,195 1.31.8$70,736 $191,391 CZ09-2LA177,966036.74$229,804 $178,852$421,195 0.81.8($50,952)$191,391 CZ10SDG&E180,248036.91$229,804 $459,486 $410,537 2.01.8$229,683 $180,733 CZ10-2SCE180,248036.91$229,804 $301,219 $410,537 1.31.8$71,415 $180,733 CZ11PG&E171,779034.85$229,804 $490,245$417,679 2.11.8$260,442 $187,875 CZ12PG&E171,392034.77$229,804 $497,363 $417,371 2.21.8$267,559 $187,567 CZ12-2SMUD171,392034.77$229,804 $273,783 $417,371 1.21.8$43,979 $187,567 CZ13PG&E173,052034.97$229,804 $488,196$397,791 2.11.7$258,392 $167,987 CZ14SDG&E191,703038.31$229,804 $420,241 $452,641 1.82.0$190,437 $222,837 CZ14-2SCE191,703038.31$229,804 $294,010 $452,641 1.32.0$64,206 $222,837 CZ15SCE182,299036.01$229,804 $279,036 $416,382 1.21.8$49,232 $186,578 CZ16PG&E194,293040.00$229,804 $535,137 $432,951 2.31.9$305,333 $203,147 CZ16-2LA194,293040.00$229,804 $175,573 $432,951 0.81.9($54,231)$203,147 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study772019-07-1566EfAll-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PVCZ01PG&E-25,214389314.61($16,318)$4,288 ($5,450)>13.0$20,606 $10,868 CZ02PG&E-17,10124488.40($20,734)$859 $5,779 >1>1$21,593 $26,513 CZ03PG&E-9,85118687.18($17,381)$15,418 $8,702 >1>1$32,799 $26,083 CZ04PG&E-9,35317066.24($16,166)$9,110 $10,394 >1>1$25,276 $26,560 CZ04-2CPAU-9,35317066.24($16,166)$24,000 $10,394 >1>1$40,166 $26,560 CZ05PG&E-9,42317466.42($18,776)$14,076 $6,351 >1>1$32,852 $25,127 CZ06SCE-2,75910024.24($15,032)$29,710 $12,592 >1>1$44,741 $27,623 CZ06-2LA-2,75910024.24($15,032)$26,292 $12,592 >1>1$41,324 $27,623 CZ07SDG&E1,1485222.72($17,032)$76,810 $12,350 >1>1$93,842 $29,382 CZ08SCE-9797933.64($20,192)$28,576 $13,185 >1>1$48,768 $33,377 CZ08-2LA-9797933.64($20,192)$24,475 $13,185 >1>1$44,667 $33,377 CZ09SCE-2,3529704.28($25,383)$29,776 $13,207 >1>1$55,159 $38,590 CZ09-2LA-2,3529704.28($25,383)$25,823 $13,207 >1>1$51,207 $38,590 CZ10SDG&E-5,38812624.95($20,541)$75,458 $11,493 >1>1$95,999 $32,034 CZ10-2SCE-5,38812624.95($20,541)$32,394 $11,493 >1>1$52,936 $32,034 CZ11PG&E-14,53324158.86($25,471)$7,618 $13,295 >1>1$33,090 $38,766 CZ12PG&E-14,76423098.19($25,774)$2,210 $10,152 >1>1$27,984 $35,926 CZ12-2SMUD-14,76423098.19($25,774)$21,215 $10,152 >1>1$46,988 $35,926 CZ13PG&E-12,06919837.08($21,428)$5,647 $8,570 >1>1$27,075 $29,998 CZ14SDG&E-7,95016726.45($19,926)$60,412 $16,679 >1>1$80,338 $36,605 CZ14-2SCE-7,95016726.45($19,926)$28,631 $16,679 >1>1$48,557 $36,605 CZ15SCE2,5345183.10($22,813)$27,271 $17,162 >1>1$50,084 $39,976 CZ16PG&E-36,081430414.26($19,041)($30,111)($41,181)0.60.5($11,070)($22,140)CZ16-2LA-36,081430414.26($19,041)$45,706 ($41,181)>10.5$64,747 ($22,140)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study782019-07-1567All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E-25,214389314.61($14,692)$4,288 ($5,450)>12.7$18,980 $9,242 CZ02PG&E-17,10124488.40($14,692)$859 $5,779 >1>1$15,551 $20,472 CZ03PG&E-9,85118687.18($14,692)$15,418 $8,702 >1>1$30,110 $23,394 CZ04PG&E-9,35317066.24($14,692)$9,110 $10,394 >1>1$23,802 $25,086 CZ04-2CPAU-9,35317066.24($14,692)$24,000 $10,394 >1>1$38,693 $25,086 CZ05PG&E-9,42317466.42($14,692)$14,076 $6,351 >1>1$28,768$21,043 CZ06SCE-2,75910024.24($14,692)$29,710 $12,592 >1>1$44,402 $27,284 CZ06-2LA-2,75910024.24($14,692)$26,292 $12,592 >1>1$40,984 $27,284 CZ07SDG&E1,1485222.72($14,692)$76,810 $12,350 >1>1$91,502 $27,042 CZ08SCE-9797933.64($14,692)$28,576 $13,185 >1>1$43,268 $27,877 CZ08-2LA-9797933.64($14,692)$24,475 $13,185 >1>1$39,167 $27,877 CZ09SCE-2,3529704.28($14,692)$29,776 $13,207 >1>1$44,468 $27,899 CZ09-2LA-2,3529704.28($14,692)$25,823 $13,207 >1>1$40,516 $27,899 CZ10SDG&E-5,38812624.95($14,692)$75,458 $11,493 >1>1$90,150 $26,185 CZ10-2SCE-5,38812624.95($14,692)$32,394 $11,493 >1>1$47,086 $26,185 CZ11PG&E-14,53324158.86($14,692)$7,618 $13,295 >1>1$22,310 $27,987 CZ12PG&E-14,76423098.19($14,692)$2,210 $10,152 >1>1$16,902 $24,845 CZ12-2SMUD-14,76423098.19($14,692)$21,215 $10,152 >1>1$35,907 $24,845 CZ13PG&E-12,06919837.08($14,692)$5,647 $8,570 >1>1$20,339 $23,262 CZ14SDG&E-7,95016726.45($14,692)$60,412 $16,679 >1>1$75,104 $31,371 CZ14-2SCE-7,95016726.45($14,692)$28,631 $16,679 >1>1$43,323 $31,371 CZ15SCE2,5345183.10($14,692)$27,271 $17,162 >1>1$41,963 $31,855CZ16PG&E-36,081430414.26($14,692)($30,111)($41,181)0.50.4($15,419)($26,489)CZ16-2LA-36,081430414.26($14,692)$45,706 ($41,181)>10.4$60,398 ($26,489)10.C.d
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study792019-07-1568All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 110kW PVCZ01PG&E115,344389341.82$143,932 $454,277 $296,025 3.22.1$310,345 $152,093 CZ02PG&E150,004244840.80$139,516 $470,236 $371,817 3.42.7$330,720 $232,301 CZ03PG&E158,951186839.82$142,869 $544,095 $370,696 3.82.6$401,226 $227,827 CZ04PG&E163,043170639.73$144,084 $488,619 $388,847 3.42.7$344,534 $244,763 CZ04-2CPAU163,043170639.73$144,084 $432,905 $388,847 3.02.7$288,821 $244,763 CZ05PG&E165,711174640.30$141,473 $565,525 $382,760 4.02.7$424,051 $241,287 CZ06SCE167,328100237.24$145,218 $306,670 $395,066 2.12.7$161,452 $249,848 CZ06-2LA167,328100237.24$145,218 $184,797 $395,066 1.32.7$39,579 $249,848 CZ07SDG&E178,04252237.07$143,218 $428,332 $406,032 3.02.8$285,114 $262,814 CZ08SCE171,14979336.94$140,058 $301,219 $417,635 2.23.0$161,161 $277,577 CZ08-2LA171,14979336.94$140,058 $178,419 $417,635 1.33.0$38,361 $277,577 CZ09SCE172,02797038.50$134,867 $307,640 $414,075 2.33.1$172,773 $279,208 CZ09-2LA172,02797038.50$134,867 $187,813 $414,075 1.43.1$52,946 $279,208 CZ10SDG&E171,107126239.40$139,708 $463,692 $403,505 3.32.9$323,984 $263,796 CZ10-2SCE171,107126239.40$139,708 $311,464 $403,505 2.22.9$171,755 $263,796 CZ11PG&E153,732241541.41$134,778 $467,356 $394,165 3.52.9$332,578 $259,387 CZ12PG&E153,126230940.61$134,476 $467,106 $389,111 3.52.9$332,630 $254,635 CZ12-2SMUD153,126230940.61$134,476 $283,343 $389,111 2.12.9$148,867 $254,635 CZ13PG&E157,332198339.97$138,822 $477,831 $385,947 3.42.8$339,008 $247,124 CZ14SDG&E179,582167242.42$140,324 $437,575 $452,729 3.13.2$297,251 $312,405 CZ14-2SCE179,582167242.42$140,324 $309,064 $452,729 2.23.2$168,740 $312,405 CZ15SCE180,75151837.26$137,436 $294,877 $421,612 2.13.1$157,440 $284,176 CZ16PG&E154,248430451.20$141,209 $473,892 $364,016 3.42.6$332,682 $222,807 CZ16-2LA154,248430451.20$141,209 $211,677 $364,016 1.52.6$70,467 $222,807 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study802019-07-1569All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 90kW PV + 50 kWh BatteryCZ01PG&E114,356389343.52$171,832 $451,043 $310,265 2.61.8$279,211 $138,433 CZ02PG&E148,793244842.89$167,416 $475,081 $394,099 2.82.4$307,664 $226,683 CZ03PG&E157,707186842.12$170,769 $541,418 $394,034 3.22.3$370,649 $223,265 CZ04PG&E161,769170641.82$171,984 $523,603 $422,535 3.02.5$351,618 $250,551 CZ04-2CPAU161,769170641.82$171,984 $430,567 $422,535 2.52.5$258,582 $250,551 CZ05PG&E164,408174642.68$169,373 $561,966 $405,087 3.32.4$392,592 $235,714 CZ06SCE166,052100239.48$173,118 $306,697 $414,756 1.82.4$133,579 $241,638 CZ06-2LA166,052100239.48$173,118 $187,941 $414,756 1.12.4$14,823 $241,638 CZ07SDG&E176,70552239.47$171,118 $479,038 $428,490 2.82.5$307,920 $257,372 CZ08SCE169,82579339.14$167,958 $312,602 $436,709 1.92.6$144,645 $268,751 CZ08-2LA169,82579339.14$167,958 $187,142 $436,709 1.12.6$19,185 $268,751 CZ09SCE170,74797040.23$162,767 $318,113 $423,370 2.02.6$155,346 $260,604 CZ09-2LA170,74797040.23$162,767 $197,006 $423,370 1.22.6$34,240 $260,604 CZ10SDG&E169,935126241.08$167,608 $503,504 $411,284 3.02.5$335,896 $243,675 CZ10-2SCE169,935126241.08$167,608 $317,927 $411,284 1.92.5$150,319 $243,675 CZ11PG&E152,559241542.99$162,678 $491,775 $420,667 3.02.6$329,096 $257,989 CZ12PG&E151,956230942.21$162,376 $494,703 $417,063 3.02.6$332,327 $254,687 CZ12-2SMUD151,956230942.21$162,376 $288,950 $417,063 1.82.6$126,573 $254,687CZ13PG&E156,271198341.25$166,722 $485,422 $395,770 2.92.4$318,699 $229,047 CZ14SDG&E178,505167243.94$168,224 $452,456 $457,387 2.72.7$284,232 $289,163 CZ14-2SCE178,505167243.94$168,224 $311,520 $457,387 1.92.7$143,296$289,163 CZ15SCE179,84051838.23$165,336 $296,004 $422,293 1.82.6$130,668 $256,957 CZ16PG&E152,965430453.53$169,109 $483,205 $378,299 2.92.2$314,096 $209,190 CZ16-2LA152,965430453.53$169,109 $215,341 $378,299 1.32.2$46,231 $209,190 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study812019-07-156.7.3Figure 70through Figure 77contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include:Mixed-Fuel + 3 kWPV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches.Mixed-Fuel + 3 kWPV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effectiveas compared to the previous minimal PV only package andnot cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area.The addition of battery reduces the cost effectiveness of packages.Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the On-Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWPterritory. Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for the TDV approach for all climate zones.Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios. Packages arenotcost effective for LADWP territory,SMUD territoryas wellas for climate zones 6,8,9under PG&E service area.All-Electric + 3 kWPV:All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. All packages are cost effective using the TDV approachbut do not achieve positive energy cost savings.All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWhBattery: Similar to minimal PV only package, all packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. Allpackages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings.All-Electric +PV only: All packages are cost effective for both On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages achieve on-bill savings for allclimatezones.All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones.10.C.d
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study822019-07-1570CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle $-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PVCZ01PG&E3,94100.8$5,566 $12,616 $8,326 2.31.5$7,050 $2,760 CZ02PG&E4,78500.9$5,566 $12,639 $10,332 2.31.9$7,073 $4,766 CZ03PG&E4,73300.9$5,566 $15,146 $9,991 2.71.8$9,580 $4,425 CZ04PG&E4,83401.0$5,566 $13,266 $10,445 2.41.9$7,700 $4,879 CZ04-2CPAU4,83401.0$5,566 $11,507 $10,445 2.11.9$5,941 $4,879 CZ05PG&E5,02701.0$5,566 $16,048 $10,634 2.91.9$10,482 $5,068 CZ06SCE4,76900.9$5,566 $10,276 $10,559 1.81.9$4,710 $4,993 CZ06-2LA4,76900.9$5,566 $6,307 $10,559 1.11.9$741 $4,993 CZ07SDG&E4,96001.0$5,566 $14,576 $10,861 2.62.0$9,010 $5,295 CZ08SCE4,82400.9$5,566 $10,837 $11,202 1.92.0$5,271 $5,636 CZ08-2LA4,82400.9$5,566 $6,505 $11,202 1.22.0$939 $5,636 CZ09SCE4,77900.9$5,566 $10,298 $10,824 1.91.9$4,732 $5,258 CZ09-2LA4,77900.9$5,566 $6,201 $10,824 1.11.9$635 $5,258 CZ10SDG&E4,90501.0$5,566 $16,302 $10,710 2.91.9$10,736 $5,144 CZ10-2SCE4,90501.0$5,566 $9,468 $10,710 1.71.9$3,902 $5,144 CZ11PG&E4,70100.9$5,566 $14,193 $10,483 2.61.9$8,627 $4,917 CZ12PG&E4,77000.9$5,566 $15,262 $10,596 2.71.9$9,696 $5,030 CZ12-2SMUD4,77000.9$5,566 $7,848 $10,596 1.41.9$2,282 $5,030 CZ13PG&E4,63300.9$5,566 $14,674 $10,105 2.61.8$9,108 $4,539 CZ14SDG&E5,37701.1$5,566 $16,615 $12,375 3.02.2$11,049 $6,809 CZ14-2SCE5,37701.1$5,566 $10,021 $12,375 1.82.2$4,455 $6,809 CZ15SCE4,99701.0$5,566 $9,542 $11,164 1.72.0$3,976 $5,598 CZ16PG&E5,24001.0$5,566 $14,961 $10,975 2.72.0$9,395 $5,409 CZ16-2LA5,24001.0$5,566 $5,670 $10,975 1.02.0$104 $5,409 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study832019-07-1571BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E3,94100.8$9,520 $12,616 $8,326 1.30.9$3,096 ($1,194)CZ02PG&E4,78500.9$9,520 $12,639 $10,332 1.31.1$3,119 $811 CZ03PG&E4,73300.9$9,520 $15,146 $9,991 1.61.0$5,626 $471 CZ04PG&E4,83401.0$9,520 $13,266 $10,445 1.41.1$3,746 $925 CZ04-2CPAU4,83401.0$9,520 $11,507 $10,445 1.21.1$1,987 $925 CZ05PG&E5,02701.0$9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.71.1$6,528 $1,114 CZ05-2SCG5,02701.0$9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.71.1$6,528 $1,114 CZ06SCE4,76900.9$9,520 $10,276 $10,559 