Loading...
2020-10-27 Item 13 Reach CodeCITY COUNCILAGENDA REPORT/•^h;ssR^CITY OF MILLBRAE621 Magnolia AvenueMillbrae, CA 94030SUBJECT:Adoption of Amendments to the Energy Code of theMillbrae Municipal Code for Title 24 Part 6 EnergyCode and Part 11 Green Building Code to AdoptLocal Reach Codes to Reduce Greenhouse GasEmissionsATTACHMENTS:1. Ordinance2. 2019 Cost Effectiveness Study: Low-RiseResidential Construction3. 2019 Non-Residential New ConstructionReach Code Cost Effectiveness Study4. Bay Area Exceptions Chart5. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) FAQReport No.(<»SSSAgenda Item: t"2>For Agenda of: October 27, 2020Department:Public Works & CommunityDevelopment DepartmentsOriginator:Jane Kao and Khee LimApproved:^cBudget Action: D YesNoFinance Review: N/AREPORT TYPE: S ACTION D INFORMATIONALITEM TYPE: D CONSENT D PUBLIC HEARING D EXISTING BUSINESS B NEW BUSINESSRECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends that the City Council introduce, waive the first reading, and set a public hearing toconsider an ordinance to adopt amendments to the Energy Code of the Millbrae Municipal Code for Title24 Part 6 Energy Code and Part 11 Green Building Code to adopt local Reach Codes to reduce greenhousegas emissions.BACKGROUND:At the February 25, 2020 City Council meeting, staff presented a report on the draft Climate Action Plan(CAP) and provided an update on June 23, 2020 on added measures, outreach, workshops, andcomments received. The most frequent comments received at the February 25, 2020 meeting, includingfrom some City Councilmembers, recommended making more of the measures mandatory—specifically,adopting Reach Codes. Which go beyond the Energy Code and CalGreen Building Code to includebuilding electrification, solar installation, and electric vehicle (EV) charging station infrastructure fornew developments. There is already an existing requirement for solar for new residential developmentsfor single family, low density residential, and subdivisions in the Building Code from previous EnergyCode updates.Page 1 of 1016963981.1 Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) developed model Reach Codes for agencies to consider adopting, whichencourage building electrification, solar installation, and EV infrastructure readiness for newdevelopments. The model reach codes are based on cost-effectiveness studies prepared by the CaliforniaStatewide Codes and Standards Program and TRC, a consultant to PCE. In 2019, the City received$10,000 from PCE to explore implementing Reach Codes.Building electrification means that buildings use only electric appliances for space heating, waterheating, clothes drying, and cooking. Electrification Reach Codes help to reduce carbon emissionsassociated with new construction, reduce costs in new construction, improve indoor air quality andsafety of buildings, support affordable housing, and increase adoption of electric vehicles. Transitioningto electric appliances is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially in San MateoCounty where PCE is on the path to provide electricity sourced from 100% renewable and carbon freesources by 2021. More than 80% of a building's energy use relates to heating/cooling space and heatingwater. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that is typically used for heating space and water for buildingoccupants. Natural gas usage in buildings is one of the largest sources ofGHG emissions accounting forapproximately 40% of all carbon emissions. Switching to a heat pump water heater can reducehousehold GHG emissions by up to 70% annually, and switching from a gas furnace to a high-efficiencyair-source heat pump can reduce household GHG emissions by up to 54% annually . Reducing oreliminating natural gas usage in the building sector is an important component of climate mitigation toachieve the State's goal of Carbon Neutrality by 2045. Senate Bill 100 requires a 100% clean electricgrid by 2045.Building electrification has also been shown to have positive effects on air quality, safety, resiliency,and more2. Burning gas, propane, and wood in buildings creates harmful indoor air pollution that hasbeen linked to increased risk of respiratory disease and negative effects on people with existingrespiratory conditions3. Natural gas use can be a safety issue, causing significant leaks and explosions,such as in San Bruno in 2010 and San Francisco in 20192. Natural gas is also a risk factor duringearthquakes, responsible for 20-50% of post-earthquake fire ignitions4. All-electric buildings are alsoconsidered resilient. Gas lines and leaks can be dangerous during fires, and typically take longer torestore after a safety shutoff or inspection and repair, compared to electricity2. All-electric appliancescan also be set up to be used with a backup power source like a generator or solar-powered batteries, ifneeded during a disaster .Three types of building electrification ordinances have been adopted by various jurisdictions:Natural gas ban which prohibits gas hookups (City of Berkeley)• All-electric building required with exceptions (City of Menlo Park, and with fewer exceptions bythe County of San Mateo)All-electric building preferred with mixed-fuel option (City of San Mateo)' Natural Resources Defense Council, Expert Blog: "Electric Heat Pumps Can Slash Emissions in CaliforniaHomes." Delforge, Pierre and Anna Brockvvay. November 16, 2018. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pierre-delforge/electric-heat-DumDS-can-slash-emissions-california-homes2 Building Decarbonization Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club. "BuildingElectrification Talking Points for Advocates and Local Government Staff." 2019.http ://www.buildm£decarb.or£/uploads/3/0/7/3/30734489/zeb talking points for local eovernments 10-2019.0df3 Logue, Jennifer M., et al. "Pollutant Exposures from Natural Gas Cooking Burners: A Simulation-BasedAssessment for Southern California", Environmental Health Perspectives, January 1, 2014.4 California Seismic Safety Commission. "Improving Natural Gas Safety in Earthquakes". July 11, 2002.Page 2 of 1016963981.1 The County of San Mateo and seven jurisdictions in San Mateo County have adopted Reach Codes,including Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City and San Mateo.Approximately four jurisdictions in the County are in progress of pursuing Reach Codes (Daly City,Hillsborough, San Bruno and San Carlos), and some of the remaining cities are considering them. Mostcities have adopted the "Menlo Park model" due to its ease of administration and efficiency. ReachCodes are also being adopted in Santa Clara County with 11 jurisdictions adopting them to date.The City ofMenlo Park, using PCE's model template as a base, adopted a hybrid approach that requiresresidential projects to build all-electric for space heating, water heating, and clothes dryers, and allowsfor natural gas to be used for stoves, fireplaces, and other appliances. Prewiring for electric appliances isrequired where natural gas appliances are used. They require non-residential projects to build all-electricbuildings that use electricity as the source of energy for all appliances, including for heating/coolingappliances, cooking appliances, fireplaces, and clothes dryers. Restaurants and food service businessescan appeal to use gas cooking appliances.On September 17, 2020, the City Council Infrastructure Subcommittee met to discuss Reach Codes.There was a discussion on PCE's model Reach Code templates for building electrification and solarinstallation for residential and non-residential buildings, and on Menlo Park's and the County of SanMateo's adapted Reach Codes. Based upon the Infrastructure Subcommittee input and further researchand discussion with PCE, adapted Reach Code provisions based on these various models were includedin the final version of the Ordinance being presented to the Council at this time. As mentioned, thedifferent cities' Reach Codes are all based on PCE's model templates.The City Council Infrastructure Subcommittee also discussed how existing buildings would addressGHG emissions reductions. The CAP contains a variety of measures to reduce GHGs from existingbuildings that complement the Reach Codes, which apply to new building developments. Thesemeasures include: continuing to adopt the latest CalGreen Building Codes; a Residential andCommercial Energy Conservation Program to initially encourage minimum energy efficiency and waterefficiency standards at the time of building sale and transitioning to mandatory residential energyconservation ordinance; a Residential Energy Retrofit Incentives and Rebates Program; a CommercialEnergy Efficiency Program; an Electrical Panel Upgrades Program to leverage incentives; SolarInstallations Promotion Programs such as the SunShares Program; a Pairing Battery Storage with SolarPhotovoltaic (PV) Systems Program; continuing participation in Peninsula Clean Energy; and a TreePlanting Program.ANALYSIS:Local governments are required by law to adopt new changes to the California Building Standards Codeevery three years (known as code cycles) proposed by the State. The next code cycle will take effectJanuary 1, 2022. During this cycle, or independently of it, optional local building code amendments(known as Reach Codes) can be adopted that exceed state code standards to meet local environmentalgoals.Meeting the City's CAP greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets requires looking at all sources ofemissions, including those from new building developments and transportation, and meeting thereductions through Reach Codes, along with reductions from other measures as included in the CAP.Implementing building electrification, solar installation, and electric vehicle infrastructure for newdevelopments will enable the City to reduce GHG emissions by 3,111 metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalent (expressed in CAP as MTC02e). This will help the City to meet the CAP GHG emissionsPage 3 of 1016963981.1 reduction targets of reducing community-wide GHG emissions 49% by 2030, a total reduction of 92,025MTC02e, help towards achieving the State's goal of Carbon Neutrality by 2045, and move towardsmeeting Senate Bill 100's requirement of a 100% clean electric grid by 2045.ProBosed Building Electrificatio_n and Solar Installation RequirementsStaff outlined the various approaches for the Reach Codes based on PCE's model template at previousCity Council meetings and recommend the "Menlo Park Model" as being the most efficient andeffective for Millbrae for building electrification. The proposed Ordinance provides as follows:New single-family homes and low-rise multifamily buildings are required to use electric forspace heating, water heating, and clothes dryers. It provides an exception for the use of naturalgas for indoor and outdoor non-electric cooking appliances and fireplaces.New high-rise residential are required to be built all-electric for space heating, water heating,cooking appliances, fireplaces and clothes dryers.New non-residential buildings are required to be built all-electric for space heating, waterheating, cooking appliances, fireplaces and clothes dryers; however, restaurants and foodservices can appeal for gas cooking appliances.All new buildings must be built to be electric-ready if they are allowed to use natural gasappliances through an exceptions or appeal.For solar systems for high density residential and non-residential, including hotel/motel buildings, theproposed Ordinance requires:A solar photovoltaic system equivalent in size to 50 percent of the roof area, excluding anyskylight area, to be installed on the roof or overhang of the building, or on the roof or overhangof another structure located within 250 feet of the building, or on covered parking installed withthe building project.Table 1 below outlines the building and solar installation requirements and exceptions.Page 4 of 1016963981.1 BINwtiSsw^iNB"il!:,.'i,R;lf: i9^^^^^Table 1: Proposed Energy Code Amendments - Building Electrification »& Solar Photovoltaic (PV) SystemsAll electric building requiredfor space heating, waterheating, and clothes dryers.All electric building requiredfor space heating, waterheating, and clothes dryers.Single Familyand AccessoryDwelling UnitsLow-densityResidential(three storiesor lessmultifamily)• All electric building requiredthat uses electricity as thesource of energy for allappliances, including but notlimited to space heating, waterheating, cooking appliances,fireplaces and clothes dryers.Solar:Solar:•High-densityResidential(high-risemultifamilybuildings -four storiesand greater)Install on-site solar equivalentin size to 50 percent of the roofarea on the roof or overhang,or another structure locatedwithin 250 feet, or on coveredparking within the project.Natural gas can still be used for stoves, fireplacesor other appliances if desired.Prewiring for electric appliances is requiredwhere n'atural gas appliances are used.Natural gas can still be used for stoves, fireplacesor other appliances if desired.Projects that have received entitlements within 1year prior to the ordinance effective date caninstall gas water heating.Prewiring for electric appliances is requiredwhere natural gas appliances are used.Projects that have received entitlements within 1year prior to the ordinance effective date caninstall gas water heating.A modification may be granted if demonstratedthat the required percentage of PV installationwill over-generate the annual kWh required tooperate the proposed building.The PV system size may be reduced in size to themaximum that can be accommodated by theeffective annual solar access due to shading fromexisting permanent natural or manmade barriersexternal to the building, including trees, hills, andadjacent structures. The effective annual solaraccess must be 70 percent or greater of theoutput of an unshaded PV array on an annualbasis. No PV system is required if the effectiveannual solar access is restricted to less than 200contiguous square feet. If the applicantdemonstrates that conditions exist whereexcessive shading occurs, a performanceequivalency approved by the Building Officialmay be used as an alternative.If there is a vegetative roof which meets allrelevant code requirements includingconsiderations for wind, fire, and structuralloads, the solar photovoltaic system may be ]reduced in size that 50% of the roof is covered in jeither photovoltaics or vegetative roof.Table 1 continued on page 6.*Additional Exception for All Building Types:// the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the EnergyCode, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under theEnergy Code using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the CommunityDevelopment Director or his/her designee may grant a modification. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuantto this Exception, the applicant must comply with the pre-wiring provision.Page 5 of 1016963981.1 Table 1: Proposed Energy Code Amendments - Building Electrification & Solar PV Systems (cont.)•BilB^B©fll>jte:E|||!rgy tt<i|Kjj"Jjjj|'^||||ig,lut)S||:||»n :fpr,:i;8wB|f'N-i'lE'lhiilStl'Uctiihll.il^lN—w9SSS}s1^All electric buildingrequired that useselectricity as the sourceof energy for allappliances, including butnot limited to spaceheating, water heating,fireplaces and clothesdryers.•Solar:Non-residentialBuildingsInstall on-site solarequivalent in size to 50%of the roof area on theroof or overhang, oranother structure locatedwithin 250 feet, or oncovered parking withinthe project.SolanLife science buildings may use natural gas for spaceheating if desired.Public agency owned and operated emergencyoperations centers (e.g. fire and police stations) mayuse natural gas.Non-residential kitchens (e.g. for-profit restaurantsand cafeterias) may appeal under certain conditions touse natural gas stoves.For all exceptions, natural gas appliance locationsmust be electrically pre-wired for future electricappliance installation.A modification may be granted if demonstrated thatthe required percentage of PV installation will over-generate the annual kWh required to operate theproposed building.The PV system size may be reduced in size to themaximum that can be accommodated by the effectiveannual solar access due to shading from existingpermanent natural or manmade barriers external tothe building, including trees, hills, and adjacentstructures. The effective annual solar access must be70 percent or greater of the output of an unshaded PVarray on an annual basis. No PV system is required ifthe effective annual solar access is restricted to lessthan 200 contiguous square feet. If the applicantdemonstrates that conditions exist where excessiveshading occurs, a performance equivalency approvedby the Building Official may be used as an alternative.If there is a vegetative roof which meets all relevantcode requirements including considerations for wind,fire, and structural loads, the solar photovoltaicsystem may be reduced in size that 50% of the roof iscovered in either photovoltaics or vegetative roof.*Additional Exception for All Building Types:If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the EnergyCode, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under theEnergy Code using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the CommunityDevelopment Director or his/her designee may grant a modification. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuantto this Exception, the applicant must comply with the pre-wiring provision.The exemption for life sciences laboratories is due to these types of buildings containing vulnerable labexperiments, which depend on temperature-controlled rooms. While Millbrae does not currently havelife science laboratories, it is included as a consideration for future developments. These buildingswould be exempt only for space heating and require water heating appliances to be electric.•Page 6 of 1016963981.1 Building Costs and Affordable Housing ConsiderationsThe Statewide Cost Effectiveness Studies act as tools for communities to select different Reach Codeoptions ranging from increased energy efficiency to all-electric requirements. The studies demonstratethe estimated cost savings between new all-electric and natural gas buildings. It costs approximately$5,349 less to build all-electric single family and multifamily buildings of three stories or less than itdoes to build mixed-fuel. Another report found that building new, all-electric, single-family homes saves$1,500-$6,000 in construction costs, and $200-$500 annually in utility bills5.Building Standards CodeThe California Health and Safety Code enables local communities to modify the CaliforniaBuilding Standards Code and adopt different or more restrictive requirements with the caveatthat:The local modifications must be substantially equivalent to or more stringent than the buildingstandards published by the California Building Standards Code; andThe local jurisdiction is required to make specific or express findings that such changes arereasonably necessary because of local geological, climatic, or topographic conditions.These findings are included in the Ordinance in Section 5. If Reach Codes involve energy requirements,cities/counties need to file an application to the CEC to prove that any local amendments related to theenergy code are cost effective and save more energy than those required by the state. This is donethrough submitting a cost effectiveness study to the CEC, which was provided by PCE (Attachments 2and 3). This process takes 30-60 days to gain approval. A cost-effectiveness study is not required foramendments to the Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 1 1).Electric Vehicle fEV) InfrastructureThe Green Building code amendments for consideration would require additional EV charginginfrastructure for the construction of new buildings. PCE and their consultants have recommended thatjurisdictions require 2 EV spaces for single family dwellings, 100% charging access for multifamilydwelling units, and higher percentages of spaces for commercial and office parking lots, which is alsobeing proposed for adoption by the City Council. These requirements would enable more people topurchase, drive, and charge electric vehicles.EV charging requirements in California generally reflect these three categories:EV Charging Station (EVCS): All supply equipment is installed at a parking space, such that anEV can charge without additional equipment.EV Ready Space: Parking space is provided with all power supply and associated outlet, suchthat a charging station can be plugged in and a vehicle can charge.EV Capable: Conduit is installed to parking space, and building electrical system has amplecapacity to serve future load. An electrician would be required to complete the circuit beforecharging is possible.EV charging capacity and speed reflect these three categories:• Level 1: Capable of charging at 120V, 20A. This is an equivalent to a standard home outlet.Level 2: Capable of charging at 240V, 30-40A. This is the service capacity typically used forlarger appliance loads in homes.5 Synapse Energy Economics, "Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings",October 2018.Page 7 of 1016963981.1 • Level 3 (DC Fast Charging): Capable of charging at 20-400kW. This is the type of charger usedfor Tesla Superchargers and DC Fast Chargers at some supermarkets and other locations.The 2019 California Green Building Code Update (Title 24, Part 11) increased requirements for electricvehicle charging infrastructure in new construction; including:New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages: must beLevel 2 EV-capable.Multi-family dwellings: 10% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV-capable.Non-residential: 6% of parking spaces must be Level 2 EV-capable.The proposed Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure Reach Code would amend these regulations as follows:• New one- and two-family dwellings, town- houses, and Accessory Dwelling Units with attachedprivate garages are required to install one Level 2 EV Ready Space and a Level 1 EV ReadySpace for each dwelling unit.Multifamily buildings with less than or equal to' 20 dwelling units are required to include oneLevel 2 EV Ready Space for one parking space per dwelling unit with parking.Multifamily buildings with more than 20 multifamily dwelling units are required to include atleast one Level 2 EV Ready Space in 25% of the dwelling units with parking space(s).o Each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) is required to provide at least oneLevel 1 EV Ready Space.Non-residential Buildings, excluding offices:For 10 or more parking spaces:o Install Level 2 Charging Stations in 6% of spaces.o Install at least Level 1 EV Ready Spaces in an additional 5% of spaces.Non-residential Buildings, including offices:For 10 or more parking spaces:o Install Level 2 EV Charging Stations in 10% of spaces.o Install at least Level 1 EV Ready Spaces in an additional 10% of spaces.o An additional 30% of spaces to be at least EV Capable.Table 2 below outlines the requirements and exceptions for the proposed Green Building Codeamendment for EV infrastructure.Page 8 of 1016963981.1 Table 2: Proposed Green Building Code Amendments - Electric Vehicle Infrastructure!iiiil;3||^%!iS?Si@cl^nw^^rr'~,[::'l Uiilnetyi,manl-c-feittKlnuw,^an<;l-hii•IgglB m®iitlrN8n|s:4QgeNiB^..iclnstru^SS^'aiPitasSingle andTwo-Family,Townhouses,and AccessoryDwelling Units(ADUs)(with attachedgarages)MultifamilyDwellings**Non-residentialBuildings(excludingOffice Use)Non-residentialBuildings withOffice UseInstall one Level 2 EV Ready Spaceand one Level 1 EV Ready Spacefor each dwelling unit.o For each dwelling unit withonly one parking space,install a Level 2 Ready Space.For buildings with less than orequal to 20 units:o Install one Level 2 EV Readyspace for each unit withparking.For buildings with more than 20units:o Install at least one Level 2 EVReady Space for 25% of unitswith parking.o Install one Level 1 ReadySpace in each remaining unitwith parking.• For 10 or more parking spaces:o Install Level 2 ChargingStations in 6% of spaces.o Install at least Level 1 EVReady Spaces in an additional5% of spaces.For 10 or more parking spaces:o Install Level 2 EV ChargingStations in 10% of spaces.o Install at least Level 1 EVReady Spaces in an additional10% of spaces.0 An additional 30% of spacesto be at least EV Capable.•Where there is no commercial powersupply.ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) withoutadditional parking facilities, unless theelectrical panel is upgraded or a newpanel is installed, in which case only theelectrical capacity requirements apply.Spaces accessible only by automatedmechanical car parking systems.Above exceptions apply.Projects that have been grantedentitlements within 1 year prior to theOrdinance effective date must installLevel 2 EV Ready spaces in at least 10% ofspaces of parking spaces, aligning withstate code requirements.Multifamily Affordable Housing:o Install at least one Level 2 EV Ready.Space in 10% of units with space(s).o Install at least one Level 1 EV ReadySpace in the remaining units withparking.Where there is no commercial powersupply.Spaces accessible only by automatedmechanical car parking systems.Installation of each Direct Current FastCharger with the capacity to provide atleast 80 kW output may substitute for 6Level 2 EVCS and 5 EV Ready spaces aftera minimum of 6 Level 2 EVCS and 5 Level1 EV Ready spaces are installed.Where there is no commercial powersupply.Spaces accessible only by automatedmechanical car parking systems.**Note for Multifamily Dwellings:The City may consider allowing exceptions, on a case by case basis, if a building permit applicant provides documentationdetailing that the increased cost of utility service or on-site transformer capacity would be greater than $4,500 amongparking spaces with Level 2 EV Ready Spaces and Level 1 EV Ready Spaces. If costs are found to exceed this level, theapplicant would provide EV infrastructure up to a level that would not exceed this cost for utility service or on-sitetransformer capacity.Page 9 of 1016963981.1 The Reach Code amendments for Energy and Green Building as described above only apply to newbuilding developments, which would include existing residential and non-residential buildings that aredeemed as "new" construction during the planning and building phases.California Environmental Quality ActPursuant to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section 15061 (b)(3), the Reach CodeOrdinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on thegrounds that these standards are more stringent than the state energy standards, and there are noreasonably foreseeable adverse impacts or significant effects on the environment. The California EnergyCommission (CEC) adopted a Negative Declaration CND) for the 2019 California Energy Code (Title24, Part 6), which analyzed the environmental impacts of the 2019 Energy Code.Next StepsAfter adoption of the Reach Codes and with guidance from PCE, staff will submit the Reach Codes tothe California Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) forapproval. Approval can take up to 60 days from the CEC.The Ordinance would go into effect 30 days from adoption and the regulations would be enforcedstarting on January 1, 2021.Staff will also develop an implementation plan over the next few months to prepare the necessaryprotocols and procedures for development applicants to comply with the Reach Codes. The proposedReach Codes will be administered by the Building Division. Due to the simpler nature of the electricalheating requirement, compliance with the Reach Codes will not require additional staff resources, andmay save time spent reviewing plans and conducting on-site inspections due to less natural gasinfrastructure. The solar requirement for non-residential buildings will also not require additionalresources to conduct plan reviews and on-site inspections.FISCAL IMPACT:There is no significant fiscal impact. Staff time for implementing the Reach Codes are programmaticallyincluded in City Department budgets.COUNCIL ACTION:Introduce, waive the first reading, and set a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the EnergyCode of the Millbrae Municipal Code for Title 24 Part 6 Energy Code and Part 1 1 Green Building Code toadopt local Reach Codes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Page 10 of 1016963981.1 1 of 14 16964060.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020- ____ CITY OF MILLBRAE, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MILLBRAE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION, SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WHEREAS, the California Energy Code, 2019 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations was adopted by the City of Millbrae (City) on October 22, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan includes increased energy efficiency, use of renewable energy sources, and electric vehicle charging station expansion by implementing “Reach Codes” for building electrification, electric vehicle infrastructure, and non-residential solar photovoltaic systems; and WHEREAS, Peninsula Clean Energy has provided support and technical resources to jurisdictions to adopt a Reach Code including model ordinances and cost effectiveness studies; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Code is a part of the California Building Standards which implements minimum energy efficiency standards in buildings through mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performances standards; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Millbrae finds that each of the amendments, additions, and deletions to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions described in Section 5; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402.l(h)2 and Section 10-106. of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) establish a process which allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards, provided that such local standards are cost effective and the California Energy Commission finds that the standards will require buildings to be 2 of 14 16964060.1 designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and WHEREAS, the California Codes and Standards Reach Code Program has determined specific modifications to the 2019 State Energy Code for each climate zone that are cost effective; and WHEREAS, such modifications will result in designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2019 State Energy Code. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Millbrae as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 9.50, “ENERGY CODE” OF THE MILLBRAE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 9.50 of the Millbrae Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 9.50: ENERGY CODE Sections: 9.50.010 Adoption of the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, 2019 Edition 9.50.020 Amendment to Section 100.0 9.50.030 Amendment to Section 100.1 9.50.040 Amendment to Section 110.2 9.50.050 Amendment to Section 100.3 9.50.060 Amendment to Section 100.4 9.50.070 Amendment to Section 100.5 9.50.080 Amendment to Section 140.0 9.50.010 Adoption of the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, 2019 Edition. The code of rules and regulations known and designated as the California Energy Code, 2019 Edition, with the California State Amendments, hereinafter called the energy code, which establishes the minimum requirements for effective use of energy in the design of new buildings and structures and additions to existing buildings, printed in book form and filed in the office of the city clerk is adopted and by reference incorporated in this chapter as if fully set forth as the energy code of the city establishing the rules, regulations and standards as to all matters therein contained, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter. One copy of the energy code shall, at all times, be kept on file in the office of the building official. 9.50.020 Amendment to Section 100.0 Section 100.0(e) is amended by replacing language to read as follows: SECTION 100.0 – Scope . . . (e) Sections applicable to particular buildings. TABLE 100.0-A and this subsection list the provisions of Part 6 that are applicable to different types of buildings covered by Section 100.0(a). 