1.11.1$756 $1,039 CZ06-2LA4,76900.9$9,520 $6,307 $10,559 0.71.1($3,213)$1,039 CZ07SDG&E4,96001.0$9,520 $14,576 $10,861 1.51.1$5,056 $1,341 CZ08SCE4,82400.9$9,520 $10,837 $11,202 1.11.2$1,317 $1,682 CZ08-2LA4,82400.9$9,520 $6,505 $11,202 0.71.2($3,015)$1,682 CZ09SCE4,77900.9$9,520 $10,298 $10,824 1.11.1$778 $1,303 CZ09-2LA4,77900.9$9,520 $6,201 $10,824 0.71.1($3,319)$1,303 CZ10SDG&E4,90501.0$9,520 $16,302 $10,710 1.71.1$6,782 $1,190 CZ10-2SCE4,90501.0$9,520 $9,468 $10,710 0.991.1($52)$1,190 CZ11PG&E4,70100.9$9,520 $14,193 $10,483 1.51.1$4,673 $963 CZ12PG&E4,77000.9$9,520 $15,262 $10,596 1.61.1$5,742 $1,076 CZ12-2SMUD4,77000.9$9,520 $7,848 $10,596 0.81.1($1,672)$1,076 CZ13PG&E4,63300.9$9,520 $14,674 $10,105 1.51.1$5,154 $584 CZ14SDG&E5,37701.1$9,520 $16,615 $12,375 1.71.3$7,095 $2,855 CZ14-2SCE5,37701.1$9,520 $10,021 $12,375 1.11.3$501 $2,855 CZ15SCE4,99701.0$9,520 $9,542 $11,164 1.01.2$22 $1,644 CZ16PG&E5,24001.0$9,520 $14,961 $10,975 1.61.2$5,441 $1,455 CZ16-2LA5,24001.0$9,520 $5,670 $10,975 0.61.2($3,851)$1,455 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study842019-07-1572CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV CZ01PG&E105,090020.6$179,470 $336,440 $221,883 1.91.2$156,970 $42,413 CZ02PG&E127,592025.0$179,470 $320,009 $275,130 1.81.5$140,539 $95,660 CZ03PG&E126,206024.8$179,470 $403,900 $266,426 2.31.5$224,430 $86,956CZ04PG&E128,894025.4$179,470 $322,782 $278,536 1.81.6$143,312 $99,066 CZ04-2CPAU128,894025.4$179,470 $306,862 $278,536 1.71.6$127,392 $99,066 CZ05PG&E134,041026.5$179,470 $427,935 $283,834 2.41.6$248,465 $104,364 CZ06SCE127,168025.0$179,470 $200,425 $281,488 1.11.6$20,955 $102,018 CZ06-2LA127,168025.0$179,470 $119,357 $281,488 0.71.6($60,113)$102,018 CZ07SDG&E132,258026.1$179,470 $247,646 $289,700 1.41.6$68,176 $110,230 CZ08SCE128,641025.3$179,470 $207,993 $298,594 1.21.7$28,523 $119,124 CZ08-2LA128,641025.3$179,470 $122,591 $298,594 0.71.7($56,879)$119,124 CZ09SCE127,447025.3$179,470 $211,567 $288,830 1.21.6$32,096 $109,360 CZ09-2LA127,447025.3$179,470 $123,486 $288,830 0.71.6($55,984)$109,360 CZ10SDG&E130,792025.8$179,470 $274,832 $285,386 1.51.6$95,361 $105,916 CZ10-2SCE130,792025.8$179,470 $206,865 $285,386 1.21.6$27,395 $105,916 CZ11PG&E125,366024.6$179,470 $316,781 $279,331 1.81.6$137,311 $99,861 CZ12PG&E127,203025.0$179,470 $406,977 $282,358 2.31.6$227,507 $102,888 CZ12-2SMUD127,203025.0$179,470 $198,254 $282,358 1.11.6$18,784 $102,888 CZ13PG&E123,535024.4$179,470 $317,261 $269,908 1.81.5$137,791 $90,437 CZ14SDG&E143,387028.1$179,470 $309,521 $330,345 1.71.8$130,051 $150,875 CZ14-2SCE143,387028.1$179,470 $225,083 $330,345 1.31.8$45,612 $150,875 CZ15SCE133,246025.9$179,470 $207,277 $297,648 1.21.7$27,807 $118,177 CZ16PG&E139,738027.3$179,470 $341,724 $292,728 1.91.6$162,254 $113,258 CZ16-2LA139,738027.3$179,470 $114,215 $292,728 0.61.6($65,255)$113,258 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study852019-07-1573BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50kWh BatteryCZ01PG&E104,026023.2$207,370 $332,596 $237,740 1.61.1$125,226 $30,370 CZ02PG&E126,332028.1$207,370 $336,179 $296,058 1.61.4$128,809 $88,688 CZ03PG&E124,934028.0$207,370 $399,220 $289,360 1.91.4$191,850 $81,990 CZ04PG&E127,602028.5$207,370 $332,161 $308,887 1.61.5$124,790 $101,517 CZ04-2CPAU127,602028.5$207,370 $303,828 $308,887 1.51.5$96,458 $101,517 CZ05PG&E132,725029.8$207,370 $423,129 $303,627 2.01.5$215,758 $96,257 CZ06SCE125,880028.4$207,370 $193,814 $297,950 0.91.4($13,556)$90,580 CZ06-2LA125,880028.4$207,370 $123,083 $297,950 0.61.4($84,287)$90,580 CZ07SDG&E130,940029.5$207,370 $274,313 $309,682 1.31.5$66,943 $102,312 CZ08SCE127,332028.5$207,370 $199,786 $312,899 1.01.5($7,584)$105,529 CZ08-2LA127,332028.5$207,370 $124,651 $312,899 0.61.5($82,719)$105,529 CZ09SCE126,232028.2$207,370 $206,706 $292,804 1.01.4($664)$85,433 CZ09-2LA126,232028.2$207,370 $126,710 $292,804 0.61.4($80,660)$85,433 CZ10SDG&E129,683028.4$207,370 $292,202 $287,278 1.41.4$84,832 $79,908 CZ10-2SCE129,683028.4$207,370 $206,171 $287,278 1.01.4($1,199)$79,908 CZ11PG&E124,337026.9$207,370 $315,330 $283,683 1.51.4$107,960 $76,313 CZ12PG&E126,013027.8$207,370 $403,127 $297,118 1.91.4$195,757 $89,748 CZ12-2SMUD126,013027.8$207,370 $198,007 $297,118 1.01.4($9,363)$89,748 CZ13PG&E122,591026.5$207,370 $315,541 $280,996 1.51.4$108,171 $73,626 CZ14SDG&E142,257030.7$207,370 $317,565 $334,697 1.51.6$110,195 $127,327 CZ14-2SCE142,257030.7$207,370 $224,195 $334,697 1.11.6$16,824 $127,327 CZ15SCE132,418027.8$207,370 $208,044 $299,199 1.01.4$674 $91,829 CZ16PG&E138,402030.7$207,370 $358,582 $315,699 1.71.5$151,212 $108,329 CZ16-2LA138,402030.7$207,370 $118,770 $315,699 0.61.5($88,600)$108,329 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study862019-07-1574All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package Cost*Lifecycle Energy Cost SavingsLifecycle TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PVCZ01PG&E-155,8611691754.7($1,265,139)($568,892)($106,835)2.211.8$696,246 $1,158,304 CZ02PG&E-113,9541267740.9($1,266,111)($229,433)($41,288)5.530.7$1,036,679 $1,224,823 CZ03PG&E-105,8621232241.4($1,268,383)($309,874)($41,175)4.130.8$958,510 $1,227,208 CZ04PG&E-108,5701192737.5($1,268,218)($208,239)($42,689)6.129.7$1,059,980 $1,225,530 CZ04-2CPAU-108,5701192737.5($1,268,218)($6,261)($42,689)202.629.7$1,261,958 $1,225,530 CZ05PG&E-103,5791196039.3($1,268,272)($332,879)($44,051)3.828.8$935,393 $1,224,221 CZ06SCE-73,524891230.3($1,268,413)$48,898 ($17,484)>172.5$1,317,311 $1,250,929 CZ06-2LA-64,859818829.0($1,266,760)($120,842)($12,337)10.5102.7$1,145,918 $1,254,423 CZ07SDG&E-67,090835329.2($1,264,731)($43,964)($11,618)28.8108.9$1,220,767 $1,253,113 CZ08SCE-67,090835329.2($1,264,731)$48,736 ($11,618)>1108.9$1,313,467 $1,253,113 CZ08-2LA-67,483840229.3($1,266,529)($35,547)($11,126)35.6113.8$1,230,982 $1,255,403 CZ09SCE-67,483840229.3($1,266,529)$52,410 ($11,126)>1113.8$1,318,939 $1,255,403 CZ09-2LA-75,157841827.2($1,263,531)($156,973)($25,469)8.049.6$1,106,558 $1,238,061 CZ10SDG&E-75,157841827.2($1,263,531)($54,711)($25,469)23.149.6$1,208,820 $1,238,061 CZ10-2SCE-94,7831025231.9($1,264,340)($169,847)($38,904)7.432.5$1,094,493 $1,225,436 CZ11PG&E-94,7021040333.0($1,265,779)($324,908)($34,968)3.936.2$940,872 $1,230,811 CZ12PG&E-94,2971040333.1($1,265,779)$13,603 ($33,757)>137.5$1,279,382 $1,232,022 CZ12-2SMUD-92,1961002931.5($1,264,152)($168,358)($40,229)7.531.4$1,095,794 $1,223,923 CZ13PG&E-96,0211005630.7($1,264,510)($308,542)($44,202)4.128.6$955,969 $1,220,308 CZ14SDG&E-96,0211005630.7($1,264,510)($110,730)($44,202)11.428.6$1,153,780 $1,220,308 CZ14-2SCE-44,856557919.0($1,262,631)$8,996 ($10,256)>1123.1$1,271,627 $1,252,375 CZ15SCE-211,4681759942.9($1,268,907)($625,671)($228,203)2.05.6$643,236 $1,040,704 CZ16PG&E-211,4681759942.9($1,268,907)$37,142 ($228,203)>15.6$1,306,049 $1,040,704 CZ16-2LA-155,8611691754.7($1,265,139)($568,892)($106,835)2.211.8$696,246 $1,158,304 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study872019-07-1575All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5kWh BatteryCZ01PG&E-155,8611691754.7($1,288,428)($568,892)($106,835)2.312.1$719,536 $1,181,593 CZ02PG&E-113,9541267740.9($1,288,428)($229,433)($41,288)5.631.2$1,058,996 $1,247,140 CZ03PG&E-105,8621232241.4($1,288,428)($309,874)($41,175)4.231.3$978,554 $1,247,253 CZ04PG&E-108,5701192737.5($1,288,428)($208,239)($42,689)6.230.2$1,080,190 $1,245,740 CZ04-2CPAU-108,5701192737.5($1,288,428)($6,261)($42,689)205.830.2$1,282,167 $1,245,740 CZ05PG&E-103,5791196039.3($1,288,428)($332,879)($44,051)3.929.2$955,549 $1,244,377 CZ06SCE-73,524891230.3($1,288,428)($52,341)($17,484)24.673.7$1,236,087 $1,270,944 CZ06-2LA-73,524891230.3($1,288,428)$48,898 ($17,484)>173.7$1,337,326 $1,270,944 CZ07SDG&E-64,859818829.0($1,288,428)($120,842)($12,337)10.7104.4$1,167,586 $1,276,091 CZ08SCE-67,090835329.2($1,288,428)($43,964)($11,618)29.3110.9$1,244,464 $1,276,810 CZ08-2LA-67,090835329.2($1,288,428)$48,736 ($11,618)>1110.9$1,337,164 $1,276,810 CZ09SCE-67,483840229.3($1,288,428)($35,547)($11,126)36.2115.8$1,252,881 $1,277,302 CZ09-2LA-67,483840229.3($1,288,428)$52,410 ($11,126)>1115.8$1,340,838 $1,277,302 CZ10SDG&E-75,157841827.2($1,288,428)($156,973)($25,469)8.250.6$1,131,455 $1,262,959 CZ10-2SCE-75,157841827.2($1,288,428)($54,711)($25,469)23.550.6$1,233,718 $1,262,959 CZ11PG&E-94,7831025231.9($1,288,428)($169,847)($38,904)7.633.1$1,118,582 $1,249,524 CZ12PG&E-94,7021040333.0($1,288,428)($324,908)($34,968)4.036.8$963,520 $1,253,460 CZ12-2SMUD-94,2971040333.1($1,288,428)$13,603 ($33,757)>138.2$1,302,031 $1,254,671 CZ13PG&E-92,1961002931.5($1,288,428)($168,358)($40,229)7.732.0$1,120,071 $1,248,199 CZ14SDG&E-96,0211005630.7($1,288,428)($308,542)($44,202)4.229.1$979,887 $1,244,226 CZ14-2SCE-96,0211005630.7($1,288,428)($110,730)($44,202)11.629.1$1,177,698 $1,244,226 CZ15SCE-44,856557919.0($1,288,428)$8,996 ($10,256)>1125.6$1,297,425 $1,278,172 CZ16PG&E-211,4681759942.9($1,288,428)($625,671)($228,203)2.15.6$662,757 $1,060,225 CZ16-2LA-211,4681759942.9($1,288,428)$37,142 ($228,203)>15.6$1,325,570 $1,060,225 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study882019-07-15Figur76All-CZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 80kW PV CZ01PG&E-54,7121691774.6($1,123,442)($240,170)$106,722 4.7>1$883,272 $1,230,164 CZ02PG&E8,8531267765.0($1,124,415)$128,649 $223,510 >1>1$1,253,063 $1,347,925 CZ03PG&E15,6121232265.3($1,126,687)$44,532 $215,260 >1>1$1,171,219 $1,341,947 CZ04PG&E15,4901192762.0($1,126,522)$145,778 $225,402 >1>1$1,272,300 $1,351,924 CZ04-2CPAU15,4901192762.0($1,126,522)$289,094 $225,402 >1>1$1,415,616 $1,351,924 CZ05PG&E25,4361196064.8($1,126,575)$56,019 $229,149 >1>1$1,182,594 $1,355,724 CZ06SCE48,875891254.4($1,126,716)$163,343 $253,445 >1>1$1,290,060 $1,380,161 CZ06-2LA62,439818854.1($1,125,064)$115,822 $266,502 >1>1$1,240,886 $1,391,565 CZ07SDG&E56,727835353.5($1,123,034)$147,987 $275,773 >1>1$1,271,022 $1,398,808 CZ08SCE56,727835353.5($1,123,034)$163,971 $275,773 >1>1$1,287,005 $1,398,808 CZ08-2LA55,185840253.7($1,124,832)$155,101 $266,880 >1>1$1,279,933 $1,391,712 CZ09SCE55,185840253.7($1,124,832)$169,010 $266,880 >1>1$1,293,843 $1,391,712 CZ09-2LA50,731841852.0($1,121,834)$113,936 $249,207 >1>1$1,235,770 $1,371,041 CZ10SDG&E50,731841852.0($1,121,834)$138,265 $249,207 >1>1$1,260,099 $1,371,041 CZ10-2SCE25,8821025255.6($1,122,643)$162,626 $229,944 >1>1$1,285,269 $1,352,587 CZ11PG&E27,7311040357.1($1,124,083)$12,954 $236,794 >1>1$1,137,037 $1,360,876 CZ12PG&E28,1361040357.2($1,124,083)$206,756 $238,005 >1>1$1,330,839 $1,362,087 CZ12-2SMUD26,7061002955.0($1,122,455)$165,991 $219,574 >1>1$1,288,446 $1,342,030 CZ13PG&E41,9891005657.8($1,122,814)$22,333 $273,768 >1>1$1,145,147 $1,396,582 CZ14SDG&E41,9891005657.8($1,122,814)$120,943 $273,768 >1>1$1,243,757 $1,396,582 CZ14-2SCE83,393557944.0($1,120,934)$210,511 $276,228 >1>1$1,331,445 $1,397,162 CZ15SCE-76,9711759969.2($1,127,210)($199,308)$53,550 5.7>1$927,902 $1,180,760 CZ16PG&E-76,9711759969.2($1,127,210)$172,787 $53,550 >1>1$1,299,997 $1,180,760 CZ16-2LA-54,7121691774.6($1,123,442)($240,170)$106,722 4.7>1$883,272 $1,230,164 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study892019-07-1577All-BatteryCZIOU territoryElec Savings (kWh)Gas Savings (therms)GHG savings (tons)Incremental Package CostLifecycle Energy Cost Savings$-TDV SavingsB/C Ratio (On-bill)B/C Ratio (TDV)NPV (On-bill)NPV (TDV)All-Electric + 80kW PV +50kWhBatteryCZ01PG&E-55,3231691775.7($1,095,542)($238,351)$118,605 4.6>1$857,191 $1,214,147 CZ02PG&E7,8491267767.4($1,096,515)$129,794 $239,632 >1>1$1,226,309 $1,336,146 CZ03PG&E14,5941232267.7($1,098,787)$43,166 $235,280 >1>1$1,141,953 $1,334,067 CZ04PG&E14,4591192764.4($1,098,622)$148,698 $249,244 >1>1$1,247,320 $1,347,866 CZ04-2CPAU14,4591192764.4($1,098,622)$286,573 $249,244 >1>1$1,385,195 $1,347,866 CZ05PG&E24,2921196067.6($1,098,675)$53,719 $244,514 >1>1$1,152,394 $1,343,189 CZ06SCE47,762891257.2($1,098,816)$165,763 $267,221 >1>1$1,264,579 $1,366,037 CZ06-2LA61,252818857.1($1,097,164)$138,060 $283,797 >1>1$1,235,223 $1,380,960 CZ07SDG&E55,588835356.2($1,095,134)$138,718 $286,483 >1>1$1,233,852 $1,381,618 CZ08SCE55,588835356.2($1,095,134)$165,932 $286,483 >1>1$1,261,066 $1,381,618 CZ08-2LA54,162840256.1($1,096,932)$149,615 $269,453 >1>1$1,246,548 $1,366,386 CZ09SCE54,162840256.1($1,096,932)$171,168 $269,453 >1>1$1,268,101 $1,366,386 CZ09-2LA49,832841854.1($1,093,934)$120,627 $250,720 >1>1$1,214,561 $1,344,654 CZ10SDG&E49,832841854.1($1,093,934)$136,144 $250,720 >1>1$1,230,078 $1,344,654 CZ10-2SCE25,1481025257.3($1,094,743)$160,744 $233,842 >1>1$1,255,487 $1,328,585 CZ11PG&E26,8131040359.2($1,096,183)$10,314 $247,504 >1>1$1,106,497 $1,343,686 CZ12PG&E27,2171040359.3($1,096,183)$206,749 $248,790 >1>1$1,302,931 $1,344,973 CZ12-2SMUD26,0271002956.5($1,094,555)$164,506 $229,300 >1>1$1,259,061 $1,323,856 CZ13PG&E41,1231005659.7($1,094,914)$25,707 $276,947 >1>1$1,120,621 $1,371,860 CZ14SDG&E41,1231005659.7($1,094,914)$119,382 $276,947 >1>1$1,214,296 $1,371,860 CZ14-2SCE82,697557945.5($1,093,034)$209,837 $277,287 >1>1$1,302,871 $1,370,321 CZ15SCE-77,8151759971.1($1,099,310)($193,758)$65,850 5.7>1$905,552 $1,165,160 CZ16PG&E-77,8151759971.1($1,099,310)$175,872 $65,850 >1>1$1,275,182 $1,165,160 CZ16-2LA-55,3231691775.7($1,095,542)($238,351)$118,605 4.6>1$857,191 $1,214,147 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study902019-07-156.8The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well asmeasures from the 2018 International Green Construction Code, which is based onASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017. The team also developed new measures based on their experience. Thisoriginallist was over 100 measures long. The measures were filteredbased on applicability to the prototypesin this study, ability to model in simulation software, previously demonstrated energy savings potential, and market readiness. The list of 28 measures below represent the list of efficiency measures that meet these criteriaand were investigated to some degree. The column to the far right indicates whether themeasure was ultimately included in analysis or not. Building ComponentMeasure NameMeasure DescriptionNotesInclude?WaterHeatingDrain waterHeat Recovery Add drain water heat recovery in hotel prototypeRequires calculations outside of modeling software.Y EnvelopeHigh performance fenestrationImproved fenestration SHGC (reduce to 0.22).Y EnvelopeHigh SHGC for coldclimatesRaise prescriptive fenestration SHGC (to 0.45) in cold climates where additional heat is beneficial. Y EnvelopeAllowable fenestration by orientationLimit amount of fenestration as a function of orientation Y EnvelopeHigh Thermal Mass BuildingsIncrease building thermal mass. Thermal mass slows the change in internal temperature of buildings with respect to the outdoor temperature, allowing the peak cooling load during summer to be pushed to the evening, resulting in lower overall cooling loads.Initial energy modeling results showed marginal cooling savings, negative heating savings.N EnvelopeOpaque InsulationIncreases the insulation requirement for opaque envelopes (i.e., roof and above-grade wall).Initial energy modeling results showed marginal energy savings at significant costs which would not meet c/e criteria.N EnvelopeTriple pane windowsU-factor of 0.20 for all windowsInitial energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings and, in some cases,increased energy use.N 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study912019-07-15Building ComponentMeasure NameMeasure DescriptionNotesInclude?EnvelopeDuct Leakage TestingExpand duct leakage testing requirements based onASHRAE Standard 215-2018: Method of Test to Determine Leakage of Operating HVAC Air Distribution Systems (ANSI Approved). More research needs to be done on current duct leakage and how it can be addressed.N EnvelopeFenestration areaReduce maximum allowable fenestration area to 30%.Instead of this measure, analyzed measure which looked at limiting fenestration based on wall orientation.N EnvelopeSkinny triple pane windowsU-factor of 0.20 for all windows, with no changes toexisting framing or building structure.Market not ready. No commercially-available products for commercial buildings.N EnvelopePermanent projectionsDetailed prescriptive requirements for shading based on ASHRAE 189. PF >0.50 for first story and >0.25 for other floors. Many exceptions. Corresponding SHGC multipliers to be used.Title 24 already allows owner to trade off SHGC with permanent projections. Also, adding requirements for permanent projections would raise concerns.N EnvelopeReduced infiltrationReduce infiltration rates by improving building sealing.Infiltration rates are a fixed ACM input and cannot be changed. A workaround attempt would not be precise, and the practicality of implementation by developers is low given the modeling capabilities and the fact that in-field verification is challenging.Benefits would predominantly be for air quality rather than energy. N 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study922019-07-15Building ComponentMeasure NameMeasure DescriptionNotesInclude?HVACHeat recovery ventilationFor the hotel, recover and transfer heat from exhausted air to ventilation air.For small hotels, the ventilation requirement could be met by various approaches, and the most common ones are:a.Exhaust only system, and ventilation is met byinfiltration or window operation.b.Through a Z-duct that connects the zone ACunit’s intake to an outside air intake louver.c.Centralized ventilation system (DOAS)The prototype developed for the small hotel is using Type 2 above. The major consideration is that currently, HRV + PTACs cannot be modeled at each guest room, only at the rooftop system. Option 1 would require the same type of HRV implementation as Option 2. Option 3 may be pursuable, but would require a significant redesign of the system, with questionable impacts. Previous studies have found heat recovery as cost effective in California only in buildings with high loads or high air exchange rates, given the relatively mild climate. N HVACRequire Economizers in Smaller Capacity SystemsLower the capacity trigger for air economizers.Previous studies have shown cost effectiveness for systems as low as 3 tons.Y HVACReduce VAV minimum flow limitCurrent T24 and 90.1 requirements limit VAV minimum flow rates to no more than 20% of maximum flow. Proposal based on ASHRAE Guideline 36which includes sequences that remove technical barriers that previously existed. Also, most new DDC controllers are now capable of lower limits. The new limit may be as low as the required ventilation rate. A non-energy benefit of this measure is a reduction in over-cooling, thus improving comfort.Y 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study932019-07-15Building ComponentMeasure NameMeasure DescriptionNotesInclude?HVACBuilding Automation System (BAS) improvementsWith adoption of ASHRAE Guideline 36 (GDL-36), there is now a national consensus standard for the description of high-performance sequences of operation. This measure will update BAS control requirements to improve usability and enforcement and to increase energy efficiency. BAS control requirement language will be improved either by adoption of similar language to GDL-36, or reference to GDL-36. Specific T24 BAS control topics that will be addressed include at a minimum: DCV, demand-based reset of SAT, demand-basedreset of SP, dual-maximum zone sequences, and zone groups for scheduling. In order to realize any savings in the difference, we would needa very detailed energy model with space-by-space load/occupant diversity, etc. We would also need more modeling capability than is currently available in CBECC-Com. N HVACFault Detection Devices (FDD)Expand FDD requirements to a wider range of AHU faults beyond the economizer. Fault requirements will be based on NIST field research, which has consequently been integrated into ASHRAE Guideline 36 Best in Class Sequences of Operations. Costs are solely to develop the sequences, which is likely minimal, and much of the hardware required for economizer FDD is also used to detect other faults.Market not ready. N HVACSmall circulator pumps ECM, trim to flow rateCirculator pumps for industry and commercial.Hot water pump energy use is smallalready (<1% building electricity usage) so not much savings potential. More savings for CHW pumps. Modeling limitations as well.N HVACHigh Performance Ducts to Reduce Static Pressure Revise requirements for duct sizing to reduce static pressure. Preliminary energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings compared to measure cost.N HVACParallel fan-powered boxesUse of parallel fan-powered boxesUnable to model PFPB with variable speed fans in modeling software.N LightingDaylight Dimming Plus OFFAutomatic daylight dimming controls requirements include the OFF step. Y LightingOccupant Sensing in Open Plan OfficesTake the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y LightingInstitutional tuningTake the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study942019-07-15Building ComponentMeasure NameMeasure DescriptionNotesInclude?LightingReduced Interior Lighting Power DensityReduced interior LPD values.Y LightingShift from general to task illuminationLow levels of general illumination with task and accent lighting added to locations where higher light levels are required. The shift from general to task illumination measure is based on the assumption that proper lighting of a desk surface with high efficacy lighting can allow for the significant reduction of ambient general lighting.This is a tough measure to require as the LPDs decrease.N LightingFuture-proof lighting controlsFill any holes in the current code that could lead to the situations where TLEDS or LED fixtures that are not dimmable or upgradable in the future, or any other issues with code that make it hard to transition to ALCS/IoT lighting in the futureMajor lighting controls already covered in other measures being consideredN LightingIntegrated control of lighting and HVAC systemsFormalize the definition of "lighting and HVAC control integration" by defining the level of data sharing required between systems and the mechanism needed to share such data. The highest savings potential would likely be generated from VAV HVAC systems by closing the damper in unoccupied zones based on the occupancy sensor information from the lighting systems.Not market ready enough.N OtherNR Plug Load ControlsEnergy savings opportunities for plug loads, which may include: energy efficient equipment, equipment power management, occupancy sensor control, and occupant awareness programs. The proposal could be extending controlled receptacles requirements in Section 130.5(d) to more occupancy types. It would also consider circuit-level controls.Office equipment now all have their own standby power modes that use very little power, making plug load controls very difficult to be cost-effective.N 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study – Santa Monica PV for Additions
Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................2
2 Methodology and Assumptions..........................................................................................................................2
3 Results & Discussion...........................................................................................................................................3
4 References..........................................................................................................................................................4
List
Table 1: Summary of Cost Effectiveness Results........................................................................................................3
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2018-11-16
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
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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
3 2019-08-18
2.1 Prototype
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.