3 of 14 16964060.1 1. All buildings. Sections 100.0 through 110.12 apply to all buildings. EXCEPTION to Section 100.0(e) 1: Spaces or requirements not listed in TABLE 100.0-A. 2. Newly constructed buildings. A. All newly constructed buildings. Sections 110.0 through 110.12 apply to all newly constructed buildings within the scope of Section 100.0(a). In addition, newly constructed buildings shall meet the requirements of Subsections B, C, D or E, as applicable and shall be an All-Electric Building as defined in Section 100.1(b). For the purposes of All-Electric Building requirements, newly constructed buildings as defined in Section 100.1 shall not include newly constructed additions and tenant improvements in existing buildings. Exception 1: Non-Residential Buildings containing a Scientific Laboratory Building, such area may contain a non-electric Space Conditioning System. Exception 2: All one family, two family, ADUs, and low-density residential buildings may contain non-electric Cooking Appliances and Fireplaces. Exception 3: Multifamily residential building projects that have been granted entitlements within one year or less before the effective date of this ordinance are not required to install all-electric water heating systems. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with the pre-wiring provision of Note 1 below. Exception 4: Public agency owned and operated emergency centers. Exception 5: If the applicant establishes that there is not an all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway for the building under the Energy Code, and that the building is not able to achieve the performance compliance standard applicable to the building under the Energy Code using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method, then the Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant a modification. If the Building Official grants a modification pursuant to this Exception, the applicant shall comply with the pre- wiring provision of Note 1 below. Conditional Exception 6: Non-residential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public or an employee kitchen may apply to the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, for an exception to install gas-fueled cooking appliances. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source. Examples include barbeque-themed restaurants and pizza ovens. The exception shall be granted if the following four items are found: 1. There is a business-related reason to cook with a flame; 2. This need cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source; 3. The applicant has employed reasonable methods to mitigate the greenhouse gas 4 of 14 16964060.1 impacts of the gas-fueled appliance; 4. The applicant shall comply with the pre-wiring provision of Note 1 below. Note 1: If natural gas appliances are used in any of the above exceptions 1-6, natural gas appliance locations must also be electrically pre-wired for future electric appliance installation. They shall include the following: 1. A dedicated circuit, phased appropriately, for each appliance, with a minimum amperage requirement for a comparable electric appliance (see manufacturer’s recommendations) with an electrical receptacle or junction box that is connected to the electric panel with conductors of adequate capacity, extending to within 3 feet of the appliance and accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; 2. Both ends of the conductor or conduit shall be labeled with the words “For Future Electric appliance” and be electrically isolated; 3. A circuit breaker shall be installed in the electrical panel for the branch circuit and labeled for each circuit, an example is as follows (i.e. “For Future Electric Range;”) and 4. All electrical components, including conductors, receptacles, junction boxes, or blank covers, related to this section shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code. Note 2: If any of the exceptions 1-6 are granted, the Building Official shall have the authority to approve alternative materials, design, and methods of construction or equipment per CBC 104. 9.50.030 Amendment to Section 100.1 Section 100.1(b) is modified by adding the following definitions: ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING: is a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the source of energy for its space heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. All Electric Buildings may include solar thermal pool heating. SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY BUILDING: is a building or area where research, experiments, and measurement in medical, and life sciences are performed and/or stored requiring examination of fine details. The building may include workbenches, countertops, scientific instruments, and supporting offices. 9.50.040 Amendment to Section 110.2 Section 110.2 is modified as follows: 5 of 14 16964060.1 SECTION 110.2 – MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SPACE-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT Certification by Manufacturers. Any space-conditioning equipment listed in this section, meeting the requirements of section 100.0 (e)2A, may be installed only if the manufacturer has certified to the Commission that the equipment complies with all the applicable requirements of this section. 9.50.050 Amendment to Section 100.3 Section 110.3 is modified as follows: SECTION 110.3 – MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE WATER-HEATING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT (a) Certification by Manufacturers. Any service water-heating system or equipment, meeting the requirements of section 100.0 (e)2A, may be installed only if the manufacturer has certified that the system or equipment complies with all of the requirements of this subsection for that system or equipment. 9.50.060 Amendment to Section 100.4 Section 110.4 is modified as follows: 110.4 – MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR POOL AND SPA SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT (a) Certification by Manufacturers. Any pool or spa heating system or equipment, meeting the requirements of section 100.0 (e)2A, may be installed only if the manufacturer has certified that the system or equipment has all of the following: 1. Efficiency. A thermal efficiency that complies with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations; and 2. On-off switch. A readily accessible on-off switch, mounted on the outside of the heater that allows shutting off the heater without adjusting the thermostat setting; and 3. Instructions. A permanent, easily readable, and weatherproof plate or card that gives instruction for the energy efficient operation of the pool or spa heater and for the proper care of pool or spa water when a cover is used; and 4. Electric resistance heating. No electric resistance heating. Exception 1 to Section 110.4(a)4: Listed package units with fully insulated enclosures, and with tightfitting covers that are insulated to at least R-6. Exception 2 to Section 110.4(a)4: Pools or spas deriving at least 60 percent of the annual heating energy from site solar energy or recovered energy. 9.50.070 Amendment to Section 100.5 Section 110.5 is modified as follows: 6 of 14 16964060.1 SECTION 110.5 – CENTRAL FURNACES, COOKING EQUIPMENT, POOL AND SPA HEATERS, AND FIREPLACES: PILOT LIGHTS PROHIBITED Any equipment, meeting the requirements of Section 100.0 (e)2A, listed below may be installed only if it does not have a continuously burning pilot light: 9.50.080 Amendment to Section 140.0 Section 140.0(b) is modified as follows: SECTION 140.0 – PERFORMANCE AND PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACHES (b)The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.5 (mandatory measures for nonresidential, high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings) and for all newly constructed buildings: 1. A solar photovoltaic (PV) system equivalent in size to 50 percent of the roof area, excluding any skylight area, shall be installed on the roof or overhang of the building or on the roof or overhang of another structure located within 250 feet of the building or on covered parking installed with the building project. Exception 1 to 140.0(b)1: The Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant a modification if the applicant demonstrates that the required percentage of PV installation will over-generate the annual kWh required to operate the proposed building; Exception 2 to 140.0(b)1: The PV system size may be reduced in size to the maximum that can be accommodated by the effective annual solar access due to shading from existing permanent natural or manmade barriers external to the building, including but not limited to trees, hills, and adjacent structures. The effective annual solar access shall be 70 percent or greater of the output of an unshaded PV array on an annual basis. No PV system is required if the effective annual solar access is restricted to less than 200 contiguous square feet. If the applicant demonstrates that conditions exist where excessive shading occurs, a performance equivalency approved by the Building Official may be used as an alternative; Exception 3 to 140.0(b)1: If there is a vegetative roof which meets all relevant code requirements including considerations for wind, fire, and structural loads, the solar photovoltaic system may be reduced in size such that 50 percent area of the roof is covered in either photovoltaics or vegetative roof. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 9.35, “CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE” OF THE MILLBRAE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 9.35 of the Millbrae Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 9.35. GREEN BUILDING CODE 7 of 14 16964060.1 Sections: 9.35.010 Adoption of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 6, 2019 Edition. 9.35.020 Amendment of Section 202. 9.35.030 Amendment of Section 4.106.4 9.35.040 Amendment of Section 4.106.4.1 through 4.106.4.5 9.35.050 Amendment of Section 5.106.5 9.35.010 Adoption of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 6, 2019 Edition. The code of rules and regulations known and designated as the California Green Building Code, 2019 Edition, with the California State Amendments, hereinafter called California Green Building Code, which establishes the minimum requirements for the effective use of green building in the design of new residential, commercial and industrial buildings and structures and also includes additions and alterations to all existing buildings and structures, printed in book form and filed in the office of the city clerk is adopted and by reference incorporated in this chapter as if fully set forth as the green building code of the city establishing the rules, regulations and standards as to all matters therein contained, subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter. One copy of the California Green Building Code shall, at all times, be kept on file in the office of the building official. 9.35.020 Amendment of Section 202: Section 202 is modified by adding the following definitions, and revising the definition of "Electrical Vehicle Charging Station": AUTOMATIC LOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ALMS). A control system that allows multiple EV chargers or EV-Ready electric vehicle outlets to share an electrical circuit and automatically reduce power at each charger. ALMS systems must be designed to deliver at least 1.4kW to each EV Capable, EV Ready, or EVCS space served by the ALMS. The connected amperage on-site shall not be lower than the required connected amperage per Part 11, 2019 California Green Building Code for the relevant building types. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Residential buildings that entirely consist of units below market rate and whose rents or sales prices are governed by local agencies to be affordable based on area median income. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CAPABLE. A listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to provide a minimum 20 amperes to a designated charging space. Raceways from the electrical panel to the charging space(s) shall be installed to a charging space(s) only in locations that will be inaccessible in the future, either underground or where penetrations through walls, floors, or other partitions would otherwise be required for future installation of branch circuits. Raceways shall be at least 1” diameter and may be sized for multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code. The electric panel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protection device space(s) reserved for EV charging as “EV CAPABLE.” Construction documents shall identify the location of the raceway from the panel to the charging space. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVCS). A parking space that includes installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) according to the California 8 of 14 16964060.1 Electrical Code and with a minimum capacity of 30 amperes connected to a circuit serving a Level 2 EV Ready Space. EVCS installation may be used to satisfy a Level 2 EV Ready Space requirement. LEVEL 1 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY SPACE. A complete electric circuit with a minimum 20-ampere capacity, including electrical panel capacity, overcurrent protection device, a minimum 1” diameter raceway that may include multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code, conductors, and either a) a receptacle, labelled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” with a minimum ½” font, adjacent to the parking space, or b) electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) READY SPACE. A complete electric circuit with a minimum 208/240 Volt, 40-ampere capacity, including electrical panel capacity, overcurrent protection device, a minimum 1” diameter raceway that may include multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code, conductors, and either a) a receptacle, labelled “Electric Vehicle Outlet” with a minimum ½” font, adjacent to the parking space, or b) electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) with a minimum output of 30 amperes. 9.35.030 Amendment of Section 4.106.4 Section 4.104.6 is amended to read as follows: 4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. New construction shall comply with Sections 4.106.4.1, 4.106.4.2, or 4.106.4.3 to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Exceptions: 1. Where there is no commercial power supply. 2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without additional parking facilities, unless the electrical panel is upgraded, or a new panel is installed in which case only the electrical capacity requirements apply. 3. Spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems. 9.35.040 Amendment of Section 4.106.4.1 through 4.106.4.5 Sections 4.106.4.1 through 4.106.4.5 are amended to read as follows: 4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and town- houses with attached private garages. For each dwelling unit, install a Level 2 EV Ready Space and Level 1 EV Ready Space. Exception: For each dwelling unit with only one parking space, install a Level 2 EV Ready Space. 4.106.4.1.1 Identification. The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “Level 2 EV-Ready”. 4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings. The following requirements apply to all new 9 of 14 16964060.1 multifamily dwellings: 1. For multifamily buildings with less than or equal to 20 dwelling units, one parking space per dwelling unit with parking shall be provided with a Level 2 EV Ready Space. 2. When more than 20 multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a building site: a. 25% of the dwelling units with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 2 EV Ready Space. Calculations for the required minimum number of Level 2 EV Ready spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. b. In addition, each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least a Level 1 EV Ready Space. Exception: For all multifamily Affordable Housing, 10% of dwelling units with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 2 EV Ready Space. Calculations for the required minimum number of Level 2 EV Ready spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The remaining dwelling units with parking space(s) shall each be provided with at least a Level 1 EV Ready Space. Notes: 1. ALMS may be installed to decrease electrical services and transformer capacity associated with EV Charging Equipment subject to review of the authority having jurisdiction. 2. Installation of Level 2 EV Ready Spaces above the minimum number required level may offset the minimum number Level 1 EV Ready Spaces required on a 1:1 basis. 3. The requirements apply to multifamily buildings with parking spaces including: a) assigned or leased to individual dwelling units, and b) unassigned residential parking. 4. Multifamily residential building projects that have been granted entitlements within one year before the effective date of this ordinance shall provide at least ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, with Level 2 EV Ready Circuits. Calculations for the required number of EV spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 5. The City may consider allowing exceptions, on a case by case basis, if a building permit applicant provides documentation detailing that the increased cost of utility service or on-site transformer capacity would exceed an average of $4,500 among parking spaces with Level 2 EV Ready Spaces and Level 1 EV Ready Spaces. If costs are found to exceed this level, the applicant shall provide EV infrastructure up to a level that would not exceed this cost for utility service or on-site transformer capacity. 6. In order to adhere to accessibility requirements in accordance with California Building Code Chapters 11A and/or 11B, it is recommended that 10 of 14 16964060.1 all accessible parking spaces for covered newly constructed multifamily dwellings are provided with Level 1 or Level 2 EV Ready Spaces. 4.106.4.2.1.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). When EV chargers are installed, EV spaces 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. Note: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public housing are required to comply with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. 4.106.4.2.2 Electric vehicle charging space (EV space) dimensions. Refer to the City’s zoning regulations for parking space dimension requirements. 4.106.4.2.3 Intentionally deleted. 4.106.4.2.4 Intentionally deleted. 4.106.4.2.5 Intentionally deleted. 9.35.050 Amendment of Section 5.106.5.3 Section 5.106.5.3 is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. [N] New construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 or Section 5.106.5.3.2 to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electrical vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code, the Electrical Code. Exceptions 1. Where there is no commercial power supply. 2. Spaces accessible only by automated mechanical car parking systems. 5.106.5.3.1 Office buildings: In non-residential new construction buildings designated primarily for office use with parking: 1. When 10 or more parking spaces are constructed, 10% of the available parking spaces on site shall be equipped with Level 2 EVCS; 11 of 14 16964060.1 2. An additional 10% shall be provided with at least Level 1 EV Ready Spaces; and 3. An additional 30% shall be at least EV Capable. Calculations for the required minimum number of spaces equipped with Level 2 EVCS, Level 1 EV Ready spaces and EV Capable spaces shall all be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Construction plans and specifications shall demonstrate that all raceways shall be a minimum of 1” and sufficient for installation of EVCS at all required Level 1EV Ready and EV Capable spaces; 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 EVs at all required EV spaces including Level 1 EV Ready and EV Capable spaces; and 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. Note: 1. ALMS may be installed to increase the number of EV chargers or the amperage or voltage beyond the minimum requirements in this code. The option does not allow for installing less electrical panel capacity than would be required without ALMS. 5.106.5.3.2 Other non-residential buildings: In non-residential new construction buildings that are not designated primarily for office use, such as retail or institutional uses: 1. When 10 or more parking spaces are constructed, 6% of the available parking spaces on site shall be equipped with Level 2 EVCS; 2. An additional 5% shall be at least Level 1 EV Ready. Calculations for the required minimum number of spaces equipped with Level 2 EVCS and Level 1 EV Ready spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Exception: Installation of each Direct Current Fast Charger with the capacity to provide at least 80 kW output may substitute for 6 Level 2 EVCS and 5 EV Ready spaces after a minimum of 6 Level 2 EVCS and 5 Level 1 EV Ready spaces are installed. 5.106.5.3.3 Clean Air Vehicle Parking Designation. EVCS qualify as designated parking as described in Section 5.106.5.2 Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles. 12 of 14 16964060.1 Notes: 1. The California Department of Transportation adopts and publishes the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) to provide uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings can be found in the New Policies & Directives number 13- 01. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/policy/13-01.pdf 2. See Vehicle Code Section 22511 for EV charging spaces signage in off-street parking facilities and for use of EV charging spaces. 3. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published a Zero-Emission Vehicle Community Readiness Guidebook which provides helpful information for local governments, residents and businesses. www.opr.ca.gov/docs/ZEV_Guidebook.pdf 4. Section 11B-812 of the California Building Code requires that a facility providing EVCS for public and common use also provide one or more accessible EVCS as specified in Table 11B-228.3.2.1. 5. It is encouraged that EV Ready Spaces in shared parking are designated as “EV preferred.” 5.106.5.3.4 [N] Identification. The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV Ready.” SECTION 3: EXEMPTION FROM CEQA. The City Council finds, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section 15061(b)(3), that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on the grounds that these standards are more stringent than the State energy standards, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts and there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 5: FINDINGS OF FACT. CHANGES TO THE ENERGY AND GREEN BUILDING CODES ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY AS FOLLOWS. Findings of Fact For the purposes of this ordinance, the City Council of the City of Millbrae hereby makes the following findings, as required by Sections 13143.5, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The City Council finds and declares that the unique characteristics of the topographic, geologic, and climatic conditions found in Millbrae make the local amendments to Title 24 reasonable and necessary. 13 of 14 16964060.1 Finding 1: Topographic The City of Millbrae is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. The topography ranges from the flatlands closer to the San Francisco Bay (approximately seven feet above mean sea level) to the western portion of the City at 485 feet in elevation. Millbrae’s hills include residences and contain plenty of open space and forested areas which could lead to combustible conditions during the dry months. The conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. Finding 2: Geologic Millbrae is classified as Seismic Design Category E, which is the most severe earthquake category. Buildings and other structures in Category E can experience major seismic damage. For Millbrae the active faults are the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault. The San Andreas Fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, (epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,) up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock—this is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The Hayward Fault is about 74 miles long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Earthquake activity with nearby epicenters has the potential for inducing landslides which can create situations of reduced emergency response times and restoration of power utilities. Earthquakes of the magnitude experienced locally can cause major damage to electrical transmission facilities and natural gas infrastructure, which in turn cause power failures while at the same time starting fires or gas explosions throughout the County. There is a need to reduce dependence on the natural gas infrastructure to reduce harms and increase energy resiliency in the event of an earthquake. The modifications and changes cited herein are designed to reduce natural gas hazards in buildings and encourage energy resiliency through increased installation of solar and storage systems. Finding 3: Climatic The City is located in Climate Zone 3 as established in the 2019 California Energy Code. Climate Zone 3 incorporates mostly coastal communities from Marin County to southern Monterey County including San Francisco. The City experiences precipitation ranging from 20 to 25 inches per year with an average of approximately 23 inches per year. 96% of precipitation falls during the months of November through April and 4% from May through September. This is a dry period of at least five months each year. Additionally, the area is subject to frequent periods of drought and the area recently suffered through an unprecedented seven-year drought. Similar periods of extended drought may be expected locally in the future. Relative humidity remains in the middle range most of the time. Temperatures in the summer average around 70 degrees Fahrenheit and in the winter in the mid 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Prevailing winds in the area come from the west 14 of 14 16964060.1 with velocities generally in the 9 miles per hour range and can be gusting on occasion in the spring. Climate change is causing historic droughts, devastating wildfires, torrential storms, extreme heat, property damage, and threats to human health and food supplies. The State of California has outlined specific steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent these negative impacts of changing climate, including moving the State to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. This gives local governments the opportunity to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions with a climate positive impact by powering buildings from clean electricity. Planned new buildings in Millbrae will be built near the coastline, which creates an increasing potential flooding risk with climate change as a result of human generated greenhouse gas emissions. Millbrae is vulnerable to sea level rise where new development is proposed. New buildings that are directly vulnerable to sea level rise should avoid generating additional greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Reach Code would ensure that new buildings use cleaner sources of energy that are greenhouse gas free. The proposed Electric Vehicle Reach Code ensures that new buildings can charge a greater number of electric vehicles beyond state code requirements and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These climatic conditions along with the greenhouse emissions generated from structures in both the residential and non-residential sectors requires exceeding the energy standards for building construction established in the 2019 California Buildings Standards Code. SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE; PUBLICATION: POSTING. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days from its passage and the regulations contained in this ordinance shall be enforced as of January 1, 2021. At least five days prior to its adoption and within fifteen days after its adoption, a summary of this ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of San Mateo and circulated in the City of Millbrae. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Millbrae held on October 27, 2020. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Millbrae held on November 10, 2020 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR 15 of 14 16964060.1 ATTEST: CITY CLERK 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: August 01, 2019 Attachment 2 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, trademark s or copyrights. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table of Contents Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Building Prototypes ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Measure Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 Federal Preemption ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 Energy Design Rating .............................................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Package Development .................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries) ...................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Incremental Costs ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Cost-effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost ............................................................................................ 13 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost ................................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Electrification Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 15 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 18 3 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing ....................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Single Family Results .................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions .................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Multifamily Results ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions .................................................................................................... 32 3.4 Electrification Results ................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Single Family ......................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.2 Multifamily ........................................................................................................................... 33 4 Conclusions & Summary ....................................................................................................................... 41 5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results ................................................................................................ 57 Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary ........................................................................................... 61 Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results .................................................................................................. 68 Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary .............................................................................................. 72 Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone ......................................................................................................... 79 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study List of Tables Table 1: Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype ..........................................................................3 Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures .....................................................9 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Code Compliant Home Compared to a Mixed Fuel Code Compliant 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 Dwelling Unit ..................................................................... 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 (Per Dwelling Unit) .......................................................................... 