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.
1
Source: (U.S. Climate Data, 2019)
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunJul 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 58.56062.5 65.566.56764.560.558
Assumed Pool Heating Season
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
4 2019-08-18
2.1.1
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
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
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 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
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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).
2 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
6 2019-08-18
3
Source: (MAEDbS, 2019)
2.2.3
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 kBTUoutputassuming 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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
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
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
8 2019-08-18
2.2.6
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.
4
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
9 2019-08-18
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 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).
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
10 2019-08-18
Tabl 3
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%.
Equati=
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.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
11 2019-08-18
4 -ts
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
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 ssumptions
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 Conclusion
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost Effectiveness Study
15 2019-08-18
5 -
Source: (InyoPools.com, 2019), (MAEDbS, 2019), (KEMA, 2010)
6 -
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
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
1
City Council Meeting: April 28, 2020 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2634 (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
TO ADOPT LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE RELATING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS 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 became effective 180 days thereafter, on January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 California Building Standards Code includes 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
2
WHEREAS, at its September 10, 2019 meeting, the Council adopted a resolution
making findings regarding local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental
conditions to support certain local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, at its September 24, 2019 meeting, the Council enacted an ordinance
adopting and making certain local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a resolution making express findings, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, that
the local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
implemented by this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic,
geological, and environmental conditions; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s May 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan,
the local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
implemented by this ordinance will increase the use of renewable energy and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code relating to building electrification and electric vehicle readiness were the subject of
three public stakeholder workshops conducted on April 24, May 16, and June 11, 2019,
and a fourth workshop hosted in partnership with the Los Angeles Chapter of the United
States Green Building Council on January 23, 2020, at which attendees included
architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, other local stakeholders,
and residents; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code relating to building electrification and electric vehicle readiness were reviewed with
the Task Force on the Environment and its Electric Vehicle Subcommittee at multiple
meetings in 2019; and
WHEREAS, at its December 16, 2019 meeting, the Task Force on the Environment
determined to recommend that the City Council adopt the local amendments to the 2019
California Green Building Standards Code implemented by this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, the City’s Building and Fire Life Safety
Commission met and unanimously determined to recommend that the City Council adopt
the local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
implemented by this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, once adopted by the City Council, the local amendments to the 2019
California Green Building Standards Code will, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 17958.7, be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for
filing, and shall become effective 30 days after this submission.
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 local modifications and
changes to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) that
provide local standards for new residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings
that exceed the minimum standards of the 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
4
SECTION 2. Section 8.106.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
8.106.110 Electric Vehicle Charging
Section 4.106.4 of the 2019 California Green Building Code and its subsections
are amended to read as follows:
4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction.
New construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1, 4.106.4.2, or 4.106.4.3, to
facilitate current and future electric vehicle charging. Electric vehicle supply equipment
(EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625.
Exceptions:
1. On a case-by-case basis, where the local enforcing agency has determined EV
charging and infrastructure are not feasible based upon one or more of the
following conditions:
1.1 Where there is no commercial power supply.
1.2 Where there is evidence substantiating that meeting the requirements will
alter the local utility infrastructure design requirements on the utility side of the
meter so as to increase the utility side cost by more than $400 per dwelling
unit.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU)
without additional parking facilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
5
4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and town houses with all types of
parking facilities.
If residential parking is available, for each dwelling unit for which a parking space is
available, for all types of parking facilities, install a listed raceway to accommodate a
dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1
(nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or
subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close
proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be
continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel
and/or subpanel shall provide a 40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit and a
branch circuit overcurrent protective device.
Exception: Detached private parking spaces without power supply within 10 feet of the
parking space.
4.106.4.1.1 Identification.
The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent
protective device for future EV charging as “EV CAPABLE”. The raceway
termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV CAPABLE”.
4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings. If residential parking is available, ten (10)
percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of
parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) equipped with
EV chargers. Calculations for the required number of EV spaces equipped with EV
chargers shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
6
Notes:
1. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project's
capability and capacity for facilitating future EV charging.
4.106.4.2.1 Electric vehicle charging space (EV space) locations.
Construction documents shall indicate the location of proposed EV spaces.
Where common use parking is provided at least one EV space shall be located in
the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents.
4.106.4.2.1.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).
When EVCS are installed, EV spaces required by Section 4.106.4.2.2,
Item 3, shall comply with at least one of the following options:
1. The EV space shall be located adjacent to an accessible parking space
meeting the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 11A,
to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space.
2. The EV space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the
California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building.
Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in
compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required to
comply with Section 4.106.4.2.1.1 and Section 4.106.4.2.2, Item 3.
Note: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public housing are required to
comply with the California Building Code, Chapter 11 B.
4.106.4.2.2 Electric vehicle charging space (EV space) dimensions.
The EV spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:
1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
7
2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm).
3. One in every 25 EV spaces, but not less than one, shall also have an 8-foot
(2438 mm) wide minimum aisle. A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide minimum aisle shall
be permitted provided the minimum width of the EV space is 12 feet (3658
mm).
a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall not exceed 1 unit
vertical in 48 units horizontal (2.083 percent slope) in any direction.
4.106.4.2.3 Single EV space required.
Install a listed raceway capable of accommodating a 208/240-volt dedicated
branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch
inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and
shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure in close proximity to the
proposed location of the EV space. Construction documents shall identify the
raceway termination point. The service panel and/or subpanel shall be provided
with a 40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit and branch circuit
overcurrent protective device.
4.106.4.2.4 Multiple EV spaces required.
Install listed raceways and all associated conductors capable of accommodating
208/240-volt dedicated branch circuits. The raceways shall originate at the main
service or subpanel and shall terminate into listed cabinets, boxes or other
enclosures in close proximity to the proposed locations of EV spaces. Raceways
are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and
spaces. Construction documents shall indicate the raceway termination point and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
8
proposed location of future EV spaces and EV chargers. Construction documents
shall also provide information on amperage of dedicated branch circuits, future
EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics and electrical load calculations to
verify that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including
any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously
charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at the full rated amperage of the EVSE.
Plan design shall be based upon a 40-ampere minimum branch circuit. Required
raceways and related components that are planned to be installed underground,
enclosed, inaccessible or in concealed areas and spaces shall be installed at the
time of original construction.
EXCEPTION: Raceways and associated conductors installed for Direct Current
Fast Charging stations must be capable of accommodating 480-volt dedicated
branch circuits.
4.106.4.2.5 Identification.
The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent
protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as "EV
CAPABLE" in accordance with the California Electrical Code.
4.106.4.2.6 Additional EV Charging Requirements for Multifamily Buildings
In addition to the requirements of 4.106.4.2, an additional 20 percent of the
parking spaces (rounded up to the nearest whole number) shall be equipped with
EVSE capable of supporting future EV chargers, including a branch circuit
overcurrent protective device. All parking spaces not equipped with EVSE shall
be provided with conduit, raceway, or a combination of both, providing future
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
9
access to EVSE. Plans should clearly show the location of the conduit or
raceway. No additional electrical panel capacity is required at time of
construction for spaces where only conduit or raceway are required. Parking
spaces required under this section do not have to comply with Section
4.106.4.2.2 (dimensions).
Notes:
1. Where feasible, conduit/raceways and receptables may be installed
between adjacent EV spaces to serve multiple spaces with a shared
raceway and receptacle, but in no event should the EVSE and panel or
subpanel capacity serve less than the required number of EV spaces
according to Sections 4.106.4.2.4 and 4.106.4.2.6. For the remaining
spaces that are required to be served by conduit or raceway only, plans
should clearly show the location of the conduit or raceway.
2. An Energy Management System (EMS) as defined in California Electrical
Code may be installed to reduce service loads and increase the number of
EV spaces that can be served beyond the minimum requirements in this
code. The option does not allow for installing less electrical panel capacity
than would be required without EMS.
3. The Building Official may consider a reduction of minimum parking spaces
equipped with conduit if meeting the requirements is deemed infeasible.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
10
4.106.4.3 New hotels and motels.
All newly constructed hotels and motels shall provide EV spaces capable of supporting
future installation of EVSE. The construction documents shall identify the location of the
EV spaces.
Notes:
1. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s capability
and capacity for facilitating future EV charging.
4.106.4.3.1 Number of required EV Spaces. The number of required EV
spaces equipped with EV chargers shall be 10 percent of the total number of
parking spaces provided. Calculations for the required number of EV spaces
equipped with EV chargers shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
4.106.4.3.2 Electric vehicle charging space (EV space) dimensions.
The EV spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:
1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).
2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm).
4.106.4.3.3 Single EV space required.
When a single EV space is required, the EV space shall be designed in
accordance with Section 4.106.4.2.3.
4.106.4.3.4 Multiple EV spaces required.
When multiple EV spaces are required, the EV spaces shall be designed in
accordance with Section 4.106.4.2.4.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
11
4.106.4.3.5 Identification.
The service panels or subpanels shall be identified in accordance with Section
4.106.4.2.5.
4.106.4.3.6 Accessible EV spaces.
In addition to the requirements in Section 4.106.4.3, EV spaces for hotels/motels
and all EVSE, when installed, shall comply with the accessibility provisions for
EV charging stations in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B.
4.106.4.3.7 Additional EV Charging Requirements for new hotels and
motels.
An additional thirty (30) percent (rounded up to the nearest whole number) of the
total number of parking spaces provided shall be provided with conduit, raceway,
or a combination of both, providing future access to EVSE. No additional
electrical panel capacity is required at time of construction for spaces where only
conduit or raceway are required. Parking spaces required under this section do
not have to comply with Section 4.106.4.2.2 (dimensions).
Notes:
1. Where feasible, conduit/raceways and receptables may be installed
between adjacent EV spaces to serve multiple spaces with a shared
raceway and receptacle, but in no event should the EVSE and panel or
subpanel capacity serve less than the required number of EV spaces
according to Sections 4.106.4.3.1 and 4.106.4.3.7 For the remaining
spaces that are required to be served by conduit or raceways only, plans
should clearly show the location of the conduit or raceway.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
12
2. An Energy Management System (EMS) may be installed to reduce service
loads and increase the number of EV spaces that can be served beyond
the minimum requirements in this code. The option does not allow for
installing less electrical panel capacity than would be required without
EMS.
3. The Building Official may consider a reduction of minimum parking spaces
equipped with conduit if meeting the requirements is deemed infeasible.
4. Installation of a Direct Current Fast Charger with the capacity to provide at
least 50 kW of output may substitute for 5 EV Spaces at a new hotel or
motel as designed in accordance with California Electrical Code.
SECTION 3. Section 8.106.120 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
8.106.120 EV Charging Non-Residential Mandatory Measures
Section 5.106.5.3 of the 2019 California Green Building Code and its subsections
are amended to read as follows:
5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging.
Construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 or Section 5.106.5.3.2 to facilitate
installation and future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). When
EVSE(s) is/are installed, it shall be in accordance with the California Building Code,
the California Electrical Code and as follows:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
13
5.106.5.3.1 Single charging space requirements.
When only a single charging space is required per Section 5.106.5.3.3 , a
raceway is required to be installed at the time of construction and shall be
installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction plans
and specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The type and location of the EVSE.
2. A listed raceway capable of accommodating a 208/240-volt dedicated branch
circuit.
3. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1.”
4. The raceway shall originate at a service panel or a subpanel serving the area,
and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging
equipment and into a listed suitable cabinet, box, enclosure or equivalent.
5. The service panel or subpanel shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate a
minimum 40-ampere dedicated branch circuit for the future installation of the
EVSE.
5.106.5.3.2 Multiple charging space requirements.
When multiple charging spaces are required per Section 5.106.5.3.3, raceway(s)
is/are required to be installed at the time of construction and shall be installed in
accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction plans and
specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The type and location of the EVSE.
2. The raceway(s) shall originate at a service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the
area, and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
14
charging equipment and into listed suitable cabinet(s), box(es), enclosure(s) or
equivalent.
3. Plan design shall be based upon 40-ampere minimum branch circuits for level
2 EVSE (208/240-volt circuit) and 63-ampere minimum branch circuits for DC
fast charging equipment (480-volt circuit).
4. Electrical calculations shall substantiate the design of the electrical system, to
include the rating of equipment and any on-site distribution transformers and
have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all required EVs at its full rated
amperage.
5. The service panel or subpanel(s) shall have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the required number of dedicated branch circuit(s) for the future
installation of the EVSE.
5.106.5.3.3 EV charging space calculation.
The number of required EV charging spaces equipped with EV chargers shall be
10 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided. Calculations for the
required number of EV charging spaces equipped with EV chargers shall be
rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Exceptions: On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has
determined EV charging and infrastructure is not feasible based upon one or
more of the following conditions:
1. Where there is insufficient electrical supply.
2. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency
substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
15
requirements, directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3,
may adversely impact the construction cost of the project.
5.106.5.3.4 Identification.
The service panel or subpanel(s) circuit directory shall identify the reserved
overcurrent protective device space(s) for future EV charging as "EV CAPABLE”.
The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as
"EV CAPABLE."
5.106.5.3.5 Future charging spaces.
Future charging spaces qualify as designated parking as described in Section
5.106.5.2 Designated parking for clean air vehicles.
5.106.5.3.6 Additional EV Charging Requirements for non-residential
facilities.
In addition to the requirements of Section 5.106.5.3.3, at office parking facilities,
an additional twenty (20) percent (rounded up to the nearest whole number) of
the parking spaces shall be equipped with EVSE capable of supporting future EV
chargers, including a branch circuit overcurrent protective device. In addition to
the requirements of Section 5.106.5.3.3 and the requirement above for office
parking facilities, an additional thirty (30) percent (rounded up to the nearest
whole number) of all non-residential parking spaces must be equipped with
conduit, raceway, or a combination of both, providing future access to EVSE.
Plans should clearly show the location of the conduit or raceway. No additional
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
16
electrical panel capacity is required at time of construction for spaces where only
conduit or raceway are required. Parking spaces required under this section do
not have to comply with Section 4.106.4.2.2 (dimensions).
Notes:
1. Where feasible, raceways and receptables may be installed between adjacent
EV charging spaces to serve multiple spaces with a shared raceway and
receptacle, but in no event should the EVSE and panel or subpanel capacity
serve less than the required number of EV charging spaces according to
Sections 5.106.5.3.3 and 5.106.5.3.6. For the remaining spaces that are
required to be served by conduit or raceways only, plans should clearly show
the location of the conduit or raceway.
2. An Energy Management System (EMS) may be installed to reduce service
loads and increase the number of EV charging spaces that can be served
beyond the minimum requirements in this code. The option does not allow for
installing less electrical panel capacity than would be required without EMS.
3. The Building Official may consider a reduction of minimum parking spaces
equipped with conduit or raceway if meeting the requirements is deemed
infeasible.
4. Installation of a Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) with the capacity to
provide at least 50 kW of output may substitute for 5 EV charging spaces.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
17
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 declares 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 unconstitutional.
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. Following its adoption, this Ordinance shall
be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for filing. This Ordinance
shall become effective 30 days after submission to the California Building Standards
Commission. 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:
________________________ GEORGE S. CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
Approved and adopted this 28th day of April, 2020.
_____________________________
Kevin McKeown, Mayor State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss. City of Santa Monica )
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2634 (CCS) had its introduction on March 10, 2020 and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting
held on April 28, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Morena, Himmelrich, Winterer, Jara, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor McKeown
NOES: None ABSENT: None
ATTEST: _____________________________________ _________________
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
A summary of Ordinance No. 2634 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California Government Code Section 40806.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B19CE904-40DD-442A-90A9-4C45F9D8ABAE
5/1/2020
10.C.f
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 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 TO ADOPT LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE RELATING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the California State Building Standards Commission approved and
published the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2022, and
such code becomes effective 180 days thereafter, on January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 California Building Standards Code includes the 2022
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 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code, local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions include
local environmental conditions as established by the City; and
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
2
WHEREAS, at its February 25, 2020 meeting, the Council adopted a resolution
making findings regarding local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental
conditions to support certain local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, at its February 25, 2020 meeting, the Council enacted an ordinance
adopting and making certain local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s May 2019 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan,
the local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code
implemented by this ordinance will increase the use of renewable energy and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code relating to building electrification and electric vehicle readiness were the subject of
three public stakeholder workshops conducted on June 8, 2022, June 16th, 2022, and
July 6, 2022, at which attendees included architects, energy modelers, designers,
builders, developers, other local stakeholders, and residents; and
WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code relating to building electrification and electric vehicle readiness were reviewed with
the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment and its
Electric Vehicle Subcommittee at multiple meetings in 2022; and
WHEREAS, at its August 15, 2022 meeting, the Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice, and the Environment determined to recommend that the City
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
Council adopt the local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code implemented by this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2022 the City’s Building and Fire Life Safety
Commission met and decided to remain neutral on the proposed local amendments to
the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, once adopted by the City Council, the local amendments to the 2022
California Green Building Standards Code will, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 17958.7, be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for
filing, and shall become effective 30 days after this submission; and
WHEREAS, the requirements in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.106.055
are now obsolete.
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 local modifications and
changes to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) that
provide local standards for new residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings
that exceed the minimum standards of the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
SECTION 2. Section 8.106.055 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Section 8.106.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
8.106.110 Electric Vehicle Charging residential mandatory measures
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
4
Section 4.106.4 of the 201922 California Green Building Code and its subsections are
amended to read as follows:
4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction.
New construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1 or 4.106.4.2 to facilitate current and
future electric vehicle charging. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be
installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625.
Exceptions:
1. On a case-by-case basis, where the local enforcing agency has determined EV
charging and infrastructure are not feasible based upon one or more of the following
conditions:
1.1 Where there is no local utility power supply or the local utility is unable to supply
adequate power.
1.2 Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency substantiating that
additional local utility infrastructure design requirements, directly related to the
implementation of Section 4.106.4, may adversely impact the construction cost of
the project.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without
additional parking facilities.
4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and town-houses with attached
private garages parking facilities.
For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-
volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch
inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
5
terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close proximity to the
proposed location of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be continuous at
enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel and/or
subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere minimum dedicated branch
circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent
protective device.
Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt dedicated
EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV
charger at the time of the original construction in accordance with the California
Electrical Code.
4.106.4.1.1 Identification.
The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent
protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging as “EV CAPABLE”. The
raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV
CAPABLE.”
4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels and new residential
parking facilities.
When parking is provided, parking spaces for new multifamily dwellings, hotels and
motels shall meet the requirements of Sections 4.106.4.2.1 and 4.106.4.2.2.
Calculations for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A parking
space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV
charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only
for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
6
requirements established by a local jurisdiction. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2
for further details.
4.106.4.2.1 Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling
units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms.
The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all
buildings on a project site subject to this section.
1. EV Capable. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a
building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle
charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service
capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s),
have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV
spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes.
The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent
protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV
CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code. A minimum of
one EV Capable space is required per project when parking is provided.
Exceptions:
1. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number equal to or
greater than the required number of EV capable spaces.
2. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number less than the
required number of EV capable spaces, the number of EV capable spaces
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
7
required may be reduced by a number equal to the number of EV chargers
installed.
Notes:
a. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s
capability and capacity for facilitating future EV charging.
b. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until
receptacles for EV charging or EV chargers are installed for use.
2. EV Ready. Twenty-five (25) Sixty (60) percent of the total number of parking
spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For
multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per
dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single
dwelling unit.
Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts.
3. EV Chargers. Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be
equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least
one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be
available for use by all residents or guests. When low power Level 2 EV
charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum
required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to
reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the
ALMS. The electrical system and any onsite distribution transformers shall
have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV
charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
8
minimum capacity of 40 amperes and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of
not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum
required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.
4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units,
hotels and motels with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms.
The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all
buildings on a project site subject to this section.
1. EV Capable. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a
building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle
charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service
capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s),
have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV
spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. The service panel or subpanel circuit
directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for
future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the
California Electrical Code. A minimum of one EV Capable space is required per
project when parking is provided.
Exception: When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number
greater than five (5) percent of parking spaces required by Section 4.106.4.2.2,
Item 3, the number of EV capable spaces required may be reduced by a
number equal to the number of EV chargers installed over the five (5) percent
required.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
9
Notes:
a. Construction documents shall show locations of future EV spaces.
b. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until
receptacles for EV charging or EV chargers are installed for use.
2. EV Ready. Twenty-five (25) Sixty (60) percent of the total number of parking
spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For
multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per
dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single
dwelling unit.
Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts.
3. EV Chargers. Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be
equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least
one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be
available for use by all residents or guests. When low power Level 2 EV
charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum
required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to
reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the
ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall
have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV
charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a
minimum capacity of 40 amperes and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of
not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum
required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
10
4.106.4.2.2.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).
Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section 4.106.4.2.2, Item 3, shall
comply with Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.
Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public accommodations,
public housing, motels, and hotels shall not be required to comply with this
section. See California Building Code, Chapter 11B, for applicable
requirements.
4.106.4.2.2.1.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the
following options:
1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an accessible parking
space meeting the requirements of the California Building Code,
Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking
space.
2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined
in the California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building.
Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in
compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required
to comply with Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.1 and Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.2, Item 3.
4.106.4.2.2.1.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) dimensions.
The charging spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:
1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
11
2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm).
3. One in every 25 charging spaces, but not less than one, shall also have
an 8- foot (2438 mm) wide minimum aisle. A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide
minimum aisle shall be permitted provided the minimum width of the EV
space is 12 feet (3658 mm).
a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall not exceed 1 unit
vertical in 48 units horizontal (2.083 percent slope) in any direction.
Additional EV Ready spaces that are required by Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 8.106.110, Electric Vehicle Charging, in
excess of the 25 percent EV Ready Spaces required by California
Building Code Sections 4.106.4.2.1 and 4.106.4.2.2 do not need to
comply with the dimensions listed in 4.106.4.2.2.1.2.
4.106.4.2.2.1.3 Accessible EV spaces.
In addition to the requirements in Sections 4.106.4.2.2.1.1 and
4.106.4.2.2.1.2, all EVSE, when installed, shall comply with the accessibility
provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. EV
ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with
California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A.
4.106.4.2.3 EV space requirements.
1. Single EV space required. Install a listed raceway capable of accommodating a
208/240-volt dedicated branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade
size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main
service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure in
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
12
close proximity to the location or the proposed location of the EV space.
Construction documents shall identify the raceway termination point, receptacle or
charger location, as applicable. The service panel and/or subpanel shall have a
40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit, including branch circuit overcurrent
protective device installed, or space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch
circuit overcurrent protective device.
Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt
dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the location or the
proposed location of the EV space, at the time of original construction in
accordance with the California Electrical Code.
2. Multiple EV spaces required. Construction documents shall indicate the raceway
termination point and the location of installed or future EV spaces, receptacles, or
EV chargers. Construction documents shall also provide information on amperage
of installed or future receptacles or EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics
and electrical load calculations. Plan design shall be based upon a 40-ampere
minimum branch circuit. Required raceways and related components that are
planned to be installed underground, enclosed, inaccessible or in concealed areas
and spaces shall be installed at the time of original construction.