38 Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV (Per Dwelling Unit) 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 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 81 Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 82 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 83 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 84 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 85 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 86 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 87 Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary ............................................................................ 88 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................... 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 (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................... 91 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 92 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 93 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 94 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 95 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 96 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 97 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 98 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ......................................................... 99 Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 100 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) .............................. 101 Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 102 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................ 103 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary .................................................................................. 104 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 105 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary .................................................................................. 106 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 107 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary .................................................................................. 108 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 109 Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 110 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) .............................. 111 Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 112 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ............................................ 113 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary .................................................................................. 114 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 115 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary .................................................................................. 116 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) ..................................................... 117 List of Figures Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace) ..........................................................5 Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) ........................................... 25 Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison............................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison ........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) ........................................... 31 Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison ................................................................................ 32 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission) ............................... 46 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Acronyms 2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020 ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM Alternative Calculation Method AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool BSC Building Standards Commission CAHP California Advanced Homes Program CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation CFM Cubic Feet per Minute CMFNH California Multifamily New Homes CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPC California Plumbing Code CZ California Climate Zone DHW Domestic Hot Water DOE Department of Energy DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery EDR Energy Design Rating EER Energy Efficiency Ratio EF Energy Factor GHG Greenhouse Gas HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater HPA High Performance Attic HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater HSPF Heating Seasonal Performance Factor HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IECC International Energy Conservation Code IOU Investor Owned Utility kBtu kilo-British thermal unit kWh Kilowatt Hour LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study LCC Lifecycle Cost LLAHU Low Leakage Air Handler Unit VLLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space MF Multifamily NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEM Net Energy Metering NPV Net Present Value NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PV Photovoltaic SCE Southern California Edison SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio SF Single Family CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement TDV Time Dependent Valuation Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 TOU Time-Of-Use UEF Uniform Energy Factor ZNE Zero-net Energy 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1 2019-08-01 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new single family and low-rise (one- to three-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed fuel and all- electric homes, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design. Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations). All proposed package options include a combination of efficiency measures and on-site renewable energy. 2 Methodology and Assumptions This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. • Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation. • Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6. 2.1 Building Prototypes The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. At the time that this report was written, there are two single family prototypes and one low-rise multifamily prototype. All three are used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (Energy Commission, 2018a). The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 2 2019-08-01 Table 1: Prototype Characteristics Characteristic Single Family One-Story Single Family Two-Story Multifamily Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 6,960 ft2: (4) 780 ft2 & (4) 960 ft2 units Num. of Stories 1 2 2 Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 (4) 1-bed & (4) 2-bed units Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15% Source: 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018a). The Energy Commission’s protocol for single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide, assuming 45 percent single-story and 55 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430-square foot (ft2) house.1 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2019 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards (Energy Commission, 2018b) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (Energy Commission, 2019), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each prototype building has the following features: • Slab-on-grade foundation. • Vented attic. • High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards.) • Ductwork located in the attic for single family and within conditioned space for multifamily. Both mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are evaluated in this study. While in past code cycles an all-electric home was compared to a home with gas for certain end-uses, the 2019 code includes separate prescriptive and performance paths for mixed-fuel and all-electric homes. The fuel specific characteristics of the mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are defined according to the 2019 ACM Reference Manual and described in Table 2.2 1 2,430 ft2 = (45% x 2,100 ft2) + (55% x 2,700 ft2) 2 Standards Section 150.1(c)8.A.iv.a specifies that compact hot water distribution design and a drain water heat recovery system or extra PV capacity are required when a heat pump water heater is installed prescriptively. The efficiency of the distribution and the drain water heat recovery systems as well as the location of the water heater applied in this analysis are based on the Standard Design assumptions in CBECC-Res which result in a zero-compliance margin for the 2019 basecase model. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 3 2019-08-01 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype Characteristic Mixed Fuel All-Electric Space Heating/Cooling1 Gas furnace 80 AFUE Split A/C 14 SEER, 11.7 EER Split heat pump 8.2 HSPF, 14 SEER, 11.7 EER Water Heater1,2, 3, 4 Gas tankless UEF = 0.81 50gal HPWH UEF = 2.0 SF: located in the garage MF CZ 2,4,6-16: located in living space MF CZ 1,3,5: located in exterior closet Hot Water Distribution Code minimum. All hot water lines insulated Basic compact distribution credit, (CZ 6-8,15) Expanded compact distribution credit, compactness factor = 0.6 (CZ 1-5,9-14,16) Drain Water Heat Recovery Efficiency None CZ 1: unequal flow to shower = 42% CZ 16: equal flow to shower & water heater = 65% None in other CZs Cooking Gas Electric Clothes Drying Gas Electric 1Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2The multifamily prototype is evaluated with individual water heaters. HPWHs located in the living space do not have ducting for either inlet or exhaust air; CBECC-Res does not have the capability to model ducted HPWHs. 3UEF = uniform energy factor. HPWH = heat pump water heater. SF = single family. MF = multifamily. 4CBECC-Res applies a 50gal water heater when specifying a storage water heater. Hot water draws differ between the prototypes based on number of bedrooms. 2.2 Measure Analysis The California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-RES 2019.1.0, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards. Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that exceed minimum code performance. The analysis utilizes a parametric tool based on Micropas3 to automate and manage the generation of CBECC-Res input files. This allows for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improves quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res is utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Res and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs). 3 Developed by Ken Nittler of Enercomp, Inc. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 4 2019-08-01 The Reach Codes Team selected packages and measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures. 2.2.1 Federal Preemption The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. 2.2.2 Energy Design Rating The 2019 Title 24 code introduces California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code. EDR is still based on TDV but it uses a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the reference building. The reference building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero (Energy Commission, 2018d). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this. While the Reference Building is used to determine the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance. The EDR is calculated by CBECC-Res and has two components: 1. An “Efficiency EDR” which represents the building’s energy use without solar generation.4 2. A “Total EDR” that represents the final energy use of the building based on the combined impact of efficiency measures, PV generation and demand flexibility. For a building to comply, two criteria are required: (1) the proposed Efficiency EDR must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR of the Standard Design, and (2) the proposed Total EDR must be equal to or less than the Total EDR of the Standard Design. Single family prototypes used in this analysis that are minimally compliant with the 2019 Title 24 code achieve a Total EDR between 20 and 35 in most climates. This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity required to achieve the required Total EDR but may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures. Figure 1 graphically summarizes how both Efficiency EDR and PV / demand flexibility EDR are used to calculate the Total EDR used in the 2019 code and in this analysis. 4 While there is no compliance credit for solar PV as there is under the 2016 Standards, the credit for installing electric storage battery systems that meet minimum qualifications can be applied to the Efficiency EDR. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 5 2019-08-01 Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace5) Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design. EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary, based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with how compliance is determined for the 2019 Title 24 code, as well as utility incentive programs, such as the California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP) & California Multifamily New Homes (CMFNH), which require minimum performance criteria based on an EDR Margin for low-rise residential projects. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 1 for the two efficiency packages and Equation 2 for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages (see Section 2.3). Equation 1 𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 𝐵𝐵𝑅 Equation 2 𝐵𝐵𝑅 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑙𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 & 𝑷𝑽=𝑅𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅−𝑃𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑻𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝐵𝐵𝑅 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective and cost-effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. For a list of measures included in each efficiency package by climate zone, see Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary and Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50)6 by 40 to 60 percent to either 3 ACH50 or 2 ACH50. HERS 5 https://energycodeace.com/ 6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 6 2019-08-01 rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (Energy Commission, 2018c). This measure was not applied to multifamily homes because CBECC-Res does not allow reduced infiltration credit for multifamily buildings. Improved Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates. In climate zones 1, 3, 5, and 16 where heating loads dominate, an increase in solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) from the default assumption of 0.35 to 0.50 was evaluated in addition to the reduction in U-factor. Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15 and assumes 0.10 in other climate zones. Exterior Wall Insulation: Decrease wall U-factor in 2x6 walls to 0.043 from the prescriptive requirement of 0.048 by increasing exterior insulation from one-inch R-5 to 1-1/2 inch R-7.5. This was evaluated for single family buildings only in all climate zones except 6 and 7 where the prescriptive requirement is higher (U-factor of 0.065) and improving beyond the prescriptive value has little impact. High Performance Attics (HPA): HPA with R-38 ceiling insulation and R-30 insulation under the roof deck. In climates where HPA is already required prescriptively this measure requires an incremental increase in roof insulation from R-19 or R-13 to R-30. In climates where HPA is not currently required (Climate Zones 1 through 3, and 5 through 7), this measure adds roof insulation to an uninsulated roof as well as increasing ceiling insulation from R-30 to R-38 in Climate Zones 3, 5, 6 and 7. Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. For climate zone 16, where slab insulation is required, prescriptively this measure increases that insulation from R-7 to R-10. Duct Location (Ducts in Conditioned Space): Move the ductwork and equipment from the attic to inside the conditioned space in one of the three following ways. 1. Locate ductwork in conditioned space. The air handler may remain in the attic provided that 12 linear feet or less of duct is located outside the conditioned space including the air handler and plenum. Meet the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.2. (Energy Commission, 2018c) 2. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space meeting the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) 3. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space with ducts tested to have less than or equal to 25 cfm leakage to outside. Meet the requirements of Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space (VLLDCS) in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.3.8. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Option 1 and 2 above apply to single family only since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space. Option 3 applies to both single family and multifamily cases. Reduced Distribution System (Duct) Leakage: Reduce duct leakage from 5% to 2% and install a low leakage air handler unit (LLAHU). This is only applicable to single family homes since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space and additional duct leakage credit is not available. Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm for gas furnaces and 0.45 Watts per cfm for heat pumps operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (Energy Commission, 2018c). New federal regulations that went into effect July 3, 2019 require higher fan efficiency for gas furnaces than for heat pumps and air handlers, which is why the recommended specification is different for mixed fuel and all-electric homes. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 7 2019-08-01 HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Compact Hot Water Distribution: Two credits for compact hot water distribution were evaluated. 1. Basic Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. Multifamily homes with individual water heaters are expected to easily meet this credit with little or no alteration to plumbing design. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit. 2. Expanded Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the expanded compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.5 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In addition to requiring HERS verification that the minimum requirements for the basic compact distribution credit are met, this credit also imposes limitations on pipe location, maximum pipe diameter, and recirculation system controls allowed. Drain Water Heat Recovery (DWHR): For multifamily buildings add DWHR that serves the showers in an unequal flow configuration (pre-heated water is piped directly to the shower) with 50% efficiency. This upgrade assumes all apartments are served by a DWHR with one unit serving each apartment individually. For a slab-on-grade building this requires a horizontal unit for the first-floor apartments. Federally Preempted Measures: The following additional measures were evaluated. Because these measures require upgrading appliances that are federally regulated to high efficiency models, they cannot be used to show cost-effectiveness in a local ordinance. The measures and packages are presented here to show that there are several options for builders to meet the performance targets. Heating and cooling capacities are autosized by CBECC-Res in all cases. High Efficiency Furnace: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade natural gas furnace to one of two condensing furnace options with an efficiency of 92% or 96% AFUE. High Efficiency Air Conditioner: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade the air conditioner to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 equipment. High Efficiency Heat Pump: For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the heat pump to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 / HSPF 9 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 / HSPF 10 equipment. High Efficiency Tankless Water Heater: For the mixed-fuel prototype, upgrade tankless water heater to a condensing unit with a rated Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) of 0.96. High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH): For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the federal minimum heat pump water heater to a HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)7 Tier 3 rating. The evaluated NEEA water heater is an 80gal unit and is applied to all three building prototypes. Using the same 7 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires an Energy Factor equal to the ENERGY STAR performance level and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 8 2019-08-01 water heater provides consistency in performance across all the equipment upgrade cases, even though hot water draws differ across the prototypes. 2.3 Package Development Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency – Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. 3) Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package as a starting point8, PV capacity is added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the all-electric case, since for the mixed fuel cases, 100% of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title 24, Part 6. 4) Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as well as a battery system. 2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2019 residential code. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.9 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions. The Reach Code Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below. Analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate sizing method for each package which is described in the results. • Standard Design PV – the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case10 • Specify PV System Scaling – a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case 2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries) A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Time of Use” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Time of Use” option assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the house load but controls when the battery storage system discharges. During the summer months (July – September) the battery begins to discharge at the beginning of the peak period at a maximum rate until fully discharged. During discharge the battery first serves the house load but will 8 In cases where there was no cost-effective Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package, the most cost-effective efficiency measures for that climate zone were also included in the Efficiency & PV Package in order to provide a combination of both efficiency and PV beyond code minimum. 9 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only. 10 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 9 2019-08-01 discharge to the electric grid if there is excess energy available. During other months the battery discharges whenever the PV system does not cover the entire house load and does not discharge to the electric grid. This control option is considered to be most reflective of the current products on the market. This control option requires an input for the “First Hour of the Summer Peak” and the Statewide CASE Team applied the default hour in CBECC-Res which differs by climate zone (either a 6pm or 7pm start). The Self Utilization Credit was taken when the battery system was modeled. 2.4 Incremental Costs Table 4 below summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.11 Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment, PV inverters, and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures since there should not be any additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a source that didn’t already include builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis. Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures Measure Lifetime Gas Furnace 20 Air Conditioner 20 Heat Pump 15 Gas Tankless Water Heater 20 Heat Pump Water Heater 15 Source: City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost- effectiveness Analysis Draft (TRC, 2018) which is based on the Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).12 11 Interest costs due to financing are not included in the incremental costs presented in the Table 4 but are accounted for in the lifetime cost analysis. All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage, see Section 2.5 for details. 12 http://www.deeresources.com 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 10 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Non-Preempted Measures Reduced Infiltration 3.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $391 n/a NREL’s BEopt cost database ($0.115/ft2 for 3 ACH50 & $0.207/ft2 for 2 ACH50) + $100 HERS rater verification. 2.0 vs 5.0 ACH50 $613 n/a Window U- factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,261 $607 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018). Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0 Data from CASE Report along with direct feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017d). Applies to CZ 1,3,5,16. Cool Roof - Aged Solar Reflectance 0.25 vs 0.20 $237 $58 Costs based on 2016 Cost-effectiveness Study for Cool Roofs reach code analysis for 0.28 solar reflectance product. (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2017b). 0.20 vs 0.10 $0 $0 Exterior Wall Insulation R-7.5 vs R-5 $818 n/a Based on increasing exterior insulation from 1” R-5 to 1.5” R-7.5 in a 2x6 wall (Statewide CASE Team, 2017c). Applies to single family only in all climates except CZ 6, 7. Under-Deck Roof Insulation (HPA) R-13 vs R-0 $1,338 $334 Costs for R-13 ($0.64/ft2), R-19 ($0.78/ft2) and R-30 ($1.61/ft2) based on data presented in the 2019 HPA CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2017b) along with data collected directly from builders during the 2019 CASE process. The R-30 costs include additional labor costs for cabling. Costs for R-38 from NREL’s BEopt cost database. R-19 vs R-13 $282 $70 R-30 vs R-19 $1,831 $457 R-38 vs R-30 $585 $146 Attic Floor Insulation R-38 vs R-30 $584 $146 NREL’s BEopt cost database: $0.34/ft2 ceiling area Slab Edge Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $553 $121 $4/linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth. R-10 vs R-7 $157 $21 $1.58/linear foot of slab perimeter based on NREL’s BEopt cost database. This applies to CZ 16 only where R-7 slab edge insulation is required prescriptively. Assumes 16in depth. Duct Location <12 feet in attic $358 n/a Costs based on a 2015 report on the Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes (Davis Energy Group, 2015). HERS verification cost of $100 for the Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space credit. Ducts in Conditioned Space $658 n/a Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space $768 $110 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 11 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Distribution System Leakage 2% vs 5% $96 n/a 1-hour labor. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities & 10% for overhead and profit. Applies to single family only since ducts are assumed to be in cond itioned space for multifamily Low Leakage Air Handler $0 n/a Negligible cost based on review of available products. There are more than 6,000 Energy Commission certified units and the list includes many furnace and heat pump air handler product lines from the major manufacturers, including minimum efficiency, low cost product lines. Low Pressure Drop Ducts (Fan W/cfm) 0.35 vs 0.45 $96 $48 Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour per multifamily apartment. Labor rate of $96 per hour is from 2019 RSMeans for sheet metal workers and includes an average City Cost Index for labor for California cities. 0.45 vs 0.58 $96 $48 Hot Water Pipe Insulation HERS verified $110 $83 Cost for HERS verification only, based on feedback from HERS raters. $100 per single family home and $75 per multifamily unit before markup. Compact Hot Water Distribution Basic credit $150 $0 For single family add 20-feet venting at $12/ft to locate water heater on interior garage wall, less 20-feet savings for less PEX and pipe insulation at $4.88/ft. Costs from online retailers. Many multifamily buildings are expected to meet this credit without any changes to distribution design. Expanded credit n/a $83 Cost for HERS verification only. $75 per multifamily unit before markup. This was only evaluated for multifamily buildings. Drain Water Heat Recovery 50% efficiency n/a $690 Cost from the 2019 DWHR CASE Report assuming a 2-inch DWHR unit. The CASE Report multifamily costs were based on one unit serving 4 dwelling units with a central water heater. Since individual water heaters serve each dwelling unit in this analysis, the Reach Code Team used single family costs from the CASE Report. Costs in the CASE Report were based on a 46.1% efficient unit, a DWHR device that meets the 50% efficiency assumed in this analysis may cost a little more. (Statewide CASE Team, 2017a). Federally Pre-empted Measures Furnace AFUE 92% vs 80% $139 $139 Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at $26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing (stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 96% vs 80% $244 $244 Air Conditioner SEER/EER 16/13 vs 14/11.7 $111 $111 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 20 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. Value at year 30 based on remaining useful life is included. 18/14 vs 14/11.7 $1,148 $1,148 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 12 2019-08-01 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Source & Notes Single Family Multifamily (Per Dwelling Unit) Heat Pump SEER/EER /HSPF 16/13/9 vs 14/11.7/8.2 $411 $411 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. 18/14/10 vs 14/11.7/8.2 $1,511 $1,511 Tankless Water Heater Energy Factor 0.96 vs 0.81 $203 $203 Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at $26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing (stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. HPWH NEEA Tier 3 vs 2.0 EF $294 $294 Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. PV + Battery PV System System size varies $3.72/W-DC $3.17/W-DC First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and represent costs for the first half of 2018 of $3.50/W-DC for residential system and $2.90/W-DC for non- residential system ≤500 kW-DC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/W-DC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/W-DC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/W-DC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). System maintenance costs of $0.31/W-DC present value assume $0.02/W-DC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017). 10% overhead and profit added to all costs Battery System size varies by building type $656/kWh $656/kWh $633/kWh first cost based on the PV Plus Battery Study report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2018) as the average cost of the three systems that were analyzed. This cost was reduced by 16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022. Replacement cost at year 15 of $100/kWh based on target price reductions (Penn, 2018). 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 13 2019-08-01 2.5 Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all sixteen climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using the Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements. Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. Equation 3 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 In most cases the benefit is represented by annual utility savings or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, in some cases a measure may have incremental cost savings but with increased energy related costs. In this case, the benefit is the lower first cost and the cost is the increase in utility bills. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 4. Equation 4 𝑵𝑷𝑽 𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓=∑𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒓/𝒂𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒓𝒓∗(𝟏+𝒓)𝒓𝒍 𝒓=𝟏 Where: • n = analysis term • r = discount rate The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30-years • Real discount rate of 3 percent • Inflation rate of 2 percent • First incremental costs are financed into a 30-year mortgage • Mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent • Average tax rate of 20 percent (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions) 2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer cost- effectiveness for the proposed packages. The Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect January of 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5. Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details includes the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.13 Annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved 13 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3800 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 14 2019-08-01 NEM2 tariffs for that utility. Minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges have been applied. Future change to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 code cycle (2020-2022). The net surplus compensation rates for each utility are as follows:14 • PG&E: $0.0287 / kWh • SCE: $0.0301 / kWh • SDG&E: $0.0355 / kWh Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. Table 5. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas 1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU, Option B G1 5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU, Option B GR 6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas TOU-D-4-9 or TOU-D-PRIME GR 7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 GR Source: Utility websites, See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied. Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details for additional details. 14 Net surplus compensation rates based on 1-year average February 2018 – January 2019. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 15 2019-08-01 2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy Commission’s TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Res simulation software outputs are in terms of TDV kBTUs. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBTU savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential buildings. Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 5. Equation 5 𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑟−𝑟𝑙−𝐵𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙=𝑅𝐵𝑉 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟 ∗ 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝑉 𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑎 𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑟 2.6 Electrification Evaluation In addition to evaluating upgrades to mixed fuel and all-electric buildings independently that do not result in fuel switching, the Reach Code Team also analyzed the impact on construction costs, utility costs, and TDV when a builder specifies and installs electric appliances instead of the gas appliances typically found in a mixed fuel building. This analysis compared the code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses gas for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying, with the code compliant all-electric prototype. It also compared the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package with the code compliance mixed fuel prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing gas to the building were also included. A variety of sources were reviewed when determining incremental costs. The sources are listed below. • SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study (EPRI, 2016) • City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) • Building Electrification Market Assessment (E3, 2019) • Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings (Hopkins et al., 2018) • Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future (Navigant, 2008) • Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016) • 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report (Itron, 2014) • Natural gas infrastructure costs provided by utility staff through the Reach Code subprogram • Costs obtained from builders, contractors and developers Incremental costs are presented in Table 6. Values in parentheses represent a lower cost or cost reduction in the electric option relative to mixed fuel. The costs from the available sources varied widely, making it difficult to develop narrow cost estimates for each component. For certain components data is provided with a low to high range as well as what were determined to be typical costs and ultimately applied in this analysis. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. Details of these differences are explained in the discussion of site gas infrastructure costs in the following pages. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 16 2019-08-01 Table 6: Incremental Costs – All-Electric Code Compliant Home Compared to a Mixed Fuel Code Compliant Home Measure Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Multifamily1 (Per Dwelling Unit) Single Family1 Low High Typical (On-Bill) Typical (TDV) Low High Typical (On-Bill) Typical (TDV) Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC ($2,770) $620 ($221) Same as Single Family Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless ($1,120) $1,120 $0 Electric vs Gas Clothes Dryer2 ($428) $820 $0 Electric vs Gas Cooking2 $0 $1,800 $0 Electric Service Upgrade $200 $800 $600 $150 $600 $600 In-House Gas Infrastructure ($1,670) ($550) ($800) ($600) ($150) ($600) Site Gas Infrastructure ($25,000) ($900) ($5,750) ($11,836) ($16,250) ($310) ($3,140) ($6,463) Total First Cost ($30,788) $3,710 ($6,171) ($12,257) ($20,918) $4,500 ($3,361) ($6,684) Present Value of Equipment Replacement Cost $1,266 $1,266 Lifetime Cost Including Replacement & Financing of First Cost ($5,349) ($11,872) ($2,337) ($5,899) 1Low and high costs represent the potential range of costs and typical represents the costs used in this analysis and determined to be most representative of the conditions described in this report. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. 2Typical costs assume electric resistance technology. The high range represents higher end induction cooktops and heat pump clothes dryers. Lower cost induction cooktops are available. Typical incremental costs for switching from a mixed fuel design to an all-electric design are based on the following assumptions: Appliances: The Reach Code Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is very similar to that for natural gas appliances. This was based on information provided by HVAC contractors, plumbers and builders as well as a review of other studies. After review of various sources, the Reach Code Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance options for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar. HVAC: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on the City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) which assumes approximately $200 first cost savings for the heat pump relative to the gas furnace and air conditioner. Table 6 also includes the present value of the incremental replacement costs for the heat pump based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas furnace in the mixed fuel home. DHW: Typical costs for the water heating system were based on equivalent installed first costs for the HPWH and tankless gas water heater. This accounts for slightly higher equipment cost but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the gas flue. Incremental replacement costs for the HPWH are based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the tankless water heater. For multifamily, less data was available and therefore a range of low and high costs is not provided. The typical first cost for multifamily similarly is expected to be close to the same for the mixed fuel and all- electric designs. However, there are additional considerations with multifamily such as greater complexity for venting of natural gas appliances as well as for locating the HPWH within the conditioned space (all climates except Climate Zones 1, 3, and 5, see Table 2) that may impact the total costs. Electric service upgrade: The study assumes an incremental cost to run 220V service to each appliance of $200 per appliance for single family homes and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The Reach Code Team reviewed production builder utility plans for 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 17 2019-08-01 mixed-fuel homes and consulted with contractors to estimate which electricity and/or natural gas services are usually provided to the dryer and oven. Typical practice varied, with some builders providing both gas and electric service to both appliances, others providing both services to only one of the appliances, and some only providing gas. For this study, the Reach Code Team determined that for single family homes the typical cost is best qualified by the practice of providing 220V service and gas to either the dryer and the oven and only gas service to the other. For multifamily buildings it’s assumed that only gas is provided to the dryer and oven in the mixed fuel home. It is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric new construction homes. There are no incremental electrical site infrastructure requirements. In-house gas infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a gas line from the meter to the appliance location is $200 per appliance for single family and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The cost estimate includes providing gas to the water heater, furnace, dryer and cooktop. Site gas infrastructure: The cost-effective analysis components with the highest degree of variability are the costs for on-site gas infrastructure. These costs can be project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The typical infrastructure costs for single family homes presented in Table 6 are based on cost data provided by PG&E and reflect those for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area requiring the installation of natural gas infrastructure, including a main line. Infrastructure costs for infill development can also be highly variable and may be higher than in an undeveloped area. The additional costs associated with disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures can be significant. Total typical costs in Table 6 assume $10,000 for extension of a gas main, $1,686 for a service lateral, and $150 for the meter. Utility Gas Main Extensions rules15 specify that the developer has the option to only pay 50% of the total cost for a main extension after subtraction of allowances for installation of gas appliances. This 50% refund and the appliance allowance deductions are accounted for in the site gas infrastructure costs under the On-Bill cost- effectiveness methodology. The net costs to the utility after partial reimbursement from the developer are included in utility ratebase and recovered via rates to all customers. The total cost of $5,750 presented in Table 6 reflects a 50% refund on the $10,000 extension and appliance deductions of $1,086 for a furnace, water heater, cooktop, and dryer. Under the On-Bill methodology this analysis assumes this developer option will remain available through 2022 and that the cost savings are passed along to the customer. The 50% refund and appliance deductions were not applied to the site gas infrastructure costs under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Code technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology. 15 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 18 2019-08-01 Less information was available for the costs associated with gas infrastructure for low-rise multifamily development. The typical cost in Table 6 for the On-Bill methodology is based on TRC’s City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018). These costs, provided by the City of Palo Alto, are approximately $25,100 for an 8-unit new construction building and reflect connection to an existing main for infill development. Specific costs include plan review, connection charges, meter and manifold, plumbing distribution, and street cut fees. While these costs are specifically based on infill development and from one municipal utility, the estimates are less than those provided by PG&E reflecting the average cost differences charged to the developer between single family and multifamily in an undeveloped area (after accounting for deductions per the Gas Main Extensions rule). To convert costs charged to the developer to account for the full infrastructure upgrade cost (costs applied in the TDV methodology analysis), a factor of 2.0616 was calculated based on the single family analysis. This same factor was applied to the multifamily cost of $3,140 to arrive at $6,463 (see Table 6). 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on outputs from the CBECC-Res simulation software. Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year. CBECC-Res applies two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through 16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and all- electric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per square foot of conditioned floor area. 3 Results The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for both single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new low-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements. This analysis covered all sixteen climate zones and evaluated two efficiency packages, including a non- preempted package and a preempted package that includes upgrades to federally regulated equipment, an Efficiency & PV Package for the all-electric scenario only, and an Efficiency & PV/Battery Package. For the efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost-effective based on one of the two metrics applied in this study, TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost-effectiveness approach. Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code compliance in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and rounding down to the next half of a whole number. Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package are defined based on the lower of the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package and the equipment, preempted package. For example, if for a particular case the cost-effective non-preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. 16 This factor includes the elimination of the 50% refund for the main extension and adding back in the appliance allowance deductions. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 19 2019-08-01 For a package to qualify, a minimum EDR Margin of 0.5 was required. This is to say that a package that only achieved an EDR Margin of 0.4, for example, was not considered. An EDR Margin less than 0.5 generally corresponds to a compliance margin lower than 5% and was considered too small to ensure repeatable results. In certain cases, the Reach Code Team did not identify a cost-effective package that achieved the minimum EDR Margin of 0.5. Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package: • Reduced infiltration • Improved fenestration • Improved cool roofs • High performance attics • Slab insulation • Reduced duct leakage • Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space • Low pressure-drop distribution system • Compact hot water distribution system, basic and expanded • High efficiency furnace, air conditioner & heat pump (preempted) • High efficiency tankless water heater & heat pump water heater (preempted) 3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing The approach to determining the size of the PV and battery systems varied based on each package and the source fuel. Table 7 describes the PV and battery sizing approaches applied to each of the four packages. For the Efficiency Non-preempted and Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted packages a different method was applied to each the two fuel scenarios. In all mixed fuel cases, the PV was sized to offset 100% of the estimated electrical load and any electricity savings from efficiency measures were traded off with a smaller PV system. Not downsizing the PV system after adding efficiency measures runs the risk of producing more electricity than is consumed, reducing cost-effectiveness and violating NEM rules. While the impact of this in most cases is minor, analysis confirmed that cost-effectiveness improved when reducing the system size to offset 100% of the electricity usage as opposed to keeping the PV system the same size as the Standard Design. In the all-electric Efficiency cases, the PV system size was left to match the Standard Design (Std Design PV), and the inclusion of energy efficiency measures was not traded off with a reduced capacity PV system. Because the PV system is sized to meet the electricity load of a mixed fuel home, it is cost-effective to keep the PV system the same size and offset a greater percentage of the electrical load. For the Efficiency & PV case on the all-electric home, the Reach Code Team evaluated PV system sizing to offset 100%, 90% and 80% of the total calculated electricity use. Of these three, sizing to 90% proved to be the most cost-effective based on customer utility bills. This is a result of the impact of the annual minimum bill which is around $120 across all the utilities. The “sweet spot” is a PV system that reduces electricity bills just enough to match the annual minimum bill; increasing the PV size beyond this adds first cost but does not result in utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 20 2019-08-01 Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type Package Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency (Envelope & Equipment) PV Scaled @ 100% electricity Std Design PV Efficiency & PV n/a PV Scaled @ 90% Efficiency & PV/Battery PV Scaled @ 100% electricity 5kWh / SF home 2.75kWh/ MF apt PV Scaled @ 100% 5kWh / SF home 2.75kWh/ MF apt A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate battery and PV capacity for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Packages using the 1-story 2,100 square foot prototype in Climate Zone 12. Results are shown in Figure 2. The current version of CBECC-Res requires a minimum battery size of 5 kWh to qualify for the self- utilization credit. CBECC-Res allows for PV oversizing up to 160% of the building’s estimated electricity load when battery storage systems are installed; however, the Reach Code Team considered this high, potentially problematic from a grid perspective, and likely not acceptable to the utilities or customers. The Reach Code Team compared cost-effectiveness of 5kWh and 7.5kWh battery systems as well as of PV systems sized to offset 90%, 100%, or 120% of the estimated electrical load. Results show that from an on-bill perspective a smaller battery size is more cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis also showed that increasing the PV capacity from 90% to 120% of the electricity use reduced cost- effectiveness. From the TDV perspective there was little difference in results across all the scenarios, with the larger battery size being marginally more cost-effective. Based on these results, the Reach Code Team applied to the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package a 5kWh battery system for single family homes with PV sized to offset 100% of the electricity load. Even though PV scaled to 90% was the most cost-effective, sizing was increased to 100% to evaluate greater generation beyond the Efficiency & PV Package and to achieve zero net electricity. These results also show that in isolation, the inclusion of a battery system reduces cost-effectiveness compared to the same size PV system without batteries. For multifamily buildings the battery capacity was scaled to reflect the average ratio of battery size to PV system capacity (kWh/kW) for the single family Efficiency & PV Package. This resulted in a 22kWh battery for the multifamily building, or 2.75kWh per apartment. Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing On-Bill = 1.9 (TDV = 1.84) On-Bill = 1.49 (TDV = 1.9) On-Bill = 1.37 (TDV = 1.88) On-Bill = 1.35 (TDV = 1.91) On-Bill = 1.23 (TDV = 1.9) On-Bill = 1.14 (TDV = 1.87) On-Bill = 1.04 (TDV = 1.88) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 21 2019-08-01 3.2 Single Family Results Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all-electric results are relative to an all-electric code compliant basecase. Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non-preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all-electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all-electric non- preempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7. For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0 and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all-electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR. Additional results details can be found in Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 22 2019-08-01 Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$1,355 +$1,280 +$5,311 +$7,642 +$2,108 +$18,192 +$24,770 CZ02 +$1,504 +$724 +$5,393 +$3,943 +$2,108 +$12,106 +$18,132 CZ03 +$1,552 +$1,448 +$5,438 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,517 +$14,380 CZ04 +$1,556 +$758 +$5,434 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,786 +$14,664 CZ05 +$1,571 +$772 +$5,433 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,307 +$14,047 CZ06 +$1,003 +$581 +$4,889 +$926 +$846 +$6,341 +$12,036 CZ07 n/a +$606 +$4,028 n/a +$846 +$4,436 +$9,936 CZ08 +$581 +$586 +$4,466 +$926 +$412 +$5,373 +$11,016 CZ09 +$912 +$574 +$4,785 +$1,180 +$846 +$5,778 +$11,454 CZ10 +$1,648 +$593 +$5,522 +$1,773 +$949 +$6,405 +$12,129 CZ11 +$3,143 +$1,222 +$7,026 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$10,827 +$17,077 CZ12 +$1,679 +$654 +$5,568 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$11,520 +$17,586 CZ13 +$3,060 +$611 +$6,954 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,532 +$16,806 CZ14 +$1,662 +$799 +$5,526 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,459 +$16,394 CZ15 +$2,179 -($936) +$6,043 +$4,612 +$2,108 +$5,085 +$11,382 CZ16 +$3,542 +$2,441 +$7,399 +$5,731 +$2,108 +$16,582 +$22,838 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 23 2019-08-01 Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 5.3 3.4 2.8 6.9 4.9 4.1 5.0 10.6 0.9 1.6 10.5 02 PG&E 3.3 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 10.1 0.5 1.6 10.0 03 PG&E 3.0 1.3 1.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 10.0 0.4 1.4 10.0 04 PG&E 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.5 10.0 05 PG&E 2.7 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.4 1.3 9.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 2.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.3 1.3 9.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 9.8 0.8 1.3 9.5 07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.1 1.3 9.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 0.9 1.3 8.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.6 0.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.7 2.5 8.8 1.0 1.5 8.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 9.6 1.0 1.5 9.5 10 SDG&E 3.2 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.0 9.6 0.6 1.5 9.5 11 PG&E 4.3 0.8 1.2 5.1 2.5 3.7 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.5 9.0 12 PG&E 3.5 1.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 4.6 3.0 9.6 0.4 1.7 9.5 13 PG&E 4.6 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.3 8.4 4.5 9.7 0.4 1.6 9.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.0 1.6 2.5 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.3 1.7 9.0 14 SDG&E 5.0 1.9 2.5 5.8 4.9 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.2 1.7 9.0 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 >1 >1 4.5 7.1 1.1 1.5 7.0 16 PG&E 5.4 1.6 1.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 5.0 10.5 0.9 1.4 10.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 24 2019-08-01 Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 15.2 1.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 2.7 6.5 31.4 1.8 1.5 31.0 41.2 1.4 1.4 41.0 02 PG&E 4.9 1.2 1.1 5.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 19.4 1.8 1.4 19.0 30.1 1.4 1.4 30.0 03 PG&E 4.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 1.8 1.6 4.0 18.5 2.2 1.7 18.0 29.3 1.5 1.6 29.0 04 PG&E 3.4 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 17.2 2.1 1.6 17.0 28.6 1.5 1.6 28.5 05 PG&E 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.5 06 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 14.3 1.2 1.5 14.0 26.1 1.2 1.4 26.0 07 SDG&E 0.0 - - 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 11.3 1.9 1.5 11.0 24.2 1.3 1.5 24.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 10.9 1.0 1.5 10.5 21.6 1.1 1.4 21.5 09 SCE/SoCalGas 2.8 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.2 2.5 11.5 1.1 1.6 11.5 21.3 1.1 1.5 21.0 10 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.9 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.1 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.1 1.5 21.0 10 SDG&E 3.1 1.1 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.7 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.4 1.5 21.0 11 PG&E 4.6 1.2 1.5 5.9 3.0 3.3 4.5 14.2 1.8 1.6 14.0 23.2 1.5 1.6 23.0 12 PG&E 3.8 0.8 1.1 5.1 2.0 2.5 3.5 15.7 1.7 1.4 15.5 25.4 1.3 1.5 25.0 13 PG&E 5.1 1.1 1.4 6.0 2.9 3.3 5.0 13.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 22.5 1.4 1.5 22.0 14 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.0 1.5 6.0 2.3 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.2 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.4 1.6 23.5 14 SDG&E 5.6 1.3 1.5 6.0 2.9 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.8 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.7 1.6 23.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.1 1.6 7.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 13.5 1.2 1.5 13.0 16 PG&E 9.7 1.7 1.7 4.9 2.4 2.3 4.5 27.0 2.1 1.6 26.5 35.4 1.7 1.5 35.0 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 25 2019-08-01 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 26 2019-08-01 3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions Figure 5 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric single family 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard Design mixed fuel emissions range from 1.3 (CZ 7) to 3.3 (CZ 16) lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric Standard Design emissions range from 0.7 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces GHG emissions by 20% on average to between 1.0 and 1.8 lbs CO2e/ft2, with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 16. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 65% on average to 0.8 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less. None of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions. Because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res, there is always some amount of GHG impacts with using electricity from the grid. Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison 3.3 Multifamily Results Table 11 through Table 13 contain cost effectiveness findings for the multifamily packages. Table 11 summarizes the package costs for all the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. Table 12 and Table 13 present the B/C ratios for all the packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. All the packages are cost-effective based on TDV except Climate Zone 3 for the all-electric cases where no cost-effective combination of non- preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. It is generally more challenging to achieve equivalent savings targets cost-effectively for the multifamily cases than for the single family cases. With less exterior surface area per floor area the impact of envelope measures 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 27 2019-08-01 is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied. Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and 16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all-electric case, no cost-effective non- preempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16. For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5 across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all-electric case. Additional results details can be found in Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 28 2019-08-01 Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Dwelling Unit Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$960 +$507 +$3,094 +$949 +$795 +$5,538 +$8,919 CZ02 +$309 +$497 +$2,413 +$361 +$795 +$3,711 +$6,833 CZ03 +$175 +$403 +$2,279 n/a +$795 +$3,272 +$6,344 CZ04 +$329 +$351 +$2,429 +$361 +$795 +$3,158 +$6,201 CZ05 +$180 +$358 +$2,273 +$247 +$795 +$3,293 +$6,314 CZ06 +$190 +$213 +$2,294 +$231 +$361 +$2,580 +$5,590 CZ07 +$90 +$366 +$2,188 +$202 +$361 +$2,261 +$5,203 CZ08 +$250 +$213 +$2,353 +$231 +$361 +$2,240 +$5,249 CZ09 +$136 +$274 +$2,234 +$231 +$361 +$2,232 +$5,236 CZ10 +$278 +$250 +$2,376 +$361 +$361 +$2,371 +$5,395 CZ11 +$850 +$317 +$2,950 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,601 +$6,759 CZ12 +$291 +$434 +$2,394 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,835 +$6,943 CZ13 +$831 +$290 +$2,936 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,462 +$6,650 CZ14 +$874 +$347 +$2,957 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,356 +$6,380 CZ15 +$510 -($157) +$2,604 +$1,011 +$1,954 +$1,826 +$5,020 CZ16 +$937 +$453 +$3,028 +$843 +$795 +$4,423 +$7,533 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 29 2019-08-01 Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target Efficiency EDR Margin Target Total EDR Margin Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 3.4 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.0 11.5 0.4 1.2 11.5 02 PG&E 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 10.9 0.2 1.6 10.5 03 PG&E 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 10.3 0.1 1.4 10.0 04 PG&E 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 11.2 0.2 1.6 11.0 05 PG&E 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.2 1.4 9.5 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.1 1.4 9.5 06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 10.7 0.6 1.4 10.5 07 SDG&E 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 11.0 0.0 1.4 11.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 9.9 0.7 1.3 9.5 09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.5 9.7 0.9 1.5 9.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 10.4 1.0 1.6 10.0 10 SDG&E 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.5 10.4 0.2 1.6 10.0 11 PG&E 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5 10.5 0.4 1.6 10.5 12 PG&E 1.9 1.1 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 1.5 10.3 0.3 1.7 10.0 13 PG&E 3.1 0.6 1.3 3.4 2.0 3.8 3.0 10.7 0.4 1.6 10.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.7 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 9.6 1.1 1.4 9.5 14 SDG&E 3.1 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 1.4 9.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.2 1.4 2.3 4.4 >1 >1 4.0 8.8 1.3 1.7 8.5 16 PG&E 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 9.9 0.5 1.3 9.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 30 2019-08-01 Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2 CZ Utility Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Efficiency EDR Margin Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Total EDR Margin Total EDR Margin On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Target Total EDR Margin 01 PG&E 3.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 22.5 2.0 1.5 22.5 34.5 1.3 1.4 34.5 02 PG&E 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 17.5 2.4 1.8 17.5 30.9 1.4 1.7 30.5 03 PG&E 0.0 - - 2.7 1.7 1.6 0.0 16.1 2.4 1.7 16.0 29.5 1.3 1.6 29.5 04 PG&E 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 15.0 2.4 1.8 15.0 28.9 1.3 1.8 28.5 05 PG&E 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 13.8 1.2 1.7 13.5 27.5 1.2 1.6 27.5 07 SDG&E 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 12.8 2.1 1.8 12.5 27.1 1.2 1.6 27.0 08 SCE/SoCalGas 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 11.6 1.3 1.8 11.5 24.2 1.2 1.6 24.