Exception: A raceway is not required if a minimum 40-ampere 208/240-volt
dedicated EV branch circuit is installed in close proximity to the location or the
proposed location of the EV space at the time of original construction in
accordance with the California Electrical Code.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
13
4.106.4.2.4 Identification. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall
identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging
purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code.
4.106.4.2.5 Electric Vehicle Ready Space Signage. Electric vehicle ready spaces
shall be identified by signage or pavement markings, in compliance with Caltrans
Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement
Markings) or its successor(s).
4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging for additions and alterations of parking
facilities serving existing multifamily buildings.
When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing
parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten (10)
percent of the total number of parking spaces added or altered, shall be electric vehicle
charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
Notes:
1. Construction documents are intended to demonstrate the project’s capability and
capacity for facilitating future EV charging.
2. There is no requirement for EV spaces to be constructed or available until EV
chargers are installed for use.
SECTION 4. Section 8.106.120 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
8.106.120 EVlectric vehicle charging non-residential mandatory measures
Section 5.106.5.3 of the 2022 California Green Building Code and its subsections are
amended to read as follows:
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
14
5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging.
Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle
charging shall comply with Section A5.106.5.3.1 and in accordance with regulations
in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code.
Exceptions:
1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined
compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following
conditions:
a. Where there is no local utility power supply.
b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power.
c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcement agency
substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements,
directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may adversely
impact the construction cost of the project.
2. Parking spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems are
not required to comply with this code section.
A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 EV capable spaces.
Table A5.106.5.3.1 shall be used to determine the number of EV capable spaces
required. Refer to Section 5.106.5.3 for design space requirements.
When EV capable spaces are provided with EVSE to create EVCS per Table
A5.106.5.3.1, refer to Section 5.106.5.3.2 for the allowed use of Level 2 or Direct
Current Fast Charger (DCFC) and Section 5.106.5.3.3 for the allowed use of
Automatic Load Management System (ALMS).
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
15
1. Raceways complying with the California Electrical Code and no less than 1-
inch (25 mm) diameter shall be provided and shall originate at a service panel
or a subpanel(s) serving the area, and shall terminate in close proximity to the
proposed location of the EV capable space and into a suitable cabinet box,
enclosure or equivalent. A common raceway may be used to serve multiple EV
capable spaces.
2. A service panel or subpanel(s) shall be provided with panel space and electrical
load capacity for a dedicated 208/240 volt, 40-ampere minimum branch circuit
for each EV capable space, with delivery of 30-ampere minimum to an installed
EVSE at each EVCS.
3. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have
sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space.
4. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved
overcurrent protective device space(s) as “EV CAPABLE”. The raceway
termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV
CAPABLE”.
Note: A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed
as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile
parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum
parking space requirements established by an enforcement agency. See
Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details.
Table 5.106.5.3.1
TOTAL NUMBER OF NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV NUMBER OF EVCS
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
16
ACTUAL PARKING SPACES
CAPABLE SPACES
(EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE) 2
0-9 0 0
10-25 4 0
26-50 8 2
51-75 13 3
76-100 17 4
101-150 25 6
151-200 35 9
201 and over 20 percent of total1 25 percent of EV capable spaces 1
1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.
Table A5.106.5.3.1
TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL
PARKING SPACES
TIER 1 NUMBER OF REQUIRED EV
CAPABLE SPACES
TIER 1 NUMBER OF EVCS
(EV CAPABLE SPACES PROVIDED WITH EVSE)2
0-9 2 0
10-25 5 2
26-50 11 4
51-75 19 5
76-100 26 9
101-150 38 13
151-200 53 18
201 and over 30 percent of total1 33 percent of EV
capable spaces 1
1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count
toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
17
5.106.5.3.2 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).
EV capable spaces shall be provided with EVSE to create EVCS in the number
indicated in Table A5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table A5.106.5.3.1 may
be provided with EVSE in any combination of Level 2 and Direct Current Fast
Charging (DCFC), except that at least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided. One
EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs
simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section
5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV
charger. The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the
minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE by five and reduce
proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel.
5.106.5.3.3 Use of automatic load management systems (ALMS).
ALMS shall be permitted for EVCS. When ALMS is installed, the required electrical
load capacity specified in Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EVCS may be reduced
when serviced by an EVSE controlled by an ALMS. Each EVSE controlled by an
ALMS shall deliver a minimum 30 amperes to an EV when charging one vehicle
and shall deliver a minimum 3.3 kW while simultaneously charging multiple EVs.
5.106.5.3.4 Accessible EVCS.
When EVSE is installed, accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with
the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3.
Note: For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01
(Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s).
5.106.5.3.5 Additional EV Ready Requirement for office facilities.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
18
In addition to the requirements of Table A5.106.5.3.1,for office parking facilities,
an additional twenty (20) percent (rounded to the nearest whole number) of the
total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV
charging receptacles.
5.106.5.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging: medium-duty and heavy-duty.
Construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 to facilitate future installation of
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Construction for warehouses, grocery
stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall also comply
with Section 5.106.5.4.1 for future installation of medium- and heavy-duty EVSE.
Exceptions:
1. On a case-by-case basis where the local enforcing agency has determined
compliance with this section is not feasible based upon one of the following
conditions:
a. Where there is no local utility power supply.
b. Where the local utility is unable to supply adequate power.
c. Where there is evidence suitable to the local enforcing agency
substantiating that additional local utility infrastructure design requirements,
directly related to the implementation of Section 5.106.5.3, may adversely
impact the construction cost of the project.
When EVSE(s) is/are installed, it shall be in accordance with the California Building
Code, the California Electrical Code and as follows:
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
19
5.106.5.4.1 Electric vehicle charging readiness requirements for
warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street
loading spaces.
In order to avoid future demolition when adding EV supply and distribution
equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for
transformer(s), service panel(s) or subpanel(s) shall be installed at the time of
construction in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction
plans and specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The transformer, main service equipment and subpanels shall meet the
minimum power requirement in Table 5.106.5.4.1.1 to accommodate the
dedicated branch circuits for the future installation of EVSE.
2. The construction documents shall indicate one or more location(s)
convenient to the planned off-street loading space(s) reserved for medium-
and heavy-duty ZEV charging cabinets and charging dispensers, and a
pathway reserved for routing of conduit from the termination of the
raceway(s) or busway(s) to the charging cabinet(s) and dispenser(s), as
shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.
3. Raceway(s) or busway(s) originating at a main service panel or a
subpanel(s) serving the area where potential future medium- and heavy-
duty EVSE will be located, and shall terminate in close proximity to the
potential future location of the charging equipment for medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles.
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
20
4. The raceway(s) or busway(s) shall be of sufficient size to carry the minimum
additional system load to the future location of the charging for medium- and
heavy-duty ZEVs as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.
TABLE 5.106.5.4.1
RACEWAY CONDUIT AND PANEL POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDIUM-
AND HEAVY-DUTY EVSE
Building
type
Building Size
(sq. ft.)
Number of Off-
street loading spaces
Additional capacity
Required (kVa) for Raceway & Busway and Transformer & Panel
Grocery 10,000 to 90,000 1 or 2 200
Grocery Greater than 90,000 3 or Greater 400
Grocery Greater than 90,000 1 or Greater 400
Retail 10,000 to 135,000 1 or 2 200
Retail 10,000 to 135,000 3 or Greater 400
Retail Greater than 135,000 1 or Greater 400
Warehouse
20,000 to 256,000
1 or 2 200
Warehouse 20,000 to 256,000 3 or Greater 400
Warehouse Greater than 256,000 1 or Greater 400
SECTION 5. 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 6. 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
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
21
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares 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 unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. 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. Following its adoption, this Ordinance shall
be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for filing. This Ordinance
shall become effective 30 days after submission to the California Building Standards
Commission. 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:
________________________ DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
10.C.g
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 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 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 17958.7, and 18941.5
WHEREAS, the State Building Standards Commission has approved and
published the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2022; and
such code will be in effective 180 days thereafter, which is January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 California Building Standards Code includes the 2022
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 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2022 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
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
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 establishing requirements to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying the building and transportation sectors, which
will also increase the use of renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, based upon the findings contained in this Resolution, the City Council
will be adopting an ordinance making local amendments to the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code that are reasonably necessary based upon local climatic,
geological, and environmental conditions.
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 amendments
to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code described in Section 2 below:
General Findings
(a) It is expected that climate change will result in more severe and frequent
drought and extreme heat events, intensifying local heat islands and putting vulnerable
populations at health risk. (Climatic)
(b) Due to changes in rainfall patterns expected with climate change, the City of
Santa Monica is likely to be subject to more severe weather events, including droughts
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
as well as more intense storms that increase the risks of wildfire, erosion, overland local
flooding and landslides. (Climatic and Environmental)
(c) The greater Los Angeles region is a densely populated area having buildings
constructed within a region where environmental resources are scarce due to varying and
occasional immoderate temperatures and weather conditions. (Climatic and
Environmental)
(d) Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
could result in rises in sea level that could put at risk Santa Monica homes, businesses,
and public facilities (Climatic and Geological).
(e) The State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to require greenhouse gas
emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
(f) 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.
Specific Findings
(g) As noted in the CAAP, in February 2019, the Clean Power Alliance of Southern
California started serving Santa Monica residents with electricity sourced from a higher
content of renewable energy sources, with the result that as of May 2019 Santa Monica
residents and businesses receive a default 100% renewable electricity. (Climatic and
Environmental)
(h) The local amendments to promote the use of all-electric vehicles will encourage
the substitution of all-electric vehicles for vehicles that use non-renewable fuel and emit
GHG, which will increase the use of renewable energy, promote a lower contribution to
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
4
GHG emissions, and increase resilience to ongoing climate change. (Climatic and
Environmental)
(i) On August 15, 2022, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice,
and the Environment met to consider recommendations to the City Council regarding
adopting the 2022 California Building Standards Code, local amendments to that Code
and local climatic, geological and topographical conditions. The Commission on
Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment unanimously recommended
that the City Council adopt a resolution making necessary local findings and adopt the
2022 California Building Standards Code with local amendments.
(j) On August 17, 2022, the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission met to
consider recommendations to the City Council regarding adopting the 2022 California
Building Standards Code, local amendments to that Code and local climatic, geological
and topographical conditions. The Building and Fire Life Safety Commission voted to
remain neutral on the proposed changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code
with local amendments.
SECTION 2: The City Council expressly finds that the following modifications and
changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary
because of the local climatic or geological conditions and that each and every one the
local conditions detailed in Section 1 above apply to the following modifications and
changes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code, as follows:
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
5
No. Municipal
Code Section
Amendment Summary Justification
from Section 1 of this Resolution
Local
Condition
1 8.106.110 In addition to current 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requirements: (a) In multifamily development
projects with less than 20 dwelling units and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms, 5% of the total parking spaces (rounded to the nearest
whole number) must have EV chargers installed; (b) A minimum of one EV Capable space is required per project when parking is provided; and
(c) In all new multifamily and hotel projects, 60% of the total parking spaces (rounded to the nearest whole number) must be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready spaces.
Sections (a) through (j) Climatic, Geological, Environmental
2 8.106.120 In addition to current 2022 California Green Building Standards Code
requirements:
(a) In all new non-residential buildings, EV Capable and EV Charger spaces must be installed according to CALGreen Tier 1 (Table
A5.106.5.3.1).
(b) In new office parking facilities, an additional 20% of parking spaces must be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready spaces.
Sections (a) through (j)
Climatic, Geological,
Environmental
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
6
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:
_____________________ DOUG SLOAN City Attorney
10.C.h
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dean Kubani <dean.kubani@verizon.net>
Sent:Thursday, September 22, 2022 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 10-C
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for Item 10-C on your agenda: adoption of the Zero Emission Building Code. Santa Monica has been
a leader for over 30 years in addressing climate change and adoption of this code will continue that leadership and encourage other cities to
take similar actions. In their 2018 Special Report, the climate experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make clear
that globally we must cut our greenhouse gas emissions at least 45% by 2030 in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The IPCC
report notes that meeting this urgent goal is not impossible but it will require “unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society”. Adopting the
proposed Zero Emission Building Code is one of the transitions that is most urgently needed. It will ensure that all new buildings constructed in
Santa Monica are fossil-fuel free and, thanks to the supply of 100% renewable electricity provided to the city by Clean Power Alliance, they
won’t generate greenhouse gas emissions throughout their operational lives. In 2018 California began transitioning its energy supply to 100%
renewable electricity and expanding its grid and energy storage capacity in order to support a new zero emission economy in the state. There
are numerous cost effective and highly efficient alternatives to fossil-fueled building systems and appliances currently on the market including
heat pump water heaters, induction stoves and electric clothes dryers. They are being used in buildings throughout the city now, including
many affordable housing projects, so there is no excuse to not require them all new construction given the urgency of the climate crisis. Thank
you for your consideration of my input and for your past and, hopefully, future leadership to address the climate crisis - there is no time to wait!
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Kubani
Chair, Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment
Item 10.C 09/27/22
1 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Maier <d.maier555@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 22, 2022 4:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the
EV Charger Reach Codes. These codes are crucial for Santa Monica to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 as well as for
the greater mitigation of climate change. As someone who has worked with Climate Action Santa Monica, I have talked
to many Santa Monica residents and people from around the world urging for the city to support policies and codes that
will do just that. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes. Thank you for your time and let's
continue to mitigate the worst effects of climate change for a more sustainable future.