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 11.3 1.3 1.9 11.0 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0 10 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5 10.8 1.3 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.0 10 SDG&E 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 2.1 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.4 1.7 23.0 11 PG&E 3.5 1.4 1.6 3.9 2.0 2.3 3.5 13.4 2.2 1.8 13.0 25.3 1.4 1.8 25.0 12 PG&E 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 14.4 2.1 1.6 14.0 26.6 1.3 1.7 26.5 13 PG&E 3.3 1.3 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.3 3.0 12.2 2.1 1.7 12.0 23.9 1.4 1.7 23.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 3.7 1.2 1.6 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.5 14.0 1.4 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.4 1.8 24.5 14 SDG&E 3.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.2 3.5 14.0 2.2 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.7 1.8 24.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas 4.4 1.5 2.3 6.4 1.2 1.7 4.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 7.0 16.9 1.3 1.8 16.5 16 PG&E 4.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 19.6 2.6 1.9 19.5 29.9 1.6 1.7 29.5 1“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 31 2019-08-01 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages) 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 32 2019-08-01 3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions Figure 8 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric multifamily 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard design mixed fuel emissions range from 2.0 to 3.0 lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric standard design emissions range from 1.2 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 17% on average to between 1.7 and 2.2 lbs CO2e/ft2, except Climate Zone 16. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 64% on average to 0.6 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less with the exception of Climate Zones 14, 15 and 16. As in the single family case, none of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res. Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison 3.4 Electrification Results Cost-effectiveness results comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases are summarized below. The tables show average annual utility bill impacts and lifetime utility bill impacts, which account for fuel escalation for electricity and natural gas (see Section 2.5), lifetime equipment cost savings, and both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness (B/C ratio). Positive utility bill values indicate lower utility costs for the all-electric home relative to the mixed fuel case while negative values in red and parenthesis indicate higher utility costs for the all-electric case. Lifetime equipment cost savings include savings due to eliminating natural gas infrastructure and replacement costs for appliances based on equipment life. Positive values for the lifetime equipment cost savings indicate lower installed costs for the all-electric and negative values indicate higher costs. B/C ratios 1.0 or greater indicate positive cost-effectiveness. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as “>1” refer to instances where there was incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 33 2019-08-01 Three scenarios were evaluated: 1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. 2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90% of the annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV packages described above. 3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home. 3.4.1 Single Family Table 14, Table 15, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 present results of cost-effectiveness analysis for electrification of single family buildings, according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. Based on typical cost assumptions arrived at for this analysis, the lifetime equipment costs for the single family code compliant all-electric option are approximately $5,350 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option. Cost savings are entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure, which was assumed to be a savings of $5,750. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are twice as much. Under the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, the incremental cost of the efficiency and PV is typically more than the cost savings seen in the code compliant case, which results in a net cost increase in most climate zones for the all-electric case. In climates with small heating loads (7 and 15) there continues to be an incremental cost savings for the all-electric home. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates except 1 and 16 for single family. Utility impacts differ by climate zone and utility, but utility costs for the code compliant all-electric option are typically higher than for the compliant mixed fuel design. There are utility cost savings across all climates zones and building types for the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package, resulting in a more cost-effective option. The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for single family homes in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. The code compliant option is cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 1 and 16. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 6 through 10. The Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. In many cases it is cost-effective immediately with lower equipment and utility costs. The last set of results in Table 14 shows the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 16. For these three cases the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 15 and show that an additional 1.6kW in Climate Zone 1 results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. For Climate Zone 14 and 16 adding 0.25kW and 1.2kW, respectively, results in a B/C ratio of 1.2. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. 3.4.2 Multifamily Multifamily results are found in Table 16, Table 17, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. Lifetime costs for the multifamily code compliant all-electric option are approximately $2,300 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option, entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 34 2019-08-01 the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are approximately 2.5 times higher. With the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, due to the added cost of the efficiency and PV there is a net cost increase for the all-electric case in all climate zones for except 7, 8, 9, and 15. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates. Like the single family results, utility costs are typically higher for the code compliant all-electric option but lower than the code compliant mixed fuel option with the Efficiency & PV Package. The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for multifamily in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 and 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. Based on the TDV methodology, the code compliant option for multifamily is cost-effective for all climate zones. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 8 and 9. Like the single family cases, the Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The last set of results in Table 16 show the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zone 1. For this case the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 17 and show that an additional 0.3kW per apartment results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio 2019 Code Compliant Home 01 PG&E -($1,194) +$712 -($482) -($14,464) +$5,349 0.4 -($13,081) +$11,872 0.9 02 PG&E -($825) +$486 -($340) -($10,194) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,456) +$11,872 1.6 03 PG&E -($717) +$391 -($326) -($9,779) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,766) +$11,872 1.5 04 PG&E -($710) +$387 -($322) -($9,671) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,447) +$11,872 1.6 05 PG&E -($738) +$367 -($371) -($11,128) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($738) +$370 -($368) -($11,034) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($439) +$289 -($149) -($4,476) +$5,349 1.2 -($4,826) +$11,872 2.5 07 SDG&E -($414) +$243 -($171) -($5,134) +$5,349 1.0 -($4,678) +$11,872 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($347) +$249 -($97) -($2,921) +$5,349 1.8 -($3,971) +$11,872 3.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($377) +$271 -($107) -($3,199) +$5,349 1.7 -($4,089) +$11,872 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($403) +$280 -($123) -($3,684) +$5,349 1.5 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 10 SDG&E -($496) +$297 -($198) -($5,950) +$5,349 0.9 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 11 PG&E -($810) +$447 -($364) -($10,917) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,024) +$11,872 1.7 12 PG&E -($740) +$456 -($284) -($8,533) +$5,349 0.6 -($6,281) +$11,872 1.9 13 PG&E -($742) +$413 -($329) -($9,870) +$5,349 0.5 -($6,480) +$11,872 1.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($661) +$413 -($248) -($7,454) +$5,349 0.7 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 14 SDG&E -($765) +$469 -($296) -($8,868) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($297) +$194 -($103) -($3,090) +$5,349 1.7 -($5,364) +$11,872 2.2 16 PG&E -($1,287) +$712 -($575) -($17,250) +$5,349 0.3 -($17,391) +$11,872 0.7 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 35 2019-08-01 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio Efficiency & PV Package 01 PG&E -($99) +$712 +$613 +$18,398 -($12,844) 1.4 +$13,364 -($6,321) 2.1 02 PG&E -($89) +$486 +$397 +$11,910 -($6,758) 1.8 +$9,307 -($234) 39.7 03 PG&E -($87) +$391 +$304 +$9,119 -($3,169) 2.9 +$6,516 +$3,355 >1 04 PG&E -($85) +$387 +$302 +$9,074 -($3,438) 2.6 +$6,804 +$3,086 >1 05 PG&E -($98) +$367 +$268 +$8,054 -($2,959) 2.7 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($98) +$370 +$272 +$8,148 -($2,959) 2.8 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($188) +$289 +$102 +$3,049 -($992) 3.1 +$4,585 +$5,531 >1 07 SDG&E -($137) +$243 +$106 +$3,174 +$912 >1 +$2,176 +$7,436 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($160) +$249 +$89 +$2,664 -($25) 107.9 +$3,965 +$6,499 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$271 +$102 +$3,067 -($429) 7.1 +$5,368 +$6,094 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($173) +$280 +$107 +$3,216 -($1,057) 3.0 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 10 SDG&E -($137) +$297 +$160 +$4,805 -($1,057) 4.5 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 11 PG&E -($147) +$447 +$300 +$8,988 -($5,478) 1.6 +$9,776 +$1,045 >1 12 PG&E -($92) +$456 +$364 +$10,918 -($6,172) 1.8 +$9,913 +$352 >1 13 PG&E -($144) +$413 +$269 +$8,077 -($5,184) 1.6 +$8,960 +$1,339 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($241) +$413 +$172 +$5,164 -($5,111) 1.0 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 14 SDG&E -($139) +$469 +$330 +$9,910 -($5,111) 1.9 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($107) +$194 +$87 +$2,603 +$264 >1 +$2,598 +$6,787 >1 16 PG&E -($130) +$712 +$582 +$17,457 -($11,234) 1.6 +$9,536 -($4,710) 2.0 Neutral Cost Package 01 PG&E -($869) +$712 -($157) -($4,704) +$0 0 -($6,033) +$6,549 1.1 02 PG&E -($445) +$486 +$40 +$1,213 +$0 >1 +$868 +$6,505 >1 03 PG&E -($335) +$391 +$56 +$1,671 +$0 >1 +$483 +$6,520 >1 04 PG&E -($321) +$387 +$66 +$1,984 +$0 >1 +$1,062 +$6,521 >1 05 PG&E -($335) +$367 +$31 +$938 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($335) +$370 +$34 +$1,031 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($227) +$289 +$63 +$1,886 +$0 >1 +$3,258 +$6,499 >1 07 SDG&E -($72) +$243 +$171 +$5,132 +$0 >1 +$3,741 +$6,519 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($144) +$249 +$105 +$3,162 +$0 >1 +$4,252 +$6,515 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($170) +$271 +$100 +$3,014 +$0 >1 +$4,271 +$6,513 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($199) +$280 +$81 +$2,440 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 10 SDG&E -($155) +$297 +$143 +$4,287 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 11 PG&E -($426) +$447 +$21 +$630 +$0 >1 +$1,623 +$6,504 >1 12 PG&E -($362) +$456 +$94 +$2,828 +$0 >1 +$2,196 +$6,525 >1 13 PG&E -($370) +$413 +$43 +$1,280 +$0 >1 +$1,677 +$6,509 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($416) +$413 -($4) -($107) +$0 0 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 14 SDG&E -($391) +$469 +$79 +$2,356 +$0 >1 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($98) +$194 +$97 +$2,900 +$0 >1 +$2,456 +$6,483 >1 16 PG&E -($878) +$712 -($166) -($4,969) +$0 0 -($8,805) +$6,529 0.7 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 36 2019-08-01 Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV CZ Utility Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 4.7 -($4,704) +$0 0 6.3 +$6,898 -($6,372) 1.1 14 SCE/SoCalGas 4.5 -($107) +$0 0 4.8 +$1,238 -($1,000) 1.2 16 PG&E 4.1 -($4,969) +$0 0 5.3 +$5,883 -($4,753) 1.2 Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 37 2019-08-01 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 38 2019-08-01 Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results (Per Dwelling Unit) On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio 2019 Code Compliant Home 01 PG&E -($396) +$193 -($203) -($6,079) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,838) +$5,899 1.0 02 PG&E -($310) +$162 -($148) -($4,450) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,144) +$5,899 1.4 03 PG&E -($277) +$142 -($135) -($4,041) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,035) +$5,899 1.5 04 PG&E -($264) +$144 -($120) -($3,595) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,329) +$5,899 1.8 05 PG&E -($297) +$140 -($157) -($4,703) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($297) +$178 -($119) -($3,573) +$2,337 0.7 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($191) +$161 -($30) -($902) +$2,337 2.6 -($2,477) +$5,899 2.4 07 SDG&E -($206) +$136 -($70) -($2,094) +$2,337 1.1 -($2,390) +$5,899 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$157 -($12) -($349) +$2,337 6.7 -($2,211) +$5,899 2.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($177) +$159 -($18) -($533) +$2,337 4.4 -($2,315) +$5,899 2.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($183) +$159 -($23) -($697) +$2,337 3.4 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 10 SDG&E -($245) +$139 -($106) -($3,192) +$2,337 0.7 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 11 PG&E -($291) +$153 -($138) -($4,149) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,420) +$5,899 1.3 12 PG&E -($277) +$155 -($122) -($3,665) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,557) +$5,899 1.7 13 PG&E -($270) +$146 -($124) -($3,707) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,821) +$5,899 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($255) +$187 -($69) -($2,062) +$2,337 1.1 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 14 SDG&E -($328) +$175 -($154) -($4,607) +$2,337 0.5 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($154) +$142 -($12) -($367) +$2,337 6.4 -($2,509) +$5,899 2.4 16 PG&E -($404) +$224 -($180) -($5,411) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,719) +$5,899 1.0 Efficiency & PV Package 01 PG&E -($19) +$193 +$174 +$5,230 -($3,202) 1.6 +$2,467 +$361 >1 02 PG&E -($10) +$162 +$152 +$4,549 -($1,375) 3.3 +$2,605 +$2,187 >1 03 PG&E -($12) +$142 +$130 +$3,910 -($936) 4.2 +$1,632 +$2,626 >1 04 PG&E -($8) +$144 +$136 +$4,080 -($822) 5.0 +$2,381 +$2,740 >1 05 PG&E -($19) +$140 +$121 +$3,635 -($956) 3.8 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($19) +$178 +$159 +$4,765 -($956) 5.0 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($84) +$161 +$77 +$2,309 -($243) 9.5 +$1,940 +$3,319 >1 07 SDG&E -($49) +$136 +$87 +$2,611 +$75 >1 +$1,583 +$3,638 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($74) +$157 +$83 +$2,480 +$96 >1 +$1,772 +$3,658 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($76) +$159 +$82 +$2,469 +$104 >1 +$1,939 +$3,667 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($79) +$159 +$80 +$2,411 -($34) 70.9 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 10 SDG&E -($77) +$139 +$61 +$1,842 -($34) 54.2 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 11 PG&E -($25) +$153 +$128 +$3,834 -($1,264) 3.0 +$2,080 +$2,298 >1 12 PG&E -($11) +$155 +$144 +$4,316 -($1,498) 2.9 +$2,759 +$2,064 >1 13 PG&E -($26) +$146 +$121 +$3,625 -($1,125) 3.2 +$2,083 +$2,437 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($99) +$187 +$87 +$2,616 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 14 SDG&E -($86) +$175 +$88 +$2,647 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$142 +$75 +$2,247 +$511 >1 +$1,276 +$4,073 >1 16 PG&E -($24) +$224 +$200 +$5,992 -($2,087) 2.9 +$2,629 +$1,476 >1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 39 2019-08-01 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness CZ Utility Average Annual Utility Bill Savings Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV Electricity Natural Gas Net Utility Savings Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio2 TDV Cost Savings Equipment Cost Savings TDV B/C Ratio Neutral Cost Package 01 PG&E -($228) +$193 -($35) -($1,057) +$0 0 -($2,267) +$3,564 1.6 02 PG&E -($115) +$162 +$47 +$1,399 +$0 >1 +$59 +$3,563 >1 03 PG&E -($81) +$142 +$61 +$1,843 +$0 >1 +$138 +$3,562 >1 04 PG&E -($64) +$144 +$80 +$2,402 +$0 >1 +$983 +$3,563 >1 05 PG&E -($90) +$140 +$50 +$1,490 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($90) +$178 +$87 +$2,620 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($90) +$161 +$71 +$2,144 +$0 >1 +$1,612 +$3,562 >1 07 SDG&E -($32) +$136 +$105 +$3,135 +$0 >1 +$1,886 +$3,560 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$157 +$90 +$2,705 +$0 >1 +$1,955 +$3,564 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($71) +$159 +$87 +$2,623 +$0 >1 +$1,924 +$3,561 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($78) +$159 +$81 +$2,431 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 10 SDG&E -($71) +$139 +$68 +$2,033 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 11 PG&E -($93) +$153 +$59 +$1,783 +$0 >1 -($48) +$3,562 74.0 12 PG&E -($82) +$155 +$73 +$2,184 +$0 >1 +$739 +$3,564 >1 13 PG&E -($79) +$146 +$68 +$2,034 +$0 >1 +$310 +$3,560 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($141) +$187 +$45 +$1,359 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 14 SDG&E -($137) +$175 +$38 +$1,131 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($50) +$142 +$92 +$2,771 +$0 >1 +$1,738 +$3,560 >1 16 PG&E -($194) +$224 +$30 +$900 +$0 >1 -($1,382) +$3,564 2.6 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2“>1” indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV (Per Dwelling Unit) CZ Utility Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio PV Capacity (kW) Utility Bill Savings Equipment Cost Savings On-Bill B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 2.7 -($1,057) +$0 0 3.0 +$1,198 -($1,052) 1.1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 40 2019-08-01 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 41 2019-08-01 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home 4 Conclusions & Summary This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of “above code” performance specifications through the application of efficiency measures, PV, and electric battery storage in all 16 California climate zones. The analysis found cost-effective packages across the state for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings. For the building types and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost. While all the above code targets presented are based on packages that are cost-effective under at least one of these metrics, they are not all cost-effective under both metrics. Generally, the test for being cost-effective under the TDV methodology is less challenging than under the On-Bill methodology. Therefore, all packages presented are cost-effective based on TDV, and may or may not be cost-effective based on the On-Bill method. It is up to each jurisdiction to determine what metric is most appropriate for their application. A summary of results by climate zone are presented in Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone. Above code targets are presented as Target EDR Margin, which have been defined for each scenario where a cost-effective package was identified. Target EDR Margins represent the maximum “reach” values that meet the requirements. Jurisdictions may adopt less stringent requirements. For the Efficiency Package the Target EDR Margin was defined based on the lower EDR Margin of the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package and the Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package. For example, if the cost-effective Non-Preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the Preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. The average incremental cost for the single family Efficiency packages is ~$1,750. The Efficiency & PV Package average incremental cost is $9,180 and for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package it is approximately $5,600 for the 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 42 2019-08-01 mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all-electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case. Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases labeled as “n/a” in the tables indicate where no cost-effective package was identified under either On-Bill or TDV methodology. This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all-electric design reduces GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design. There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant all- electric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all-electric single family home this analysis found that from a customer on-bill perspective, the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective based on TDV. Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all-electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases. The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the all- electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on-bill B/C ratio in all cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on-bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in oversizing of PV systems. Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space conditioning and water heating equipment in the all-electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the individual mixed fuel and all-electric upgrades it’s expected that applying similar packages to the electrification analysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness. The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas infrastructure. Costs are project-dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than the estimates presented here. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 43 2019-08-01 Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery 01 5.0 10.5 6.5 31.0 41.0 02 3.0 10.0 4.5 19.0 30.0 03 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 29.0 04 2.5 10.0 3.0 17.0 28.5 05 2.5 9.0 4.0 18.0 28.5 06 1.5 9.5 2.0 14.0 26.0 07 n/a 9.0 n/a 11.0 24.0 08 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.5 21.5 09 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0 10 3.0 9.5 3.0 11.0 21.0 11 4.0 9.0 4.5 14.0 23.0 12 3.0 9.5 3.5 15.5 25.0 13 4.5 9.5 5.0 13.0 22.0 14 4.5 9.0 5.5 15.5 23.5 15 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 13.0 16 5.0 10.5 4.5 26.5 35.0 Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins Climate Zone Mixed Fuel All-Electric Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery 01 2.0 11.5 3.0 22.5 34.5 02 1.5 10.5 1.5 17.5 30.5 03 0.5 10.0 n/a 16.0 29.5 04 1.0 11.0 1.0 15.0 28.5 05 0.5 9.5 0.5 17.0 30.0 06 1.0 10.5 1.0 13.5 27.5 07 0.5 11.0 0.5 12.5 27.0 08 1.0 9.5 1.0 11.5 24.0 09 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0 10 1.5 10.0 1.5 10.5 23.0 11 2.5 10.5 3.5 13.0 25.0 12 1.5 10.0 2.5 14.0 26.5 13 3.0 10.5 3.0 12.0 23.5 14 3.0 9.5 3.5 14.0 24.5 15 4.0 8.5 4.0 7.0 16.5 16 2.0 9.5 3.0 19.5 29.5 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 44 2019-08-01 5 References California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2018- 023-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC- 400-2018-023/CEC-400-2018-023-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018c. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018d. 2019 Residential Compliance Manual. CEC-400-2018-017-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-017/CEC-400- 2018-017-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC- 400-2019-005-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. 2016. Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities. Proposed Decision of Commissioner Guzman Aceves. April 07, 2017. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M183/K389/183389022.PDF Davis Energy Group. 2015. Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 2015. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/evaluation-ducts-conditioned- space-new-california-homes Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf EPRI. 2016. SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study: Summary for the Three-Prong Test Discussion. Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. September. 2016. Presentation to Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/ Itron. 2014. 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report. Itron. May 2014. Presented to California Public Utilities Commission. Barbose, Galen and Darghouth, Naim. 2018. Tracking the Sun. Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 2018. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracking_the_sun_2018_edition_final_0.pdf Navigant. 2018. Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future. July 24, 2018. Prepared for Southern California Gas Company. https://www.socalgas.com/1443741887279/SoCalGas_Renewable_Gas_Final-Report.pdf 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 45 2019-08-01 Penn, Ivan. 2018. Cheaper Battery Is Unveiled as a Step to a Carbon-Free Grid. The New York Times. September 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/business/energy-environment/zinc-battery-solar-power.html. Accessed January 29, 2019. Statewide CASE Team. 2017a. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Drain Water Heat Recovery – Final Report. July 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_DWHR_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017b. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Attics – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPA_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017c. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative High Performance Walls – Final Report. September 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE- Report_HPW_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2017d. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative Residential High Performance Windows & Doors – Final Report. August 2017. http://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. 2018. Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. May 2018. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy- savings-potential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2016. CALGreen Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. November 2016. http://localenergycodes.com/download/50/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Tiers%201-2%20Cost- Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017a. CALGreen All-Electric Cost-Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Davis Energy Group. October 2017. http://localenergycodes.com/download/276/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20All-Electric%20Cost- Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2017b. 2016 Title 24 Residential Reach Code Recommendations: Cost- effectiveness Analysis for All California Climate Zones. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC Energy Services. August 2017. http://localenergycodes.com/download/283/file_path/fieldList/2016%20RNC%20Reach%20Code%20Tier%203 %20Cost-Eff%20Report Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2018. PV + Battery Storage Study. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by EnergySoft. July, 2018. http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report Hopkins, Asa, Takahashi, Kenji, Glick, Devi, Whited, Melissa. 2018. Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings. Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. October 2018. http://www.synapse- energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf TRC. 2018. City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis Draft. September 2018. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 46 2019-08-01 Appendix A – California Climate Zone Map Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission17) 17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 47 2019-08-01 Appendix B – Utility Tariff Details PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 SCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 51 SoCalGas ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 SDG&E ........................................................................................................................................................... 54 Escalation Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 56 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 48 2019-08-01 PG&E The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 T CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ11 R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January 2019 according to the rates shown below. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 49 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 50 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 51 2019-08-01 SCE The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 21 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 15 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 52 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 53 2019-08-01 SoCalGas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ05 2 CZ06 1 CZ08 1 CZ09 1 CZ10 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 54 2019-08-01 SDG&E Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 55 2019-08-01 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 56 2019-08-01 Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and are from E3’s 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). These rates are applied to the 2019 rate schedules over a thirty-year period beginning in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study. The Reach Code Team reviewed SDG&E’s GRC filing and applied the same approach that E3 applied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Electric Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Natural Gas Residential Core Rate (%/yr escalation, real) PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 57 2019-08-01 Appendix C – Single Family Detailed Results Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted CZ Utility Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 32.5 54.2 23 3.0 3.3 27.9 49.0 5.3 18.8% 2.5 3.2 3.4 2.8 26.0 47.3 6.9 25.1% 2.3 3.2 4.9 4.1 2 PG&E 25.0 46.0 12 2.2 2.8 22.0 42.7 3.3 16.3% 1.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 21.8 42.6 3.3 16.4% 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.6 3 PG&E 23.9 46.9 10 1.9 2.7 21.3 43.9 3.0 16.7% 1.6 2.7 1.3 1.3 20.1 42.8 4.1 22.8% 1.5 2.7 1.9 2.0 4 PG&E 23.1 44.9 8 1.9 2.7 20.8 42.4 2.5 13.9% 1.7 2.7 0.9 1.2 20.5 42.2 2.7 14.9% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 5 PG&E 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 1.1 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 44.4 10 1.8 2.6 19.7 41.7 2.7 16.7% 1.6 2.5 0.9 1.2 19.7 41.7 2.6 16.2% 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 49.9 10 1.6 2.7 21.5 47.8 2.0 12.1% 1.5 2.7 0.7 1.2 21.5 47.9 2.0 11.8% 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.0 7 SDG&E 20.3 49.1 5 1.3 2.6 20.3 49.1 0.0 0.0% 1.3 2.6 - - 18.8 47.6 1.5 12.4% 1.2 2.6 1.5 1.4 8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 46.9 10 1.4 2.9 20.1 45.6 1.3 7.7% 1.3 2.9 0.6 1.4 19.7 45.3 1.6 9.4% 1.3 2.9 1.3 1.8 9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 47.7 13 1.5 2.9 22.3 45.1 2.6 11.7% 1.5 2.9 0.7 2.0 21.9 44.8 2.9 13.4% 1.4 2.9 1.8 3.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.6 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.0 3.8 10 SDG&E 24.2 46.3 10 1.6 3.0 21.7 43.1 3.2 14.3% 1.5 3.0 0.8 1.3 21.5 43.1 3.2 14.6% 1.4 3.0 2.6 3.8 11 PG&E 24.6 44.9 11 2.1 3.6 21.3 40.6 4.3 16.4% 1.9 3.4 0.8 1.2 20.7 39.9 5.1 19.2% 1.8 3.4 2.5 3.7 12 PG&E 25.5 44.8 12 2.1 3.0 22.5 41.3 3.5 14.9% 1.9 2.9 1.2 1.8 22.5 41.4 3.4 14.4% 1.9 3.0 3.3 4.6 13 PG&E 25.7 46.5 11 2.0 3.8 22.2 41.9 4.6 16.9% 1.8 3.6 0.8 1.3 21.2 40.7 5.8 21.4% 1.7 3.6 5.3 8.4 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 46.3 15 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.6 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.1 14 SDG&E 25.3 46.3 15 2.3 3.2 21.5 41.3 5.0 18.5% 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.5 20.8 40.4 5.8 21.7% 2.0 3.0 4.9 6.1 15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 49.1 11 1.7 5.4 19.7 44.3 4.8 14.8% 1.6 5.0 1.0 1.6 19.5 44.1 5.0 15.4% 1.5 5.0 >1 >1 16 PG&E 30.4 48.9 22 3.3 2.7 25.0 43.5 5.4 20.6% 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 24.8 42.7 6.2 23.5% 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.2 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 58 2019-08-01 Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 32.5 23 3.0 3.3 21.9 10.6 31.8% 2.4 3.3 0.9 1.6 2 PG&E 25.0 12 2.2 2.8 14.9 10.1 27.3% 1.8 2.9 0.5 1.6 3 PG&E 23.9 10 1.9 2.7 13.9 10.0 27.7% 1.5 2.8 0.4 1.4 4 PG&E 23.1 8 1.9 2.7 13.0 10.1 24.9% 1.5 2.8 0.3 1.5 5 PG&E 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.4 1.3 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 22.2 10 1.8 2.6 12.8 9.4 29.7% 1.4 2.6 0.3 1.3 6 SCE/SoCalGas 23.3 10 1.6 2.7 13.6 9.8 20.1% 1.2 2.8 0.8 1.3 7 SDG&E 20.3 5 1.3 2.6 11.1 9.2 9.0% 1.0 2.7 0.1 1.3 8 SCE/SoCalGas 21.3 10 1.4 2.9 12.9 8.4 23.7% 1.1 3.0 0.9 1.3 9 SCE/SoCalGas 24.5 13 1.5 2.9 15.7 8.8 24.7% 1.2 3.0 1.0 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 1.0 1.5 10 SDG&E 24.2 10 1.6 3.0 14.6 9.6 27.3% 1.3 3.1 0.6 1.5 11 PG&E 24.6 11 2.1 3.6 15.4 9.2 29.4% 1.8 3.5 0.4 1.5 12 PG&E 25.5 12 2.1 3.0 15.9 9.6 28.9% 1.8 3.0 0.4 1.7 13 PG&E 25.7 11 2.0 3.8 16.1 9.7 28.9% 1.7 3.7 0.4 1.6 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.3 15 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.3 1.7 14 SDG&E 25.3 15 2.3 3.2 16.3 9.0 30.1% 1.8 3.1 1.2 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas 22.4 11 1.7 5.4 15.3 7.1 25.1% 1.4 5.1 1.1 1.5 16 PG&E 30.4 22 3.3 2.7 19.9 10.5 32.6% 2.4 2.8 0.9 1.4 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 59 2019-08-01 Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 46.8 68.2 36 1.5 3.3 31.8 53.0 15.2 40.2% 1.0 3.3 1.8 1.7 39.9 61.3 6.9 18.3% 1.3 3.3 2.9 2.7 2 PG&E 32.8 53.7 16 1.1 2.8 27.9 48.7 4.9 20.5% 0.9 2.8 1.2 1.1 27.7 48.5 5.1 21.2% 0.9 2.8 2.3 2.1 3 PG&E 33.1 55.6 14 1.0 2.7 28.5 50.9 4.7 20.6% 0.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 28.7 51.2 4.4 19.6% 0.9 2.7 1.8 1.6 4 PG&E 31.3 52.8 12 1.0 2.7 27.9 49.4 3.4 15.5% 0.9 2.7 1.9 1.8 27.4 48.9 3.9 17.6% 0.9 2.7 1.5 1.5 5 PG&E 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 54.2 16 1.0 2.6 28.1 49.9 4.4 19.7% 0.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 28.0 49.8 4.4 20.3% 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 55.8 12 0.9 2.7 27.7 53.8 2.0 10.9% 0.8 2.7 1.3 1.4 26.8 53.0 2.9 16.0% 0.8 2.7 2.2 2.3 7 SDG&E 27.1 55.3 7 0.7 2.6 27.1 55.3 0.0 0.0% 0.7 2.6 - - 24.8 53.0 2.2 16.9% 0.7 2.6 1.6 1.7 8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 51.5 10 0.8 2.9 24.5 49.9 1.6 8.9% 0.8 2.9 0.6 1.2 24.4 49.7 1.8 9.7% 0.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 51.9 13 0.9 2.9 26.0 49.1 2.8 12.5% 0.8 2.9 0.8 2.0 25.5 48.6 3.3 14.7% 0.8 2.9 2.1 3.2 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.3 3.2 10 SDG&E 28.8 50.7 11 0.9 3.0 25.7 47.6 3.1 14.0% 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.5 25.3 47.2 3.4 15.5% 0.8 3.0 2.6 3.2 11 PG&E 30.0 50.2 12 1.1 3.6 25.4 45.6 4.6 16.2% 1.0 3.6 1.2 1.5 24.1 44.3 5.9 20.8% 0.9 3.6 3.0 3.3 12 PG&E 30.9 50.1 13 1.0 3.0 27.1 46.3 3.8 15.3% 0.9 3.0 0.8 1.1 25.8 45.0 5.1 20.4% 0.9 3.0 2.0 2.5 13 PG&E 30.7 51.5 13 1.1 3.8 25.7 46.4 5.1 17.4% 0.9 3.8 1.1 1.4 24.7 45.4 6.0 20.9% 0.9 3.8 2.9 3.3 14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 52.2 16 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.0 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.3 3.1 14 SDG&E 31.3 52.2 16 1.4 3.2 25.7 46.6 5.6 18.9% 1.2 3.2 1.3 1.5 25.3 46.2 6.0 20.5% 1.2 3.2 2.9 3.1 15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 52.8 8 1.3 5.4 20.6 47.2 5.6 16.8% 1.1 5.4 1.1 1.6 18.9 45.5 7.3 21.8% 1.0 5.4 3.3 4.5 16 PG&E 46.5 64.6 39 1.7 2.7 36.8 54.9 9.7 25.2% 1.4 2.7 1.7 1.7 41.6 59.7 4.9 12.7% 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.3 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 60 2019-08-01 Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 1 PG&E 46.8 36 1.5 3.3 15.4 31.4 40.2% 0.5 6.0 1.8 1.5 5.6 41.2 51.9% 0.3 6.76 1.4 1.4 2 PG&E 32.8 16 1.1 2.8 13.4 19.4 20.5% 0.5 4.9 1.8 1.4 2.7 30.1 31.5% 0.3 5.51 1.4 1.4 3 PG&E 33.1 14 1.0 2.7 14.6 18.5 20.6% 0.5 4.5 2.2 1.7 3.7 29.3 31.6% 0.2 5.10 1.5 1.6 4 PG&E 31.3 12 1.0 2.7 14.1 17.2 15.5% 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.6 2.8 28.6 26.5% 0.2 5.15 1.5 1.6 5 PG&E 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.6 1.6 5 PG&E/SoCalGas 32.5 16 1.0 2.6 14.3 18.2 19.7% 0.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 3.8 28.7 32.7% 0.2 4.84 1.6 1.6 6 SCE/SoCalGas 29.7 12 0.9 2.7 15.5 14.3 10.9% 0.6 4.1 1.2 1.5 3.6 26.1 18.9% 0.3 4.68 1.2 1.4 7 SDG&E 27.1 7 0.7 2.6 15.8 11.3 0.7% 0.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 2.9 24.2 6.7% 0.3 4.21 1.3 1.5 8 SCE/SoCalGas 26.1 10 0.8 2.9 15.1 10.9 8.9% 0.6 4.0 1.0 1.5 4.5 21.6 24.9% 0.3 4.54 1.1 1.4 9 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 13 0.9 2.9 17.3 11.5 12.5% 0.7 4.1 1.1 1.6 7.6 21.3 25.5% 0.4 4.66 1.1 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.1 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.1 1.5 10 SDG&E 28.8 11 0.9 3.0 17.7 11.1 14.0% 0.7 4.2 1.7 1.5 7.6 21.2 27.0% 0.4 4.78 1.4 1.5 11 PG&E 30.0 12 1.1 3.6 15.8 14.2 16.2% 0.6 5.4 1.8 1.6 6.8 23.2 29.2% 0.4 6.11 1.5 1.6 12 PG&E 30.9 13 1.0 3.0 15.2 15.7 15.3% 0.5 5.0 1.7 1.4 5.6 25.4 29.3% 0.3 5.62 1.3 1.5 13 PG&E 30.7 13 1.1 3.8 17.3 13.4 17.4% 0.6 5.4 1.7 1.5 8.2 22.5 29.4% 0.4 6.14 1.4 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas 31.3 16 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.2 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.4 1.6 14 SDG&E 31.3 16 1.4 3.2 15.8 15.5 18.9% 0.9 4.8 1.8 1.6 7.4 23.9 30.9% 0.6 5.39 1.7 1.6 15 SCE/SoCalGas 26.2 8 1.3 5.4 20.0 6.2 16.8% 1.1 5.5 1.1 1.6 12.7 13.5 27.0% 0.8 6.25 1.2 1.5 16 PG&E 46.5 39 1.7 2.7 19.6 27.0 25.2% 0.9 5.5 2.1 1.6 11.1 35.4 34.3% 0.6 6.17 1.7 1.5 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 61 2019-08-01 Appendix D – Single Family Measure Summary Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 62 2019-08-01 Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 63 2019-08-01 Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 64 2019-08-01 Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 65 2019-08-01 Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary LLAHU - Low Leakage Air Handling Unit VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 66 2019-08-01 Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 67 2019-08-01 Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VVLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 68 2019-08-01 Appendix E – Multifamily Detailed Results Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results Climate Zone Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 28.6 60.7 23 2.7 15.9 25.1 57.3 3.4 19.3% 2.3 16.0 1.1 1.2 26.4 58.4 2.3 12.2% 2.5 15.9 1.3 1.4 02 PG&E 25.7 56.5 12 2.4 13.9 24.2 54.7 1.8 9.9% 2.3 13.8 1.0 1.7 23.6 54.2 2.3 12.5% 2.2 13.9 1.1 1.5 03 PG&E 24.7 57.8 10 2.1 13.5 24.0 57.2 0.6 4.7% 2.1 13.5 1.0 1.1 23.1 56.2 1.6 11.2% 1.9 13.4 1.1 1.2 04 PG&E 25.5 56.8 8 2.2 13.6 24.3 55.5 1.3 7.7% 2.1 13.5 0.8 1.2 23.8 54.9 1.9 10.9% 2.0 13.5 1.1 1.7 05 PG&E 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 1.0 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.2 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 57.4 10 2.1 12.6 23.7 56.9 0.5 4.4% 2.0 12.6 0.8 1.0 22.7 55.9 1.5 10.9% 1.9 12.6 1.1 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 63.2 10 2.2 13.9 25.8 61.9 1.3 7.0% 2.1 13.8 0.6 1.5 25.5 61.9 1.3 7.4% 2.0 13.9 1.4 1.7 07 SDG&E 26.8 64.5 5 2.1 13.2 26.1 63.6 0.9 5.3% 2.1 13.1 0.7 2.2 25.0 62.5 2.0 12.2% 2.0 13.2 1.1 1.4 08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 61.8 10 2.2 14.6 24.6 60.3 1.5 7.4% 2.1 14.5 0.7 1.4 24.6 60.7 1.1 5.7% 2.0 14.6 1.4 1.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 59.7 13 2.2 14.7 25.0 57.9 1.8 8.2% 2.2 14.4 1.5 3.3 24.1 56.9 2.8 12.9% 2.1 14.4 1.7 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 0.8 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.0 3.3 10 SDG&E 27.0 58.7 10 2.3 15.1 25.7 57.0 1.7 7.7% 2.2 14.9 1.1 1.7 24.7 55.8 2.9 13.0% 2.1 14.8 2.6 3.3 11 PG&E 24.5 54.5 11 2.4 16.6 22.3 51.6 2.9 11.9% 2.2 16.3 0.7 1.2 22.2 51.3 3.2 13.2% 2.2 16.1 1.8 3.3 12 PG&E 25.9 55.3 12 2.3 14.9 24.3 53.4 1.9 8.8% 2.2 14.8 1.1 2.2 23.5 52.5 2.8 12.8% 2.1 14.7 1.2 2.2 13 PG&E 26.1 55.9 11 2.3 17.5 23.7 52.8 3.1 12.1% 2.1 17.1 0.6 1.3 23.7 52.5 3.4 13.2% 2.1 16.9 2.0 3.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 55.9 15 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.7 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.0 3.0 14 SDG&E 25.6 55.9 15 2.8 14.6 23.1 52.8 3.1 12.8% 2.5 14.3 0.9 1.2 23.2 52.6 3.3 13.3% 2.5 14.2 2.5 3.0 15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 59.2 11 2.5 21.6 22.7 55.0 4.2 12.9% 2.4 20.4 1.4 2.3 22.6 54.8 4.4 13.5% 2.3 20.4 >1 >1 16 PG&E 29.4 57.3 22 3.5 13.4 26.6 54.9 2.4 11.3% 3.0 13.7 1.1 1.2 26.9 54.4 2.9 13.1% 3.1 13.2 1.8 2.1 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 69 2019-08-01 Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 28.6 23 2.7 15.9 17.1 11.5 29.3% 2.1 16.5 0.4 1.2 02 PG&E 25.7 12 2.4 13.9 14.8 10.9 16.9% 2.1 14.2 0.2 1.6 03 PG&E 24.7 10 2.1 13.5 14.4 10.3 10.7% 1.9 13.9 0.1 1.4 04 PG&E 25.5 8 2.2 13.6 14.3 11.2 15.7% 1.9 13.9 0.2 1.6 05 PG&E 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.2 1.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 24.2 10 2.1 12.6 14.3 9.9 9.4% 1.8 13.1 0.1 1.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas 26.8 10 2.2 13.9 16.1 10.7 10.0% 1.8 14.2 0.6 1.4 07 SDG&E 26.8 5 2.1 13.2 15.8 11.0 7.3% 1.7 13.6 0.0 1.4 08 SCE/SoCalGas 25.7 10 2.2 14.6 15.8 9.9 13.4% 1.8 14.9 0.7 1.3 09 SCE/SoCalGas 26.4 13 2.2 14.7 16.7 9.7 15.2% 1.8 14.9 0.9 1.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 1.0 1.6 10 SDG&E 27.0 10 2.3 15.1 16.6 10.4 13.7% 1.9 15.3 0.2 1.6 11 PG&E 24.5 11 2.4 16.6 14.0 10.5 19.9% 2.0 16.7 0.4 1.6 12 PG&E 25.9 12 2.3 14.9 15.6 10.3 17.8% 2.0 15.2 0.3 1.7 13 PG&E 26.1 11 2.3 17.5 15.4 10.7 20.1% 2.0 17.5 0.4 1.6 14 SCE/SoCalGas 25.6 15 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 1.1 1.4 14 SDG&E 25.6 15 2.8 14.6 16.0 9.6 20.8% 2.2 14.7 0.5 1.4 15 SCE/SoCalGas 25.0 11 2.5 21.6 16.2 8.8 18.9% 2.1 20.9 1.3 1.7 16 PG&E 29.4 22 3.5 13.4 19.5 9.9 19.3% 2.7 14.1 0.5 1.3 “inf” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 70 2019-08-01 Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results CZ Utility BASECASE Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Total EDR Efficiency EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Efficiency EDR Efficiency EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 41.1 70.6 36 1.6 15.9 37.5 67.0 3.6 14.6% 1.5 15.9 1.6 1.4 37.1 67.3 3.3 18.4% 1.4 15.9 2.4 2.3 02 PG&E 34.3 63.4 16 1.4 13.9 32.4 61.5 1.9 9.1% 1.3 13.9 1.7 2.1 31.1 60.2 3.2 15.1% 1.3 13.9 1.6 1.6 03 PG&E 33.5 64.2 14 1.3 13.5 33.5 64.2 0.0 0.0% 1.3 13.5 - - 30.4 61.5 2.7 19.5% 1.1 13.5 1.7 1.6 04 PG&E 32.0 61.4 12 1.3 13.6 30.5 60.0 1.4 8.0% 1.2 13.6 1.4 1.5 29.7 59.2 2.2 12.2% 1.2 13.6 1.2 1.1 05 PG&E 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 65.4 16 1.3 12.6 34.1 64.8 0.6 3.4% 1.3 12.6 1.1 0.9 30.6 61.8 3.6 23.5% 1.2 12.6 2.1 2.0 06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 65.9 12 1.3 13.9 30.9 64.9 1.0 5.9% 1.3 13.9 0.7 1.3 29.8 63.7 2.2 13.0% 1.2 13.9 1.6 1.9 07 SDG&E 31.7 66.6 7 1.2 13.2 31.1 66.0 0.6 4.6% 1.2 13.2 0.6 1.0 29.7 64.7 1.9 13.6% 1.1 13.2 1.6 1.7 08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 63.6 10 1.3 14.6 28.6 62.4 1.2 6.5% 1.2 14.6 0.9 1.7 27.9 61.7 1.9 10.3% 1.2 14.6 1.6 1.8 09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 61.9 13 1.3 14.7 28.7 60.3 1.6 8.1% 1.3 14.7 1.3 2.7 28.8 60.4 1.5 7.4% 1.2 14.7 1.6 1.6 10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.2 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 1.7 2.0 10 SDG&E 31.2 61.3 11 1.4 15.1 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.7% 1.3 15.1 1.5 2.0 29.3 59.5 1.8 8.6% 1.3 15.1 2.0 2.0 11 PG&E 31.9 60.6 12 1.4 16.6 28.5 57.1 3.5 13.1% 1.3 16.6 1.4 1.6 28.1 56.7 3.9 14.4% 1.3 16.6 2.0 2.3 12 PG&E 32.0 59.9 13 1.3 14.9 29.4 57.3 2.6 11.4% 1.2 14.9 0.9 1.1 29.0 57.0 2.9 13.0% 1.2 14.9 1.6 1.6 13 PG&E 32.1 60.5 13 1.4 17.5 28.8 57.2 3.3 12.6% 1.2 17.5 1.3 1.6 28.3 56.7 3.8 14.3% 1.2 17.5 2.0 2.3 14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 61.6 16 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.2 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 1.6 2.2 14 SDG&E 32.5 61.6 16 1.7 14.6 28.9 57.9 3.7 13.8% 1.6 14.6 1.5 1.6 28.7 57.8 3.8 14.3% 1.6 14.6 2.0 2.2 15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 61.0 8 1.8 21.6 23.9 56.6 4.4 14.2% 1.6 21.6 1.5 2.3 21.9 54.6 6.4 20.6% 1.5 21.6 1.2 1.7 16 PG&E 40.2 66.6 39 1.9 13.4 36.2 62.5 4.1 15.0% 1.7 13.4 2.1 2.1 37.1 63.4 3.2 11.4% 1.7 13.4 1.6 1.7 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 71 2019-08-01 Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results Climate Zone Utility BASECASE Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery Total EDR CALGreen Tier 1 EDR Target lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio Total EDR Total EDR Margin % Comp Margin lbs CO2 per sqft PV kW per Building On-Bill B/C Ratio TDV B/C Ratio 01 PG&E 41.1 36 1.6 15.9 18.6 22.5 14.6% 0.8 26.9 2.0 1.5 6.6 34.5 24.6% 0.4 30.3 1.3 1.4 02 PG&E 34.3 16 1.4 13.9 16.8 17.5 9.1% 0.7 21.9 2.4 1.8 3.4 30.9 16.1% 0.3 24.8 1.4 1.7 03 PG&E 33.5 14 1.3 13.5 17.4 16.1 2.6% 0.7 20.8 2.4 1.7 4.0 29.5 8.6% 0.3 23.6 1.3 1.6 04 PG&E 32.0 12 1.3 13.6 17.0 15.0 8.0% 0.7 20.2 2.4 1.8 3.1 28.9 16.0% 0.3 22.9 1.30 1.77 05 PG&E 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.4 1.7 05 PG&E/SoCalGas 34.7 16 1.3 12.6 17.6 17.1 3.4% 0.7 19.9 2.5 1.8 4.4 30.3 8.4% 0.3 22.5 1.4 1.7 06 SCE/SoCalGas 31.9 12 1.3 13.9 18.1 13.8 5.9% 1.0 19.5 1.2 1.7 4.4 27.5 8.9% 0.5 22.1 1.2 1.6 07 SDG&E 31.7 7 1.2 13.2 18.9 12.8 4.6% 0.9 18.1 2.1 1.8 4.6 27.1 6.6% 0.5 20.5 1.2 1.6 08 SCE/SoCalGas 29.8 10 1.3 14.6 18.2 11.6 6.5% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.8 5.6 24.2 12.5% 0.5 22.0 1.2 1.6 09 SCE/SoCalGas 30.4 13 1.3 14.7 19.1 11.3 8.1% 1.0 19.4 1.3 1.9 7.1 23.3 15.1% 0.6 22.0 1.3 1.7 10 SCE/SoCalGas 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 1.3 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.3 1.7 10 SDG&E 31.2 11 1.4 15.1 20.4 10.8 8.7% 1.1 19.9 2.1 1.8 7.9 23.3 14.7% 0.6 22.5 1.4 1.7 11 PG&E 31.9 12 1.4 16.6 18.5 13.4 13.1% 0.8 22.8 2.2 1.8 6.6 25.3 21.1% 0.4 25.8 1.4 1.8 12 PG&E 32.0 13 1.3 14.9 17.6 14.4 11.4% 0.7 21.7 2.1 1.6 5.4 26.6 20.4% 0.4 24.5 1.3 1.7 13 PG&E 32.1 13 1.4 17.5 19.9 12.2 12.6% 0.8 23.3 2.1 1.7 8.2 23.9 20.6% 0.4 26.4 1.4 1.7 14 SCE/SoCalGas 32.5 16 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 1.4 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.4 1.8 14 SDG&E 32.5 16 1.7 14.6 18.5 14.0 13.8% 1.3 20.2 2.2 1.9 7.7 24.8 21.8% 0.8 22.8 1.7 1.8 15 SCE/SoCalGas 28.2 8 1.8 21.6 21.1 7.1 14.2% 1.5 23.6 1.4 2.1 11.3 16.9 20.2% 1.1 26.6 1.3 1.8 16 PG&E 40.2 39 1.9 13.4 20.6 19.6 15.0% 1.2 22.0 2.6 1.9 10.3 29.9 23.0% 0.8 24.8 1.6 1.7 “>1” = indicates cases where there is both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 72 2019-08-01 Appendix F – Multifamily Measure Summary Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 73 2019-08-01 Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 74 2019-08-01 Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 75 2019-08-01 Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 76 2019-08-01 Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 77 2019-08-01 Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 78 2019-08-01 Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary VLLDCS – Verified Low-Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 79 2019-08-01 Appendix G – Results by Climate Zone Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Climate Zone 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 86 Climate Zone 5 PG&E .................................................................................................................................. 88 Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas .................................................................................................................. 90 Climate Zone 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 92 Climate Zone 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 94 Climate Zone 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 96 Climate Zone 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 98 Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 100 Climate Zone 10 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 102 Climate Zone 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 104 Climate Zone 12 ........................................................................................................................................ 106 Climate Zone 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 108 Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas ................................................................................................................. 110 Climate Zone 14 SDGE............................................................................................................................... 112 Climate Zone 15 ........................................................................................................................................ 114 Climate Zone 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 116 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 80 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 1 Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary Climate Zone 1 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 581 n/a n/a 3.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 480 5.0 (0.08) 2.51 0.49 $1,355 3.38 2.82 Efficiency-Equipment 0 440 6.5 (0.07) 2.32 0.68 $1,280 4.92 4.10 Efficiency & PV/Battery (28) 480 10.5 0.04 2.40 0.60 $5,311 0.87 1.61 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 7,079 0 n/a n/a 1.51 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,461 0 15.0 0.00 1.01 0.50 $7,642 1.79 1.66 Efficiency-Equipment 5,933 0 6.5 0.00 1.29 0.22 $2,108 2.94 2.74 Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 1.00 $18,192 1.81 1.45 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 0 41.0 3.45 0.28 1.23 $24,770 1.45 1.40 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 7,079 0 0.0 0.00 1.51 1.49 ($5,349) 0.37 0.91 Efficiency & PV 889 0 31.0 2.67 0.52 2.48 $12,844 1.43 2.11 Neutral Cost 5,270 0 8.0 1.35 1.26 1.74 $0 0.00 1.09 Min Cost Effectiveness 3,106 0 18.0 2.97 0.95 2.04 ($6,372) 1.08 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 81 2019-08-01 Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 1 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 180 n/a n/a 2.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 147 3.0 0.00 2.31 0.44 $960 1.10 1.18 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 159 2.0 (0.01) 2.48 0.27 $507 1.29 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 147 11.5 0.07 2.13 0.61 $3,094 0.35 1.21 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,624 0 n/a n/a 1.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,328 0 3.5 0.00 1.46 0.15 $949 1.55 1.40 Efficiency-Equipment 2,278 0 3.0 0.00 1.41 0.20 $795 2.39 2.26 Efficiency & PV 499 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 0.86 $5,538 2.04 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 34.5 1.80 0.38 1.24 $8,919 1.33 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,624 0 0.0 0.00 1.62 1.13 ($2,337) 0.38 1.01 Efficiency & PV 62 0 22.5 1.37 0.75 2.00 $3,202 1.63 >1 Neutral Cost 1,693 0 9.5 0.70 1.25 1.50 $0 0.00 1.57 Min Cost Effectiveness 1,273 0 14.0 1.01 1.09 1.66 ($1,052) 1.14 3.76 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 82 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 2 Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary Climate Zone 2 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 421 n/a n/a 2.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 360 3.0 (0.04) 1.94 0.30 $1,504 1.63 1.66 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 352 3.0 (0.03) 1.90 0.33 $724 3.77 3.63 Efficiency & PV/Battery (22) 360 10.0 0.06 1.82 0.41 $5,393 0.47 1.56 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 5,014 0 n/a n/a 1.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 4,079 0 4.5 0.00 0.94 0.18 $3,943 1.21 1.07 Efficiency-Equipment 4,122 0 5.0 0.00 0.94 0.17 $2,108 2.25 2.10 Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 0.63 $12,106 1.83 1.38 Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 30.0 2.71 0.26 0.86 $18,132 1.37 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 5,014 0 0.0 0.00 1.11 1.12 ($5,349) 0.52 1.59 Efficiency & PV 847 0 19.0 2.07 0.49 1.75 $6,758 1.76 39.70 Neutral Cost 2,891 0 9.5 1.36 0.82 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 83 2019-08-01 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 2 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 150 n/a n/a 2.37 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 142 1.5 (0.02) 2.25 0.12 $309 0.97 1.75 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 134 2.0 (0.01) 2.15 0.22 $497 1.08 1.49 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 142 10.5 0.04 2.07 0.30 $2,413 0.17 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,151 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,038 0 1.5 0.00 1.32 0.06 $361 1.73 2.05 Efficiency-Equipment 1,928 0 3.0 0.00 1.25 0.13 $795 1.56 1.56 Efficiency & PV 476 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 0.67 $3,711 2.42 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 30.5 1.36 0.35 1.04 $6,833 1.38 1.74 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,151 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.99 ($2,337) 0.53 1.42 Efficiency & PV 60 0 17.5 1.00 0.72 1.65 $1,375 3.31 >1 Neutral Cost 1,063 0 10.5 0.70 0.96 1.41 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 84 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 3 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary Climate Zone 3 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 348 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 296 2.5 (0.03) 1.63 0.26 $1,552 1.28 1.31 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 273 4.0 (0.03) 1.52 0.37 $1,448 1.91 1.97 Efficiency & PV/Battery (20) 296 10.0 0.07 1.50 0.38 $5,438 0.38 1.38 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,355 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,584 0 4.5 0.00 0.85 0.15 $1,519 2.60 2.36 Efficiency-Equipment 3,670 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.14 $2,108 1.76 1.62 Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 0.54 $8,517 2.22 1.68 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 0 29.0 2.37 0.23 0.76 $14,380 1.50 1.58 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,355 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.89 ($5,349) 0.55 1.53 Efficiency & PV 790 0 18.0 1.77 0.46 1.43 $3,169 2.88 >1 Neutral Cost 2,217 0 10.5 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 85 2019-08-01 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 3 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 133 n/a n/a 2.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 0.5 (0.00) 2.06 0.07 $175 1.00 1.11 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 119 1.5 (0.00) 1.94 0.19 $403 1.11 1.23 Efficiency & PV/Battery (10) 127 10.0 0.05 1.86 0.27 $2,279 0.11 1.41 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,944 0 n/a n/a 1.27 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 1,698 0 2.5 0.00 1.13 0.14 $795 1.73 1.58 Efficiency & PV 457 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 0.58 $3,272 2.43 1.73 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 29.5 1.26 0.33 0.94 $6,344 1.32 1.64 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,944 0 0.0 0.00 1.27 0.86 ($2,337) 0.58 1.46 Efficiency & PV 57 0 16.0 0.92 0.69 1.43 $936 4.18 >1 Neutral Cost 845 0 11.5 0.70 0.85 1.28 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 86 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 4 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary Climate Zone 4 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 347 n/a n/a 1.88 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 306 2.5 (0.03) 1.68 0.20 $1,556 0.93 1.15 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 294 2.5 (0.02) 1.62 0.26 $758 2.39 2.67 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 306 10.0 0.07 1.55 0.33 $5,434 0.30 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,342 0 n/a n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,775 0 3.0 0.00 0.89 0.11 $1,519 1.92 1.84 Efficiency-Equipment 3,747 0 3.5 0.00 0.88 0.12 $2,108 1.52 1.52 Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 0.52 $8,786 2.13 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 28.5 2.44 0.25 0.75 $14,664 1.46 1.61 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,342 0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.88 ($5,349) 0.55 1.59 Efficiency & PV 814 0 17.0 1.84 0.48 1.40 $3,438 2.64 >1 Neutral Cost 2,166 0 10.0 1.35 0.70 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 87 2019-08-01 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 4 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 134 n/a n/a 2.16 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 127 1.0 (0.01) 2.06 0.10 $329 0.75 1.24 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 123 1.5 (0.01) 2.01 0.15 $351 1.06 1.74 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 11.0 0.04 1.87 0.29 $2,429 0.17 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,887 0 n/a n/a 1.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,794 0 1.0 0.00 1.21 0.05 $361 1.38 1.54 Efficiency-Equipment 1,712 0 2.0 0.00 1.15 0.10 $795 1.23 1.09 Efficiency & PV 453 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 0.57 $3,158 2.43 1.81 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 28.5 1.17 0.32 0.93 $6,201 1.30 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,887 0 0.0 0.00 1.25 0.90 ($2,337) 0.65 1.77 Efficiency & PV 57 0 15.0 0.83 0.69 1.47 $822 4.96 >1 Neutral Cost 767 0 11.0 0.70 0.82 1.33 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design.. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 88 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 5 PG&E Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary Climate Zone 5 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 1.10 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 2.29 2.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $5,433 0.37 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31 Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $14,047 1.59 1.63 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.72 >1 Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 89 2019-08-01 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 5 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.99 1.03 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.24 1.34 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $2,273 0.15 1.38 All-Electric2 Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86 Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03 Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,314 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric3 Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.50 1.28 Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 3.80 >1 Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 90 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On- Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 331 n/a n/a 1.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 281 2.5 (0.03) 1.55 0.24 $1,571 0.92 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 279 2.5 (0.02) 1.54 0.25 $772 1.98 2.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 281 9.0 0.07 1.43 0.36 $5,433 0.31 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,452 0 n/a n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,687 0 4.0 0.00 0.86 0.15 $1,519 2.58 2.31 Efficiency-Equipment 3,737 0 4.0 0.00 0.87 0.14 $2,108 1.85 1.70 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 0.55 $8,307 2.31 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 28.5 2.29 0.24 0.78 $14,047 1.59 1.63 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,452 0 0.0 0.00 1.01 0.78 ($5,349) 0.48 1.32 Efficiency & PV 798 0 18.0 1.72 0.46 1.33 $2,959 2.75 >1 Neutral Cost 2,172 0 11.0 1.35 0.70 1.10 $0 >1 40.07 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 91 2019-08-01 Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 131 n/a n/a 2.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 0.5 (0.00) 2.03 0.07 $180 0.85 1.03 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 117 1.5 (0.00) 1.92 0.19 $358 1.09 1.34 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 126 9.5 0.05 1.84 0.26 $2,273 0.14 1.38 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,044 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,990 0 0.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $247 1.09 0.86 Efficiency-Equipment 1,738 0 3.5 0.00 1.15 0.17 $795 2.15 2.03 Efficiency & PV 465 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 0.62 $3,293 2.53 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 30.0 1.24 0.34 0.98 $6,314 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,044 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.78 ($2,337) 0.65 1.28 Efficiency & PV 58 0 17.0 0.91 0.70 1.40 $956 4.98 >1 Neutral Cost 874 0 12.5 0.70 0.87 1.23 $0 >1 23.44 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 92 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 6 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary Climate Zone 6 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 249 n/a n/a 1.57 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 229 2.0 (0.02) 1.47 0.10 $1,003 0.66 1.15 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 218 1.5 (0.01) 1.41 0.15 $581 1.58 2.04 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 229 9.5 0.08 1.22 0.34 $4,889 0.84 1.27 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 3,099 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,885 0 2.0 0.00 0.83 0.05 $926 1.31 1.41 Efficiency-Equipment 2,746 0 2.5 0.00 0.80 0.08 $846 2.20 2.29 Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.24 $6,341 1.19 1.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 26.0 1.93 0.33 0.55 $12,036 1.15 1.43 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 3,099 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.69 ($5,349) 1.19 2.46 Efficiency & PV 722 0 14.0 1.37 0.63 0.93 $992 3.07 >1 Neutral Cost 959 0 12.0 1.36 0.67 0.89 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 93 2019-08-01 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 6 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 114 n/a n/a 2.17 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 112 1.0 (0.01) 2.14 0.03 $190 0.65 1.49 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 103 1.0 (0.00) 2.03 0.15 $213 1.43 1.74 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 112 10.5 0.04 1.76 0.41 $2,294 0.56 1.35 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,558 0 n/a n/a 1.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,531 0 1.0 0.00 1.26 0.02 $231 0.65 1.34 Efficiency-Equipment 1,430 0 2.0 0.00 1.20 0.08 $361 1.62 1.91 Efficiency & PV 427 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 0.31 $2,580 1.24 1.71 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.5 1.02 0.49 0.79 $5,590 1.22 1.58 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,558 0 0.0 0.00 1.28 0.90 ($2,337) 2.59 2.38 Efficiency & PV 53 0 13.5 0.70 0.97 1.20 $243 9.50 >1 Neutral Cost 459 0 12.5 0.70 0.99 1.18 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 94 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 7 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary Climate Zone 7 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 196 n/a n/a 1.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 196 0.0 0.00 1.30 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 0 171 1.5 (0.00) 1.18 0.12 $606 1.50 1.40 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 189 9.0 0.10 1.04 0.26 $4,028 0.06 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,479 0 n/a n/a 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.00 $0 - - Efficiency-Equipment 2,222 0 2.0 0.00 0.69 0.06 $846 1.60 1.65 Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.17 $4,436 1.87 1.55 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 24.0 1.61 0.29 0.46 $9,936 1.25 1.47 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,479 0 0.0 0.00 0.75 0.55 ($5,349) 1.04 2.54 Efficiency & PV 674 0 11.0 1.10 0.58 0.72 ($912) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 267 0 13.5 1.35 0.55 0.75 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 95 2019-08-01 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 7 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 110 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 0.5 (0.01) 2.08 0.03 $90 0.73 2.24 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 2.0 (0.00) 1.96 0.15 $366 1.07 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 11.0 0.05 1.71 0.40 $2,188 0.03 1.40 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,434 0 n/a n/a 1.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,416 0 0.5 0.00 1.20 0.01 $202 0.60 1.02 Efficiency-Equipment 1,319 0 1.5 0.00 1.14 0.07 $361 1.59 1.71 Efficiency & PV 412 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 0.27 $2,261 2.08 1.76 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 27.0 0.92 0.47 0.74 $5,203 1.19 1.62 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,434 0 0.0 0.00 1.21 0.90 ($2,337) 1.12 2.47 Efficiency & PV 51 0 12.5 0.61 0.94 1.17 ($75) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 294 0 13.5 0.70 0.91 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 96 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 8 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary Climate Zone 8 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 206 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 198 1.0 (0.02) 1.34 0.05 $581 0.57 1.41 Efficiency-Equipment 0 181 1.5 (0.01) 1.27 0.12 $586 1.30 1.82 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 198 8.0 0.08 1.11 0.27 $4,466 0.90 1.31 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,576 0 n/a n/a 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,483 0 1.5 0.00 0.78 0.02 $926 0.57 1.22 Efficiency-Equipment 2,352 0 1.5 0.00 0.75 0.05 $412 2.82 3.03 Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.18 $5,373 1.00 1.48 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 21.5 1.67 0.32 0.48 $11,016 1.09 1.42 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,576 0 0.0 0.00 0.80 0.58 ($5,349) 1.83 2.99 Efficiency & PV 703 0 10.5 1.13 0.62 0.77 $25 107.93 >1 Neutral Cost 439 0 11.0 1.36 0.60 0.78 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 97 2019-08-01 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 8 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 109 n/a n/a 2.18 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 106 1.5 (0.02) 2.13 0.05 $250 0.70 1.36 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 99 1.0 (0.00) 2.04 0.14 $213 1.37 1.67 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 106 9.5 0.03 1.77 0.41 $2,353 0.74 1.32 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,409 0 n/a n/a 1.26 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,373 0 1.0 0.00 1.24 0.02 $231 0.87 1.72 Efficiency-Equipment 1,276 0 1.5 0.00 1.18 0.08 $361 1.63 1.75 Efficiency & PV 426 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 0.27 $2,240 1.26 1.78 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 24.0 0.92 0.53 0.73 $5,249 1.24 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,409 0 0.0 0.00 1.26 0.91 ($2,337) 6.69 2.67 Efficiency & PV 53 0 11.5 0.60 0.99 1.18 ($96) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 309 0 12.0 0.70 0.98 1.20 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 98 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 9 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 229 n/a n/a 1.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 216 2.5 (0.04) 1.46 0.07 $912 0.69 1.97 Efficiency-Equipment 0 201 2.5 (0.04) 1.38 0.15 $574 1.80 3.66 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 216 8.5 0.05 1.23 0.30 $4,785 0.99 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,801 0 n/a n/a 0.87 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,645 0 2.5 0.00 0.84 0.04 $1,180 0.78 1.96 Efficiency-Equipment 2,460 0 3.0 0.00 0.80 0.07 $846 2.11 3.22 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.21 $5,778 1.08 1.64 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 0 21.0 1.72 0.37 0.50 $11,454 1.11 1.53 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,801 0 0.0 0.00 0.87 0.66 ($5,349) 1.67 2.90 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 1.16 0.66 0.87 $429 7.15 >1 Neutral Cost 594 0 10.0 1.36 0.67 0.86 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 99 2019-08-01 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 9 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 111 n/a n/a 2.24 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 109 1.5 (0.03) 2.19 0.05 $136 1.46 3.35 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 101 2.5 (0.03) 2.08 0.16 $274 1.66 2.87 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 109 9.5 0.03 1.84 0.40 $2,234 0.90 1.49 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,468 0 n/a n/a 1.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,414 0 1.5 0.00 1.30 0.03 $231 1.29 2.70 Efficiency-Equipment 1,334 0 1.5 0.00 1.25 0.08 $361 1.63 1.58 Efficiency & PV 441 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 0.29 $2,232 1.34 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 23.0 0.92 0.58 0.75 $5,236 1.28 1.67 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,468 0 0.0 0.00 1.33 0.91 ($2,337) 4.38 2.55 Efficiency & PV 55 0 11.0 0.60 1.04 1.20 ($104) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 331 0 11.0 0.70 1.03 1.21 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 100 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.63 1.33 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.05 3.84 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $5,522 1.00 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 0.92 1.52 Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.27 3.19 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.08 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $12,129 1.11 1.51 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 1.45 2.66 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 3.04 >1 Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 101 2019-08-01 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 0.81 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 1.96 3.27 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,376 0.98 1.57 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.16 2.00 Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 1.71 1.98 Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 1.31 1.79 Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,395 1.27 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 3.35 2.36 Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 70.89 >1 Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 102 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 10 SDGE Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary Climate Zone 10 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 239 n/a n/a 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 217 3.0 (0.07) 1.48 0.13 $1,648 0.80 1.33 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 209 3.0 (0.06) 1.45 0.16 $593 2.64 3.84 Efficiency & PV/Battery (12) 217 9.5 0.03 1.25 0.36 $5,522 0.58 1.48 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,981 0 n/a n/a 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,673 0 3.0 0.00 0.88 0.07 $1,773 1.08 1.52 Efficiency-Equipment 2,563 0 3.0 0.00 0.85 0.10 $949 2.62 3.19 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.24 $6,405 1.68 1.50 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 21.0 1.74 0.41 0.53 $12,129 1.42 1.51 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,981 0 0.0 0.00 0.94 0.67 ($5,349) 0.90 2.66 Efficiency & PV 762 0 11.0 1.17 0.70 0.91 $1,057 4.55 >1 Neutral Cost 770 0 9.0 1.36 0.74 0.87 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 103 2019-08-01 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 10 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 112 n/a n/a 2.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 108 1.5 (0.02) 2.23 0.06 $278 1.09 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 102 2.5 (0.04) 2.13 0.16 $250 2.60 3.27 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 108 10.0 0.03 1.88 0.41 $2,376 0.23 1.57 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,507 0 n/a n/a 1.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,425 0 1.5 0.00 1.34 0.05 $361 1.53 2.00 Efficiency-Equipment 1,369 0 1.5 0.00 1.31 0.08 $361 2.05 1.98 Efficiency & PV 450 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 0.30 $2,371 2.12 1.79 Efficiency & PV/Battery (4) 0 23.0 0.93 0.63 0.76 $5,395 1.44 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,507 0 0.0 0.00 1.39 0.90 ($2,337) 0.73 2.36 Efficiency & PV 56 0 10.5 0.60 1.09 1.20 $34 54.15 >1 Neutral Cost 372 0 10.5 0.70 1.10 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 104 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 11 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary Climate Zone 11 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 378 n/a n/a 2.14 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 333 4.0 (0.19) 1.90 0.24 $3,143 0.78 1.20 Efficiency-Equipment 0 320 5.0 (0.21) 1.83 0.31 $1,222 2.50 3.68 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 333 9.0 (0.09) 1.78 0.36 $7,026 0.36 1.51 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,585 0 n/a n/a 1.15 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,815 0 4.5 0.00 0.99 0.16 $3,735 1.24 1.47 Efficiency-Equipment 3,533 0 5.5 0.00 0.93 0.22 $2,108 2.97 3.33 Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 0.55 $10,827 1.84 1.55 Efficiency & PV/Battery (13) 0 23.0 2.49 0.36 0.79 $17,077 1.49 1.61 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,585 0 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.99 ($5,349) 0.49 1.69 Efficiency & PV 957 0 14.0 1.79 0.60 1.54 $5,478 1.64 >1 Neutral Cost 2,429 0 7.0 1.36 0.85 1.29 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 105 2019-08-01 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 11 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 127 2.5 (0.05) 2.18 0.20 $850 0.65 1.17 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.06) 2.16 0.22 $317 1.84 3.29 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 127 10.5 0.01 2.00 0.38 $2,950 0.39 1.60 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,974 0 n/a n/a 1.42 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,732 0 3.5 0.00 1.29 0.13 $1,011 1.40 1.64 Efficiency-Equipment 1,707 0 3.5 0.00 1.26 0.16 $795 2.02 2.33 Efficiency & PV 504 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 0.61 $3,601 2.22 1.81 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 25.0 1.14 0.45 0.98 $6,759 1.42 1.81 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,974 0 0.0 0.00 1.42 0.96 ($2,337) 0.56 1.33 Efficiency & PV 63 0 13.0 0.77 0.81 1.56 $1,264 3.03 >1 Neutral Cost 866 0 9.0 0.70 0.99 1.38 $0 >1 73.96 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant hom e except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 106 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 12 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary Climate Zone 12 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 390 n/a n/a 2.11 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 344 3.5 (0.06) 1.88 0.23 $1,679 1.18 1.83 Efficiency-Equipment 0 338 3.0 (0.05) 1.85 0.26 $654 3.31 4.65 Efficiency & PV/Battery (23) 344 9.5 0.04 1.76 0.35 $5,568 0.43 1.72 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,492 0 n/a n/a 1.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,958 0 3.5 0.00 0.94 0.10 $3,735 0.78 1.06 Efficiency-Equipment 3,721 0 5.0 0.00 0.90 0.15 $2,108 2.00 2.51 Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 0.53 $11,520 1.69 1.41 Efficiency & PV/Battery (15) 0 25.0 2.62 0.29 0.76 $17,586 1.29 1.48 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,492 0 0.0 0.00 1.05 1.07 ($5,349) 0.63 1.89 Efficiency & PV 867 0 15.5 1.97 0.51 1.60 $6,172 1.77 >1 Neutral Cost 2,374 0 8.0 1.35 0.76 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 107 2019-08-01 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 12 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 143 n/a n/a 2.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 135 1.5 (0.02) 2.21 0.12 $291 1.10 2.22 Efficiency-Equipment 0 128 2.5 (0.03) 2.12 0.21 $434 1.25 2.22 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 135 10.0 0.03 2.03 0.30 $2,394 0.30 1.75 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,963 0 n/a n/a 1.34 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,792 0 2.5 0.00 1.24 0.09 $1,011 0.91 1.12 Efficiency-Equipment 1,744 0 2.5 0.00 1.21 0.13 $795 1.56 1.63 Efficiency & PV 472 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 0.60 $3,835 2.08 1.65 Efficiency & PV/Battery (8) 0 26.5 1.20 0.38 0.96 $6,943 1.26 1.68 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,963 0 0.0 0.00 1.34 1.00 ($2,337) 0.64 1.66 Efficiency & PV 59 0 14.0 0.84 0.73 1.60 $1,498 2.88 >1 Neutral Cost 872 0 9.5 0.70 0.92 1.42 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 108 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 13 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary Climate Zone 13 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 352 n/a n/a 2.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 311 4.5 (0.21) 1.80 0.22 $3,060 0.76 1.28 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 292 5.5 (0.24) 1.70 0.32 $611 5.26 8.40 Efficiency & PV/Battery (19) 311 9.5 (0.11) 1.69 0.33 $6,954 0.36 1.56 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,180 0 n/a n/a 1.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,428 0 5.0 0.00 0.92 0.15 $4,154 1.12 1.40 Efficiency-Equipment 3,177 0 6.0 0.00 0.87 0.21 $2,108 2.88 3.30 Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 0.50 $10,532 1.70 1.47 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 22.0 2.32 0.35 0.73 $16,806 1.40 1.54 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,180 0 0.0 0.00 1.08 0.94 ($5,349) 0.54 1.83 Efficiency & PV 934 0 13.0 1.61 0.57 1.44 $5,184 1.56 >1 Neutral Cost 2,092 0 7.0 1.36 0.79 1.23 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 109 2019-08-01 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 13 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 135 n/a n/a 2.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 123 3.0 (0.05) 2.12 0.18 $831 0.63 1.27 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 121 3.0 (0.07) 2.10 0.21 $290 1.95 3.75 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 123 10.5 0.00 1.95 0.35 $2,936 0.38 1.64 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,849 0 n/a n/a 1.36 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,629 0 3.0 0.00 1.24 0.12 $1,011 1.31 1.56 Efficiency-Equipment 1,590 0 3.5 0.00 1.21 0.16 $795 1.98 2.28 Efficiency & PV 501 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 0.56 $3,462 2.12 1.71 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 0 23.5 1.11 0.44 0.92 $6,650 1.35 1.74 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,849 0 0.0 0.00 1.36 0.94 ($2,337) 0.63 1.54 Efficiency & PV 63 0 12.0 0.73 0.80 1.50 $1,125 3.22 >1 Neutral Cost 773 0 8.5 0.70 0.94 1.36 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 110 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.57 2.46 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 3.95 6.14 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,526 1.31 1.74 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 0.95 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.29 3.13 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.21 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $16,394 1.35 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.72 1.67 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.01 >1 Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 0.00 >1 Min Cost Effectiveness 1,853 0 10.0 1.61 1.12 1.23 ($1,000) 1.24 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 111 2019-08-01 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.73 1.21 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 1.96 2.99 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,957 1.09 1.39 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.24 1.65 Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 1.59 2.20 Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 1.39 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,380 1.36 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 1.13 1.48 Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.57 >1 Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 112 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 14 SDGE Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary Climate Zone 14 SDG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 371 n/a n/a 2.35 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 319 4.5 (0.17) 2.06 0.29 $1,662 1.92 2.46 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 305 5.5 (0.19) 1.98 0.36 $799 4.88 6.14 Efficiency & PV/Battery (5) 319 9.0 (0.08) 1.83 0.52 $5,526 1.23 1.74 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 4,725 0 n/a n/a 1.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 3,819 0 5.5 0.00 1.19 0.19 $4,154 1.30 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 3,676 0 6.0 0.00 1.16 0.22 $2,108 2.92 3.13 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 0.45 $10,459 1.80 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 23.5 2.21 0.63 0.75 $16,394 1.67 1.59 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 4,725 0 0.0 0.00 1.38 0.97 ($5,349) 0.60 1.67 Efficiency & PV 953 0 15.5 1.60 0.93 1.42 $5,111 1.94 >1 Neutral Cost 2,299 0 8.5 1.35 1.15 1.19 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 113 2019-08-01 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 14 SDG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 141 n/a n/a 2.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 126 3.0 (0.04) 2.53 0.23 $874 0.93 1.21 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 126 3.0 (0.05) 2.52 0.23 $347 2.48 2.99 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 126 9.5 0.01 2.18 0.58 $2,957 0.51 1.39 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,022 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,759 0 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.15 $1,011 1.47 1.65 Efficiency-Equipment 1,748 0 3.5 0.00 1.56 0.16 $795 2.00 2.20 Efficiency & PV 504 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 0.47 $3,356 2.16 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 24.5 1.03 0.79 0.94 $6,380 1.69 1.77 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,022 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.03 ($2,337) 0.51 1.48 Efficiency & PV 63 0 14.0 0.70 1.26 1.50 $1,019 2.60 >1 Neutral Cost 772 0 10.0 0.70 1.41 1.35 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 114 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 15 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary Climate Zone 15 SCE/SoCalGas Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 149 n/a n/a 1.69 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 141 4.5 (0.43) 1.56 0.13 $2,179 1.00 1.58 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 132 4.5 (0.45) 1.51 0.18 ($936) >1 >1 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 141 7.0 (0.34) 1.38 0.32 $6,043 1.15 1.51 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,149 0 n/a n/a 1.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,230 0 5.5 0.00 1.12 0.20 $4,612 1.12 1.58 Efficiency-Equipment 866 0 7.0 0.00 1.04 0.28 $2,108 3.30 4.47 Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.22 $5,085 1.12 1.57 Efficiency & PV/Battery (2) 0 13.0 0.83 0.84 0.48 $11,382 1.16 1.54 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,149 0 0.0 0.00 1.32 0.37 ($5,349) 1.73 2.21 Efficiency & PV 1,030 0 6.0 0.12 1.10 0.59 ($264) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 23 0 6.0 1.36 1.13 0.57 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 115 2019-08-01 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 15 SCE/SoCalGas Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 93 n/a n/a 2.53 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 92 4.0 (0.15) 2.42 0.11 $510 1.35 2.28 Efficiency-Equipment 0 86 4.0 (0.16) 2.33 0.20 ($157) >1 >1 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 92 8.5 (0.10) 2.13 0.40 $2,604 1.29 1.70 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,243 0 n/a n/a 1.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 954 0 4.0 0.00 1.61 0.17 $1,011 1.50 2.28 Efficiency-Equipment 764 0 6.0 0.00 1.50 0.29 $1,954 1.24 1.72 Efficiency & PV 548 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 0.28 $1,826 1.43 2.07 Efficiency & PV/Battery (3) 0 16.5 0.62 1.08 0.70 $5,020 1.34 1.80 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 1,243 0 0.0 0.00 1.78 0.75 ($2,337) 6.36 2.35 Efficiency & PV 68 0 7.0 0.24 1.50 1.03 ($511) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 78 0 7.5 0.70 1.48 1.05 $0 >1 >1 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 116 2019-08-01 Climate Zone 16 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary Climate Zone 16 PG&E Single Family Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant (0) 605 n/a n/a 3.31 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 454 5.0 0.01 2.59 0.72 $3,542 1.62 1.46 Efficiency-Equipment 0 474 6.0 (0.08) 2.66 0.65 $2,441 2.19 2.20 Efficiency & PV/Battery (18) 454 10.5 0.10 2.36 0.95 $7,399 0.87 1.37 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 7,694 0 n/a n/a 1.73 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 5,696 0 9.5 0.00 1.38 0.35 $5,731 1.72 1.69 Efficiency-Equipment 6,760 0 4.5 0.00 1.55 0.18 $2,108 2.36 2.32 Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 0.79 $16,582 2.09 1.62 Efficiency & PV/Battery (11) 0 35.0 3.45 0.64 1.09 $22,838 1.71 1.55 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 7,694 0 0.0 0.00 1.73 1.58 ($5,349) 0.31 0.68 Efficiency & PV 1,032 0 26.5 2.75 0.94 2.37 $11,234 1.55 2.02 Neutral Cost 5,398 0 8.5 1.35 1.51 1.80 $0 0.00 0.74 Min Cost Effectiveness 3,358 0 16.0 2.56 1.32 1.99 ($4,753) 1.24 1.40 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, Neutral Cost, and Min Cost Effectiveness packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 117 2019-08-01 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary (Per Dwelling Unit) Climate Zone 16 PG&E Multifamily Annual Net kWh Annual therms EDR Margin4 PV Size Change (kW)5 CO2-Equivalent Emissions (lbs/sf) NPV of Lifetime Incremental Cost ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) Total Reduction On-Bill TDV Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 206 n/a n/a 3.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted (0) 172 2.0 0.03 3.02 0.44 $937 1.11 1.19 Efficiency-Equipment (0) 183 2.5 (0.02) 3.12 0.33 $453 1.76 2.15 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 172 9.5 0.08 2.65 0.80 $3,028 0.47 1.28 All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,699 0 n/a n/a 1.86 n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,329 0 4.0 0.00 1.70 0.16 $843 2.08 2.05 Efficiency-Equipment 2,470 0 3.0 0.00 1.74 0.13 $795 1.59 1.70 Efficiency & PV 518 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 0.63 $4,423 2.58 1.89 Efficiency & PV/Battery (6) 0 29.5 1.42 0.75 1.11 $7,533 1.65 1.69 Mixed Fuel to All-Electric 3 Code Compliant 2,699 0 0.0 0.00 1.86 1.59 ($2,337) 0.43 1.03 Efficiency & PV 65 0 19.5 1.07 1.23 2.22 $2,087 2.87 >1 Neutral Cost 1,518 0 10.0 0.70 1.56 1.90 $0 >1 2.58 1All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs (see Section 2.6). 4This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 5Positive values indicate an increase in PV capacity relative to the Standard Design. Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances 2019 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 25, 2019 Attachment 3 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2019, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Building Prototypes .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 Measure Description and Cost ................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Envelope ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 HVAC and SWH ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures .................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics ................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.2 Battery Storage ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages ......................................................................................... 16 3.3 All Electric Measures ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating ....................................................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances .......................................................................................... 22 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 22 4 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office .................................................................................. 24 4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail .................................................................................. 33 4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel ....................................................................................... 41 4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery ................................................................... 50 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations ............................................................................. 55 5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 55 5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations ....................................................................................... 58 6 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 60 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones .................................................................................................... 60 6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures .......................................................................................................... 61 6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis .............................................................................. 61 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules .................................................................................................................... 62 6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures ............................................................................................... 63 6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline .................................................................... 65 6.7 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details .................................................. 69 6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office .......................................................................... 69 6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail .......................................................................... 79 6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel ............................................................................... 88 6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored .............................................................................. 97 6.9 Additional Rates Analysis - Healdsburg ........................................................................................ 102 List of Figures Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost ...................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array ................................................. 13 Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array .................................................. 14 Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array ......................................................... 14 Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary. .................................................... 17 Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs .............................................................................................. 19 Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs .................................................................... 20 Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design .......................................... 21 Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes ............................................. 22 Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 16. Package Summary ......................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ......................................... 26 Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B............................ 27 Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE ......................................... 28 Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ............. 29 Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE .......................................... 30 Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ............................ 31 Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE .......................................... 32 Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE .......................................... 34 Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ............................ 35 Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE.......................................... 36 Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum .............. 37 Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ........................................... 38 Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B ............................. 39 Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE .......................................... 40 Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ............................................... 43 Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B ................................. 44 Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE ............................................... 45 Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ................... 46 Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE ................................................ 47 Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B .................................. 48 Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE ................................................ 49 Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery ............................................................... 