Sincerely,
Danny Maier
Item 10.C 09/27/22
2 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rev. Jim Conn <urbconn@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27 Agenda Item 10 C, Zero Emission Building and EV Codes
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members...
I strongly support the staff proposals in this item. I urge you to vote for these policies.
JIM
Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056
Associations:
CLUE - A Founding Member: www.cluejustice.org
Climate Action Santa Monica - Advisory Board
Asset Based Community Development: www.abcdinstitute.org/
United Methodist Minister - Retired: www.calpacUMC.org
Former Council Member and Mayor of Santa Monica
Item 10.C 09/27/22
3 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:gerda newbold <gnewbold@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 11:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:support for Item 10 C
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code. I
know I don't have to explain to you the urgency with which we must act on climate. The recent IPCC Report outlines all
the risks ahead that are now becoming realities. Our current drought and the heatwaves across the world this summer
only illustrate the point. It is critical that all levels of government update policies to address this crisis. We must electrify
and we must electrify quickly.
Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate. This ordinance is another example of Santa Monica doing what
needs to be done. I strongly urge you to vote in support of this updated building code. On a personal note, we put in an
induction stove 8 years ago with no gas line to our stove. It works well and is cleaner and more energy efficient than gas.
We have no regrets!
Thank you for the work that you do on behalf of the City.
Gerda Newbold
225 12th Street
Item 10.C 09/27/22
4 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Seal <kathyseal@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 4:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27 meeting -- Support for Item 10 C
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV
Charger Reach Code. I strongly support them, because we need to
act on climate now -- as I'm sure you know. Governments have to
update policies to meet this crisis head-on. Santa Monica has long
lead in climate change policy, and I strong urge you to continue this
tradition by voting in support of this updated building code.
Thanks so much for all the work that you do for our city!
Kathy Seal
2431 32nd St.
Santa Monica CA 90405
‐‐
Item 10.C 09/27/22
5 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kent Strumpell <kentstrum@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 1:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ariana Vito
Subject:10C: Zero emission building codes
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
Please support the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes
It is clear that the climate crisis is accelerating dangerously and that the world is responding too slowly. The proposed
Zero Emission Building and EV Charger codes are an opportunity for Santa Monica to continue our climate leadership,
thereby encouraging other cities to join us in preventing the frightening consequences of continued fossil fuel
dependence. At least 50 CA cities have already adopted similar policies.
Concerning costs
‐ The new codes will only affect new construction and major renovations.
‐ Experience in other CA jurisdictions has shown that building electrification actually saves money for customers on their
energy bills.
‐ Electricity prices are more stable than natural gas (methane) prices.
Concerning safety and health
‐ Methane gas poses a risk of fires and explosions, especially during earthquakes.
‐ Gas appliances release toxic byproducts which result in serious long term health impacts.
Concerning climate change
‐ 30% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings.
‐ Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas prone to leaks during its production and distribution, making it nearly as
destructive as the production and use of coal.
Thank you for considering this proposal and for your tireless work on City Council!
Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 10.C 09/27/22
6 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:barry engelman <bhengelman@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 12:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Santa Monica neds to pass Zero Emissions code
EXTERNAL
I appreciate everything you've done to make Santa Monica a leader in climate action. I'm writing
today to express my strong support for the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV
Charger Reach Code.
San Diego just passed a plan to ban natural gas from all new construction starting in 2023 and all
older buildings within 12 years!
https://grist.org/beacon/san‐diego‐plans‐to‐electrify‐almost‐every‐building/
If San Diego can do it we can do it also!
Thank you.
Barry Engelman
421 California Ave.
Item 10.C 09/27/22
7 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Judy Hopkins <judy90403@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 7:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27 Meeting - Support for Item 10 C
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code. I
know I don't have to explain to you the urgency with which we must act on climate. The recent IPCC Report outlines all
the risks ahead that are now becoming realities. Our current drought and the heatwaves across the world this summer
only illustrate the point. It is critical that all levels of government update policies to address this crisis. We must electrify
and we must electrify quickly.
Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate. This ordinance is another example of Santa Monica doing what
needs to be done. I strongly urge you to vote in support of this updated building code.
Judy Hopkins
844 7th St. #7
SM 90403
Item 10.C 09/27/22
8 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeanne Laurie <jeannelaurie@msn.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 9:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27 Agenda Item 10 C, Zero Emission Building and EV Codes
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission
Building and the EV Charger Codes.
Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outlines all the risks ahead if we
do not act. Many of these are becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat
waves illustrate the point. We need action at all levels of government to achieve our climate
goals. A very important climate solution is available to us today: electrify our energy uses,
including for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly. Santa Monica has been a leader on
addressing climate. These policy updates are another example of Santa Monica doing what
needs to be done. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 10.C 09/27/22
9 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Gollery McKeithen <minister@ciop4justice.org>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 8:51 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:September 27 meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members‐
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV
Charger Reach Codes.
Stating the obvious, Climate Change is already affecting the planet and our lives greatly. It will only get worse if we
don't make changes to our policies and to the way we live. We need personal actions and we need action at all levels of
government to have any significant impact.
The majority of Santa Monica’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from our buildings and motor
vehicles. Electrification of these sectors represents two of the most significant steps we can take to reduce our carbon
emissions, improve public health We can make decisions today that will make a significant impact: electrify our
energy uses, including for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly. ‐ Electrification is cost effective in Santa Monica's
climate zone, both for upfront construction costs and lifetime operating expenses, so it is unlikely that it would add costs
that would be passed on to tenants So, it is much more equitable that gas. These policy updates will help the city of
Santa Monica keep in line with its sustainability values.. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building
codes.
Sincerely,
‐‐
Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen
Minister, Church in Ocean Park
President, Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council
Steering Committee, Committee for Racial Justice
Item 10.C 09/27/22
10 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
Item 10.C 09/27/22
11 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Adler <jkadler@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 10:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for Item 10 C
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I am writing to urge you to approve the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Code because they are
reasonable efforts to help us live in a less self destructive manner.
Thanks,
John Adler
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 10.C 09/27/22
12 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy R. Butte <amyrbutte@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 11:00 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 10 C comment
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I am a Santa Monica resident who has been dedicated to the issue of climate since I learned the science in 6th grade. 40
years later, and scientists and policymakers the world over have agreed to achieve net zero carbon emissions no later
than 2050 to avoid effects way more catastrophic than we're already seeing. I have two teenagers and work with youth
on climate, and I tell them not to be too afraid. As long as we all together work according to these timelines, we will
remain under 2 degrees C of warming and things can be under control. We can manage that much through adaptation.
Building new buildings in 2023 that commit to 100 years of methane and carbon emissions and do not support carbon
neutral vehicles would not be aligned with Santa Monica's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) nor with other
international and national goals. The proposed update to the building code begins phasing out our City's two largest
sources of greenhouse gas emissions‐‐ building energy and vehicles. Methane is extremely potent especially in the short
term as a greenhouse gas and cannot remain in a climate neutral energy system. Induction stoves, heat pumps, and
solar thermal are excellent alternatives to gas.
By voting yes to update our building code for new buildings or major renovations, Santa Monica would be joining the 58
cities in California alone to draw the line against fossil fuel development per the timelines of consensus. It is not radical
to start with just new buildings per this code. It's a great way for our City to reinforce itself as a destination for active,
sustainable lifestyle. It is also responsible policy for our citizens and the young people who predominantly feel
their future is being robbed to maintain the status quo of fossil fuel interests.
Sincerely,
Amy Butte
Santa Monica, CA
Item 10.C 09/27/22
13 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dr Michael Cahn <velocipedus@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 12:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 10C adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I'm writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV
Charger Reach Codes. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1323
Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outlines all the risks ahead if we do not act. Many of these
are becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat waves illustrate the point. We need action at all levels
of government to achieve our climate goals. I strongly urge you to vote in support of these updated building codes.
Please consider to add the ability for water heaters not to operate during peak energy cost periods
The proposed Zero Emission Building and EV Charger codes are an opportunity for Santa Monica to continue our climate
leadership, thereby encouraging other cities to join us in preventing the frightening consequences of continued fossil
fuel dependence. At least 50 CA cities have already adopted similar policies.
Concerning costs
‐ The new codes will only affect new construction and major renovations.
‐ Experience in other CA jurisdictions has shown that building electrification actually saves money for customers on their
energy bills.
‐ Electricity prices are more stable than natural gas (methane) prices.
Concerning safety and health
‐ Methane gas poses a risk of fires and explosions, especially during earthquakes.
‐ Gas appliances release toxic byproducts which result in serious long term health impacts.
Concerning climate change
‐ 30% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings.
‐ Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas prone to leaks during its production and distribution, making it nearly as
destructive as the production and use of coal.
Sincerely,
‐‐
Dr Michael Cahn
507 Washington Ave
Santa Monica CA 90403
Item 10.C 09/27/22
14 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Forte <Diane.Forte@sce.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 3:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana
Negrete; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Joshua Public Affairs Torres; David White; Shannon Parry; Ariana Vito
Subject:Letter of Support for Agenda Item 10 C - Reach Code
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding Agenda Item 10 C – Amending the Santa Monica
Municipal Code and adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code...” A reach code ordinance
can be a very cost‐effective way for local governments to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas reductions and help it
achieve its climate and air quality goals. We strongly encourage the City of Santa Monica to adopt this reach code
ordinance. SCE offers the following points in support of the ordinance:
1. Buildings are a major source of emissions in California.
2. Modern electric technologies are very efficient and often are demand response capable.
3. Studies1 have shown that the lifetime costs for all‐electric homes are either the same as or less
expensive than mixed‐fuel homes for a large majority of Californians.
4. SCE is modernizing and hardening our distribution system, increasing reliability and resiliency – the
grid is ready to support all electric buildings. Reliability is already excellent in Santa Monica through our
partnership with the City.
5. Our efforts to strengthen the grid and add energy storage are paying off as evidenced by the State’s
ability to avoid rolling blackouts in the most recent record heat wave.
And perhaps most importantly, in order to meet the State’s climate goals, our studies have shown that 70% of
buildings need to be electrified as soon as possible.
BACKGROUND
Buildings are a major source of emissions in California – for both local air quality and greenhouse gases. Importantly,
buildings have decades‐long lifespans, so when they are built with fossil fuel infrastructure, we are locking in multiple
decades of additional fossil fuel emissions.
We are committed to serving the needs of California’s clean energy future, as outlined in our recent paper, Reimagining
the Grid. This requires a grid that supports high levels of carbon‐free resources, integrates new technologies and
services, and remains safe, reliable, affordable and resilient even as the climate continues to evolve. SCE is modernizing
and hardening our distribution system, leveraging increasingly sophisticated hardware and software to manage a
complex and intelligent grid. This will not only help enable greater adoption of clean energy technologies, but it will also
improve general reliability while making the grid more resilient to threats exacerbated by climate change such as
wildfires and heatwaves. We are investing approximately $5 billion annually to build a grid that customers can rely upon
to support the clean energy future. Customer‐owned resources like rooftop solar and battery storage offer an additional
level of resiliency. We estimate by 2045 about half of single‐family homes in our service territory will have some
combination of solar and storage. Due to Title 24, all new residential construction will have solar and be energy storage
ready, and most new commercial will also have solar. And more specifically, the reliability in Santa Monica is excellent as
shown in its most recent reliability report (Page 7). Santa Monica 2022 Reliability Report
Item 10.C 09/27/22
15 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
2
Serving the electrical needs of an all‐electric building is not a significant concern compared to a mixed‐fuel building. We
design the electric grid to accommodate peak demand, which in most areas is driven by air conditioning load. Studies
have shown the peak demand from all‐electric neighborhoods is not significantly higher than the peak demand from
mixed‐fuel neighborhoods. This is because modern electric technologies are very efficient and often are demand
response capable, meaning they can avoid or minimize usage during on‐peak hours when stress on the grid is greatest.
All of this translates into all‐electric homes have a “flatter” electricity demand profile. So, while they consume more
electricity overall, all‐electric homes place that demand on the grid more evenly throughout the day, which means we
don’t need significant upgrades to the grid specifically for all‐electric buildings.
We appreciate many customers have concerns about rotating outages given the recent heat storm. The August 31‐
September 9, 2022 heat wave was twice as long as the August 2020 event. We set a new statewide peak demand record
and were also simultaneously dealing with a tropical storm that reduced solar output, yet we did not have to implement
rotating outages. Our efforts to strengthen the grid are paying off. With climate change, more extreme weather
including intense and longer heat waves are expected in the coming decades. SCE, in partnership with state energy
regulators, has been and will continue to work on a variety of solutions to address the region’s long‐term reliability
needs. For example, compared to August 2020, SCE has increased the amount of utility‐scale energy storage by a factor
of 22. We now have almost 1,400 megawatts of energy storage online, with hundreds more megawatts expected to
come online in 2023 and even more in subsequent years.
All‐electric new construction is affordable to build and operate. There are many affordable, clean, efficient all‐electric
options for water heating, space heating, clothes drying, and cooking, all of which can be powered by carbon‐free
electricity. Even though fossil fuels are often less expensive per unit of energy than electricity, electric technologies are
significantly more efficient, meaning the total cost to operate electric technologies is the same as or less expensive than
combustion technologies to operate. Studies1 have shown that the lifetime costs for all‐electric homes are either the
same as or less expensive than mixed‐fuel homes for a large majority of Californians. Although, in coastal communities,
like Santa Monica, studies show a slight increase in cost for all‐electric construction. This is due to the baseline case not
already having air conditioning, but then adding it through the installation of a heat pump HVAC. HVAC heat pumps
provide both heating and cooling, which make them less expensive to install than a separate furnace and air conditioner,
which is especially important for coastal communities trying to adapt to a warming climate.