52 Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery ................................................................ 53 Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery ..................................................................... 54 Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness .................................... 56 Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness ..................................... 57 Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness .......................................... 58 Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones ................................................................................................... 60 Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function ............................................ 61 Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View .................................................. 62 Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline .......................................................................................... 63 Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline ........................................................................................... 64 Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline ................................................................................................ 65 Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All-Electric Federal Code Minimum ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All-Electric + EE) ........ 67 Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All-Electric + EE + PV) 67 Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All Electric + HE) ........ 68 Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV ..................................................... 71 Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ......................... 72 Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV ................................................ 73 Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ................... 74 Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV ...................................................... 75 Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .......................... 76 Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV ................................................. 77 Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery .................... 78 Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV..................................................... 80 Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery .......................... 81 Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV ................................................ 82 Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ................... 83 Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV ..................................................... 84 Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery........................... 85 Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV ................................................. 86 Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery .................... 87 Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV .......................................................... 89 Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ............................... 90 Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV .......................................................... 91 Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ........................... 92 Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV ........................................................... 93 Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ................................ 94 Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV ......................................................... 95 Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery ............................ 96 Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored ............................................................................. 97 Figure 79. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Office, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary103 Figure 80. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Retail, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary 104 Figure 81. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Small Hotel, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary ..... 105 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 1 2019-07-25 1 Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements for design in newly-constructed nonresidential buildings. Buildings specifically examined include medium office, medium retail, and small hotels. Measures include energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage. In addition, the report includes a comparison between a baseline mixed-fuel design and all-electric design for each occupancy type. The Reach Code team analyzed the following seven packages as compared to 2019 code compliant mixed- fuel design baseline: ♦ Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + Energy Efficiency (EE): Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + Battery (B): Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + High Efficiency (HE): Baseline code-minimum building with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. The intent of this package is to assess the standalone contribution that high efficiency appliances would make toward achieving high performance thresholds. ♦ Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. ♦ Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: Package 2 all-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. Figure 1 summarizes the baseline and measure packages. Please refer to Section 3 for more details on the measure descriptions. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 2 2019-07-25 Figure 1. Measure Category and Package Overview Measure Category Report Section Mixed Fuel All-Electric Baseline 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B 3C Fed Code Minimum Efficiency EE EE+ PV + B HE Fed Code Minimum Efficiency EE EE+ PV + B HE Energy Efficiency Measures 3.1 X X X X Solar PV + Battery 3.2 X X All-Electric Measures 3.3 X X X X Preemptive Appliance Measures 3.4 X X The team separately developed cost effectiveness results for PV-only and PV+Battery packages, excluding any efficiency measures. For these packages, the PV is modeled as a “minimal” size of 3 kW and a larger size based on the available roof area and electric load of the building. PV sizes are combined with two sizes of battery storage for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings to form eight different package combinations as outlined below: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery. Each of the eight packages are evaluated against a baseline model designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements. The Standards baseline for all occupancies in this report is a mixed-fuel design. The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment.1 Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting 1 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 3 2019-07-25 higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. However, because high efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance, this study provides an analysis of high efficiency appliances for informational purposes. While federal preemption would limit a reach code, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements, including higher efficiency appliances that are federally regulated. 2 Methodology and Assumptions With input from several stakeholders, the Reach Codes team selected three building types—medium office, medium retail, and small hotel—to represent a predominant segment of nonresidential new construction in the state. This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation of energy (TDV) based approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures, as well as quantifying the costs associated with the measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the valuation of energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.2 The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using EnergyPro 8.0 software for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, which uses CBECC-Com 2019.1.0 for the calculation engine. The baseline prototype models in all climate zones have been designed to have compliance margins as close as possible to 0 to reflect a prescriptively-built building.3 2.1 Building Prototypes The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2019 Title 24 requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of efficiency measures. These prototypes have historically been used by the California Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements. The Reach Code Team performed analysis on a medium office, a medium retail, and a small hotel prototype. Water heating includes both service water heating (SWH) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot water for hotels. In this report, water heating or SWH is used to refer to both. The Standard Design HVAC and SWH systems are based on the system maps included in the 2019 Nonresidential Alternate 2 Horii, B., E. Cutter, N. Kapur, J. Arent, and D. Conotyannis. 2014. “Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014- 07-09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents 3 EnergySoft and TRC were able to develop most baseline prototypes to achieve a compliance margin of less than +/-1 percent except for few models that were at +/- 6 percent. This indicates these prototypes are not exactly prescriptive according to compliance software calculations. To calculate incremental impacts, TRC conservatively compared the package results to that of the proposed design of baseline prototypes (not the standard design). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 4 2019-07-25 Calculation Method Reference Manual.4 The Standard Design is the baseline for all nonresidential projects and assumes a mixed-fuel design using natural gas as the space heating source in all cases. Baseline HVAC and SWH system characteristics are described below and in Figure 2: ♦ The baseline medium office HVAC design package includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units (one for each floor), and variable air volume (VAV) terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The baseline medium retail HVAC design includes five single zone packaged rooftop units (variable flow and constant flow depending on the zone) with gas furnaces for heating. The SWH design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The small hotel has two baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. ♦ The nonresidential HVAC design includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coils. The SWH design include a small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank. ♦ The residential HVAC design includes one single zone air conditioner (AC) unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms. Figure 2. Prototype Characteristics Summary Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel Conditioned Floor Area 53,628 24,691 42,552 Number of Stories 3 1 4 Number of Guest Rooms 0 0 78 Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 Baseline HVAC System Packaged DX VAV with gas furnaces + VAV terminal units with hot water reheat. Central gas hot water boilers Single zone packaged DX units with gas furnaces Nonresidential: Packaged DX VAV with hot water coil + VAV terminal units with hot water reheat. Central gas hot water boilers. Residential: Single zone DX AC unit with gas furnaces Baseline Water Heating System 30-gallon electric resistance water heater 30-gallon electric resistance water heater Nonresidential: 30-gallon electric resistance water heater Residential: Central gas water heater with recirculation loop 4 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual For the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-006/CEC-400-2019-006-CMF.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 5 2019-07-25 2.2 Cost Effectiveness The Reach Code Team analyzed the cost effectiveness of the packages by applying them to building prototypes (as applicable) using the life cycle cost methodology, which is approved and used by the Energy Commission to establish cost effective building energy standards (Title 24, Part 6).5 Per Energy Commission’s methodology, the Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs of the energy efficiency measure packages and compared them to the energy cost savings over the measure life of 15 years. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements. The energy savings benefits are estimated using both TDV of energy and typical utility rates for each building type: ♦ Time Dependent Valuation: TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. Simulation outputs are translated to TDV savings benefits using 2019 TDV multipliers and 15-year discounted costs for the nonresidential measure packages. ♦ Utility bill impacts (On-bill): Utility energy costs are estimated by applying appropriate IOU rates to estimated annual electricity and natural gas consumption. The energy bill savings are calculated as the difference in utility costs between the baseline and proposed package over a 15- year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost escalation. In coordination with the IOU rate team, and rate experts at a few electric publicly owned utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team used the current nonresidential utility rates publicly available at the time of analysis to analyze the cost effectiveness for each proposed package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Figure 3, were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype, and the most prevalent rate in each territory. For some prototypes there are multiple options for rates because of the varying load profiles of mixed-fuel buildings versus all-electric buildings. Tariffs were integrated in EnergyPro software to be applied to the hourly electricity and gas outputs. The Reach Code Team did not attempt to compare or test a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness. The currently available and applicable time-of–use (TOU) nonresidential rates are applied to both the base and proposed cases with PV systems.6 Any annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved NEM tariffs for that utility. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules. Note that most utility time-of-use rates will be updated in the near future, which can affect cost effectiveness results. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will introduce new rates for new service connections in late 2019, and existing accounts will be automatically rolled over to new rates in November 2020. 5 Architectural Energy Corporation (January 2011) Life-Cycle Cost Methodology. California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/2011-01- 14_LCC_Methodology_2013.pdf 6 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. As of March 2016, all new PG&E net energy metering (NEM) customers are enrolled in a time-of-use rate. (http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tou/index.page?). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 6 2019-07-25 Figure 3. Utility Tariffs used based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas IOUs 1-5,11-13,16 PG&E A-1/A-10 G-NR1 5 PG&E / Southern California Gas Company A-1/A-10 G-10 (GN- 10) 6,8-10,14,15 SCE / Southern California Gas Company TOU-GS-1/TOU-GS- 2/TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN- 10) 7,10,14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) A-1/A-10 GN-3 Electric POUs 4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-2 n/a 12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) GS n/a 6,7,8,16 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) A-2 (B) n/a The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs through interviews with contractors and California distributors and review of online sources, such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance costs were not included because there is no assumed maintenance on the envelope measures. For HVAC and SWH measures the study assumes there are no additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Replacement costs for inverters were included for PV systems, but the useful life all other equipment exceeds the study period. The Reach Code Team compared the energy benefits with incremental measure cost data to determine cost effectiveness for each measure package. The calculation is performed for a duration of 15 years for all nonresidential prototypes with a 3 percent discount rate and fuel escalation rates based on the most recent General Rate Case filings and historical escalation rates.7 Cost effectiveness is presented using net present value and benefit-to-cost ratio metrics. ♦ Net Present Value (NPV): The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., material and maintenance cost savings). ♦ Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (B/C): Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. 7 2019 TDV Methodology Report, California Energy Commission, Docket number: 16-BSTD-06 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=216062 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 7 2019-07-25 There are several special circumstances to consider when reviewing these results: ♦ Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ ♦ In cases where a measure package is cost effective immediately (i.e., there are upfront cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), cost effectiveness is represented by “>1”. ♦ The B/C ratios sometimes appear very high even though the cost numbers are not very high (for example, an upfront cost of $1 but on-bill savings of $200 over 30 years would equate to a B/C ratio of 200). NPV is also displayed to clarify these potentially confusing conclusions – in the example, the NPV would be equal to a modest $199. 3 Measure Description and Cost Using the 2019 Title 24 code baseline as the starting point, The Reach Code Team identified potential measure packages to determine the projected energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. The Reach Code Team developed an initial measure list based on experience with designers and contractors along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance and preferences of many measures, as well as their incremental costs. The measures are categorized into energy efficiency, solar PV and battery, all-electric, and preempted high efficiency measures in subsections below. 3.1 Energy Efficiency Measures This section describes all the energy efficiency measures considered for this analysis to develop a non- preempted, cost-effective efficiency measure package. The Reach Code Team assessed the cost- effectiveness of measures for all climate zones individually and found that the packages did not need to vary by climate zone, with the exception of a solar heat gain coefficient measure in hotels, as described in more detail below. The measures were developed based on reviews of proposed 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well as ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 189.1 Standards. Please refer to Appendix Section 6.86.7 for a list of efficiency measures that were considered but not implemented. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 8 2019-07-25 Figure 4 provides a summary of the cost of each measure and the applicability of each measure to the prototype buildings. 3.1.1 Envelope ♦ Modify Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) fenestration ♦ Office and Retail - All Climate Zones: reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22 ♦ Hotel ♦ Climate zones 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16: Increase the SHGC for all nonresidential spaces from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.45 in both common and guest room spaces. ♦ Climate zones 4, and 6-15: Reduce window SHGC from the prescriptive value of 0.25 to 0.22, only for common spaces. In all cases, the fenestration visible transmittance and U-factor remain at prescriptive values. ♦ Fenestration as a function of orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation. East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south-facing windows. 3.1.2 HVAC and SWH ♦ Drain water heat recovery (DWHR): Add shower drain heat recovery in hotel guest rooms. DWHR captures waste heat from a shower drain line and uses it to preheat hot water. Note that this measure cannot currently be modeled on hotel/motel spaces, and the Reach Code Team integrated estimated savings outside of modeling software based on SWH savings in residential scenarios. Please see Appendix Section 6.3 for details on energy savings analysis. ♦ VAV box minimum flow: Reduce VAV box minimum airflows from the current T24 prescriptive requirement of 20 percent of maximum (design) airflow to the T24 zone ventilation minimums. ♦ Economizers on small capacity systems: Require economizers and staged fan control in units with cooling capacity ≥ 33,000 Btu/hr and ≤ 54,000 Btu/hr, which matches the requirement in the 2018 International Green Construction Code and adopts ANSI/ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1. This measure reduces the T24 prescriptive threshold on air handling units that are required to have economizers, which is > 54,000 Btu/hr. ♦ Solar thermal hot water: For all-electric hotel only, add solar thermal water heating to supply the following portions of the water heating load, measured in solar savings fraction (SSF): ♦ 20 percent SSF in CZs 2, 3, and 5-9 ♦ 25 percent in CZ4 ♦ 35 percent SSF in CZs 1 and 10-16. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 9 2019-07-25 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 10 2019-07-25 Figure 4. Energy Efficiency Measures - Specification and Cost Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Envelope Modify SHGC Fenestration SHGC of 0.25 ● ● ● ● $1.60 /ft2 window for SHGC decreases, $0/ft2 for SHGC increases Costs 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 design consideration not an equipment cost. HVAC and SHW Drain Water Heat Recovery No heat recovery required ─ ─ ● ─ $841 /unit Assume 1 heat recovery unit for every 3 guestrooms. Costs from three manufacturers. VAV Box Minimum Flow 20 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 Systems Economizers required for units > 54,000 Btu/hr ─ ● ─ ─ $2,857 /unit Costs from one manufacturer’s representative and one mechanical contractor. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 11 2019-07-25 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Solar Thermal Hot Water For central heat pump water heaters, there is no prescriptive baseline requirement. ─ ─ ● (electric only) ─ $33/therm-yr Installed costs reported in the California Solar Initiative Thermal Program Database, 2015-present.8 Costs include tank and were only available for gas backup systems. Costs are reduced by 19 percent per federal income tax credit average through 2022. Lighting Interior Lighting Reduced LPD Per Area Category Method, varies by Primary Function Area. Office area 0.60 – 0.70 W/ft2 depending 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.9 8 http://www.csithermalstats.org/download.html 9 http://calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_-_Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 12 2019-07-25 Measure Baseline T24 Requirement Measure Applicability ● Included in Packages 1A, 1B, 3A, 3C ─ Not applicable Incremental Cost Sources & Notes Med Office Med Retail Small Hotel Guest rooms Comm Spaces Institutional Tuning No requirement, but Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) credit of 0.10 available for luminaires in non-daylit areas and 0.05 for luminaires in daylit areas 10 ● ● ─ ● $0.06/ft2 Industry report on institutional tuning11 Daylight Dimming Plus Off No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.10 available. ● ─ ─ ─ $0 Given the amount of lighting controls already required, this measure is no additional cost. Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices No requirement, but PAF credit of 0.30 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 office 10 Power 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. 11 https://slipstreaminc.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/task-tuning-report-mndoc-2015.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 13 2019-07-25 3.2 Solar Photovoltaics and Battery Measures This section describes the PV and battery measures considered for this analysis. The Reach Code Team estimated the required PV sizes for each building prototype for the efficiency measure packages and the stand alone PV and battery options. 3.2.1 Solar Photovoltaics 2019 Title 24 requires nonresidential buildings to reserve at least 15 percent of the roof area as a “solar zone,” but does not include any requirements or compliance credits for the installation of photovoltaic systems. The Reach Code Team analyzed a range of PV system sizes to determine cost effectiveness. To determine upper end of potential PV system size, the Reach Code Team assumed a PV generation capacity of either ♦ 15 W/ft2 covering 50 percent of the roof area, or ♦ Enough to nearly offset the annual energy consumption. The medium office and small hotel prototypes had small roof areas compared to their annual electricity demand, thus the PV system capacity at 50 percent of the roof area was less than the estimated annual usage. The medium office and small hotel had a 135 kW and 80 kW array, respectively. The medium retail building has a substantially large roof area that would accommodate a PV array that generates more than the annual electricity load of the building. The PV array for the medium retail building was sized at 110 kW to not exceed the annual electricity consumption of the building when accounting for the minimum annual energy demand across climate zones with efficiency packages. The modeling software for nonresidential buildings does not allow auto-sizing of PV based on a desired percent offset of electricity use. Moreover, the PV size is also constrained by the availability of roof area. Hence, a common size of PV is modeled for all the packages including all electric design. Figure 5 through Figure 7 below demonstrate the percent of electricity offset by PV for both mixed fuel and all electric buildings over their respective federal minimum design package. Figure 5. Medium Office – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 135 kW Array 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Medium Office -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed-Fuel All-Electric 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 14 2019-07-25 Figure 6. Medium Retail – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 110 kW Array Figure 7. Small Hotel – Annual Percent kWh Offset with 80 kW Array The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. A summary of the medium office costs and sources is given in Figure 8. Upfront solar PV system costs are reduced by the federal income tax credit (ITC), approximately 19 percent due to a phased reduction in the credit through the year 2022.12 12 The federal credit drops to 26% in 2020, and 22% in 2021 before dropping permanently to 10% for commercial projects and 0% for residential projects in 2022. More information on federal Investment Tax Credits available at: https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-investment-tax-credit-itc 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Medium Retail -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed fuel All electric 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Climate Zone Small Hotel -Percent kWh Offset by PV Mixed Fuel All-Electric 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 15 2019-07-25 Figure 8. Medium Office Upfront PV Costs Unit Cost Cost Useful Life (yrs.) Source Solar PV System $2.30 / Wdc $310,500 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Q1 2016 13 Inverter Replacement $0.15 / Wdc $20,250 10 E3 Rooftop Solar PV System Report 14 Maintenance Costs $0.02 / Wdc $2,700 1 PV energy output is built into CBECC-Com and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long term performance degradation estimates.15 3.2.2 Battery Storage This measure includes installation of batteries to allow energy generated through PV to be stored and used later, providing additional energy cost benefits. This report does not focus on optimizing battery sizes or controls for each prototype and climate zone, though the Reach Code Team ran test simulations to assess the impact of battery sizes on TDV savings and found diminishing returns as the battery size increased. The team set battery control to the Time of Use Control (TOU) method, which assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the building load but discharges to the electric grid beginning during the highest priced hours of the day (the “First Hour of the Summer Peak”). Because there is no default hour available in CBECC-Com, the team applied the default hour available in CBECC-Res to start discharging (hour 19 in CZs 2, 4, and 8-15, and hour 20 in other CZs). This control option is most reflective of the current products on the market. While this control strategy is being used in the analysis, there would be no mandate on the control strategy used in practice. The current simulation software has approximations of how performance characteristics change with environmental conditions, charge/discharge rates, and degradation with age and use. More information is on the software battery control capabilities and associated qualification requirements are available in the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual and the 2019 Reference Appendices for the 2019 Title 24 Standards.16,17 The Reach Code Team used costs of $558 kWh based on a 2018 IOU Codes and Standards Program report, assuming a replacement is necessary in year 15.18 Batteries are also eligible for the ITC if they are installed at the same time as the renewable generation source and at least 75 percent of the energy used to charge 13 Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf 14 Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 15 More information available at: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/downloads/pvwattsv5.pdf 16 Battery controls are discussed in Sections 2.1.5.4 and Appendix D of the Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual, available here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf 17 Qualification Requirements for Battery Storage Systems are available in JA12 of the 2019 Reference Appendices: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018-021-CMF.pdf 18 Available at: http://localenergycodes.com/download/430/file_path/fieldList/PV%20Plus%20Battery%20Storage%20Report 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 16 2019-07-25 the battery comes from a renewable source. Thus, the Reach Code Team also applied a 19 percent cost reduction to battery costs. 3.2.3 PV-only and PV+Battery Packages The Reach Code Team analyzed solar PV and battery storage only, without other efficiency measures in both mixed-fuel and all-electric building designs. Two different sizes of solar PV and battery storage were analyzed. ♦ Small PV Size: 3 kW, assumed to be the minimal PV system considered for installation in a nonresidential building. ♦ Large PV Size: PV capacity equal to 15 W/ft2 over 50 percent of the roof area, or sized to nearly offset annual electricity consumption, as described in Section 3.2.1. ♦ Small Battery Size: 5 kWh, assumed to be the minimal battery system considered for installation in a nonresidential building, and representative of smaller products currently available on the market. ♦ Large Battery Size: 50 kWh, assumed to be a substantially large size for a nonresidential setting. Generally, the reach code team found diminishing on-bill and TDV benefits as the battery size increased. As described in Section 1 and Section 4.4, each PV size was run as a standalone measure. When packaged with a battery measure, the small PV size was paired with the small battery size, and the large PV size