CONCLUSION
SCE is excited to partner with the City of Santa Monica in addressing the climate crisis. Emissions from the building
sector are important to address if we are to meet the City’s and State’s climate goals. We strongly urge the City
Council to approve the reach code ordinance. We look forward to our continued partnership. The future is electric.
Sincerely,
Diane Forte
Government Relations Manager
SCE Corporate Affairs
310.310.5262
1721 22nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404
diane.forte@sce.com | @SCE_DianeF
Item 10.C 09/27/22
16 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
3
Attachments:
Reliability FAQ
Santa Monica 2022 Reliability Report
1Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), Residential Building Electrification in California, 2019
Item 10.C 09/27/22
17 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marilyn <marilynjudson@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 4:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:support for Item 10C,
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed "Zero Emission Building" and "EV Charger” codes, which I understand you will
consider on Sept. 27. Santa Monica’s biggest contributors to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are from buildings and
transportation, both of which are addressed in these well-conceived code changes. Following are some of the many
reasons I urge the Commission to support these changes:
Zero Emission Building code:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly advised that we must act soon to reduce GHG’s
from the burning of all fossil fuels, but especially of natural gas. The proposed building code changes will require almost
all new construction in the City to be fully electric. Since most of our City’s electricity comes from non-fossil fuel
sources, this new code will power all new building with sustainable sources like wind and solar power. Since the new
code will apply only to new construction, all existing commercial kitchens, businesses and homes currently using natural
gas will not be unfairly penalized.
EV Charger code:
This code will make ownership of electric vehicles much more realistic for apartment dwellers and for employees
commuting from outside of Santa Monica. Since we recently bought an EV and also own our single family home, we
were fortunate enough to be able to install our own charger adjacent to our driveway. However, nearby friends
occasionally ask to use our charger because they live in an apartment with no EV charger. This code will make the
purchase of an EV much more achievable for the vast majority of Santa Monica residents.
Thank you for remembering my comments when you consider these two code changes.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Judson
850 Princeton St.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310-453-1892 (home)
Item 10.C 09/27/22
18 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
September 26, 2022
Mayor Himmerlrich and City Council Members City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Item 10C - Zero Emission and EV Charger Reach Codes - Support
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council,
As a local organization committed to improving public health and confronting the climate crisis,
we support the proposed Zero Emission Building Code for New Construction and the EV
Charger Reach Code.
At least 60 communities across California have recognized all-electric new construction as a
cost effective and socially equitable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect public
health, and lower construction costs.
We approve of the approach taken in the proposed building code, to require electrification for
nearly all building types, with a requirement that that any building installing gas appliances be
electric ready to reduce the cost of future upgrades.
We especially appreciate the inclusion of property meeting the definition of demolition, and not
just ground-up construction. By including these substantial remodels, the new electric-only
construction requirement will have a much larger impact and building owners and residents will
save money by avoiding the costs of future retrofits.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California. The solution is a
mix of safe and accessible public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets, and
electric vehicles. As California phases out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, Santa Monica’s
proposed EV charging reach code will make it easier for renters and commuters to make the
transition to electric cars.
Sincerely,
Michael Rochmes Green Buildings Committee Chair, Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Item 10.C 09/27/22
19 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Scott Morris <scott@lowcarboninitiative.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for Item 10C - September 27 meeting: Zero Emission Building and EV Codes
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
On behalf of The Low Carbon Initiative, I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed updates to
the Zero Emission Building and the EV Charger Codes.
With over 50 California cities enacting all-electric codes, it's a natural next step that the City of Santa Monica is
next.
Sincerely,
Scott Morris
‐‐
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Scott Morris
Zero Can't Wait
lowcarboninitiative.org
818‐854‐2663
Item 10.C 09/27/22
20 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
Memo
To: City of Santa Monica City Council and City Manager’s Office
From: Dean Kubani, Chair, Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice and the Environment
Signature:
Date: August 16, 2022
Re: City of Santa Monica Commission on Sustainability, Environmental
Justice, and the Environment Motion Regarding Zero Emissions
Building Code and Electric Vehicle Reach Code
At the August 15, 2022 special meeting, the Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice, and the Environment discussed and took action on the
following agenda item:
Presentation on the Zero Emissions Building Reach Code and Electric
Vehicle Reach Code
i) Ariana Vito (Sustainability Analyst) presented on the Zero Emission
Building Code (SMMC 8.38) which prohibits fuel gas infrastructure
in new buildings and major renovations that trigger City’s definition
of demolition (>50% demo). Exemptions by request for equipment
for Medical/Scientific/Lab use, as well as restaurants and
commercial kitchens.
ii) Ariana also presented on the Electric Vehicle Reach Code to
require electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new
construction.
After discussion, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice
and the Environment made the following motion:
The Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the
Environment recommends that Council adopt the proposed local
amendments to the:
• 2022 California Energy Code (Zero Emission Building Code/gas ban
for all new construction); and
Item 10.C 09/27/22
21 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
• 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (increased EV
charging requirements for all new construction).
The motion was made by Member Lempert and seconded by Member
Baghdasarian.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Chair Kubani
Member Baghdasarian
Member Tower
Member Lempert
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Member Sokol
Member Pettit
Member Mearns
Item 10.C 09/27/22
22 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cris Gutierrez <crispeace@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Lana Negrete
Cc:David White
Subject:9/27 City Council Agenda Item 10 C: Zero Emissions Building and EV Codes
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
I write to urge you to approve the proposed Zero Emission Building (ZEB) and updated Electric Vehicles (EV)
codes. Imperative, practical, responsible updates to our Santa Monica Municipal Code, the ZEB and EV requirements will
direct new construction and electrification infrastructure, which will stand for generations to come, freeing us from a
dependence on fossil fuels, the burning of which has destabilized the climate, threatening daily living and livelihoods and
devastating natural ecosystems.
Even in our beautiful city tucked into the Santa Monica Bay, we have been experiencing extreme heat and severe
drought. Wildfires burst forth frequently year-round. Air quality worsens. Too soon, tides will extend and erode our sandy
beaches. Food supplies can become more uncertain. We know that we must continue to reduce Santa Monica’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thirty percent of our local GHG emissions come from the use of methane gas in
buildings and 64% from transportation: electrification is urgent.
Technological advancements, a growing workforce capacity and smart investments enable us to meet the goals set forth
in our Climate Action & Adaptation Plan and the state’s AB 3232 law that has set the stage for reducing carbon
emissions, by 2030, 40% below 1990 levels from California’s residential and commercial buildings. We need the ZEB and
updated EV codes to achieve these climate goals.
Currently, relying on methane also means there are methane leaks during both production and distribution. An intense
GHG, methane is toxic and destructive, measurably as bad as the production and use of coal. Efforts to cap methane
leaks in our city have been important. Eliminating the ongoing use of methane advances public health. Indoor air quality
can also improve.
The proposed ZEB and EV ordinance to amend the Municipal Code would facilitate the construction of all-electric
buildings and homes for residents, workers, students and visitors to enjoy a climate- resilient and safe future with
efficiency and economy. By requiring the elimination of fossil gas infrastructure as the norm, Santa Monica’s decades-
long leadership in sustainability helps to set a new standard, with scores of like-minded Californian cities.
Following our City Sustainability Plan and ground-breaking Sustainability Rights Ordinance, established with the bold
vision and hard work of the City and community— including young people’s dedicated engagement and aspirations— you
now, as our council leaders, can affirm our determination to help create a vibrant future.
Have confidence in approving the ZEB and EV codes before you. I trust that you will.
With respect,
Ms. Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica resident
Item 10.C 09/27/22
23 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
September 27, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Clean Power Alliance (CPA), the Community Choice Aggregator for Santa Monica and 31 other
communities in Southern California, writes in support of the proposed zero-emission building
reach code and the proposed EV charger reach code in new construction (Item 10C). This
proposal will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and should have negligible impacts on
both affordability and grid reliability for Santa Monica customers.
California is on a rapid pathway towards zero-emissions buildings and vehicles. In August 2021,
the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the Building Decarbonization Assessment. The Building
Decarbonization Assessment made clear that California must urgently implement a plan to cut
pollution from homes and buildings through aggressive electrification of new and existing
buildings to achieve the state’s new 2035 carbon neutral goal. In August 2022, the state passed
a regulation that would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035. The
proposed Santa Monica ordinance is aligned with both goals and allows Santa Monica to take a
leadership role on these state initiatives, without sacrificing customer affordability, or grid
reliability.
Reliability: Clean Power Alliance has taken an active role to ensure that that there will be a
reliable and clean source of electricity to power the state’s transition to a decarbonized future.
To date, CPA has procured 1,915 megawatts of renewable energy and 1,027 megawatts of
storage, which has reduced more than one million tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
while improving system reliability. This has made CPA the third largest purchaser of battery
storage in the state and helps ensure reliability for CPA customers even when the sun is not
shining, and the wind is not blowing. In addition to adding new resources onto the grid, CPA is
part of the state-wide effort to encourage customers to use more energy at “off-peak” or low
demand times, and less energy at “on-peak” or high demand times. This will help flatten
electricity demand and reduce major energy spikes.
Item 10.C 09/27/22
24 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
Affordability: Zero-emissions buildings are affordable to build, outfit, and operate. All-electric
homes are cheaper to build1 than gas-heated buildings, saving between $1,500 to $6,000 in construction
costs. Rebates for electric building appliances help bring down the costs of supplying a building with
technologies that are powered by electricity. Most recently, in August 2022, the state approved the
Equitable Building Decarbonization Program, which will create a statewide incentive program for low-
carbon building technologies, which can be used to bring down costs of technologies like electric heat
pumps, space and water heaters, and other efficient electric technologies. CPA also has a number of
programs to assist low-income customers with paying their electricity bills, providing subsidies of over
$10 million since the onset of Covid-19.
Green House Gas Emissions: CPA is proud to provide most electricity customers in the City of Santa
Monica with 100% renewable energy that does not contribute to dirty air or to GHG emissions that
exacerbate climate change. Typically, an all-electric building produces about 30-60% the GHG emissions
as a mixed-fuel use building2. In Santa Monica however, emissions from all-electric buildings
would be closer to 100% greenhouse gas free because over 90% of the city’s residents and
businesses receive 100% renewable energy through Clean Power Alliance.
The buildings we construct today will last for decades to come, and building them with fossil fuel
infrastructure locks in decades of additional fossil fuel emissions. Local cities and counties therefore
have an important role in ensuring that they are built to a standard that helps the state meet its goals
around clean air, climate change, health and more. That is why we urge the City of Santa Monica to
approve the proposed ordinance. CPA looks forward with continuing to partner with the city to achieve
their clean energy goals.
Sincerely,
Gina Goodhill
Director, Government Affairs
Clean Power Alliance
1 Synapse Energy, “Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings” https://www.synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf
2 Ethree, “Residential Building Electrification in California
https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April
_2019.pdf
Item 10.C 09/27/22
25 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. Box 1265 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1265
Phone: 310.394.4661 www.lwvsantamonica.org
#MakingDemocracyWork
September 27, 2022
Re: City Council Agenda Item 10.C.
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers
The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica urges the Santa Monica City Council to support
the amendments to the Zero Emission Building Code and the EV Charger Reach Codes 2022 in
the California Green Building Standards Code, as outlined in the September 27, 2022 City
Council Agenda Item 10c staff report.
Recent reports by the International Panel on Climate Change outline the risks ahead if we do not
act. Many are already becoming realities. Our current drought and the recent heat waves
illustrate the point.
A very important climate solution is available to us today: electrify our energy uses, including
for buildings and cars, and electrify quickly.
Santa Monica has been a leader on addressing climate-related issues. These policy updates are
another example of Santa Monica doing what needs to be done. We strongly urge you to vote
in support of these updated building codes.
Restricting gas in new construction will lower greenhouse gases. 30% of Santa Monica’s
carbon emissions come from the use of methane gas in buildings. The leakage of methane (a
powerful greenhouse gas) during its production and distribution makes it almost as destructive
as the production and use of coal.
And increasing the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities will accelerate the
adoption of EVs. 64% of Santa Monica’s carbon emissions come from vehicle transportation,
predominantly private cars.
Our recommendation is based on the following policy positions of the League of Women Voters
of the United States (LWVUS) and the League of Women Voters of California (LWVC).
The LWVUS supports the preservation of “the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the
ecosystem, with maximum protection of public health and the environment.” Further, it
supports “environmentally sound policies that reduce energy growth rates, emphasize energy
conservation and encourage the use of renewable resources.”
The LWVUS promotes “measures to reduce pollution from mobile and secondary sources.”
The LWVC promotes “policies that mitigate impacts of climate change by adaptation in urban,
rural, agricultural and natural settings.” Also, “Local governments should promote energy
conservation, especially in relation to building codes…”
For these reasons, we support the approval of the amendment to the City Building Codes as
outlined in September 27, 2022 Agenda Item 10c.
Thank you,
Barbara Inatsugu
President of Record / Leadership Team
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
OFFICERS
Co-Presidents
Barbara Inatsugu
Angela Scott
Vice President,
Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Vice President, Admin
Angela Scott
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer Karen Carrey
DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Karen S. Gunn
Jackie Pepper
Ann Williams
Item 10.C 09/27/22
26 of 26 Item 10.C 09/27/22
10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comment (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments)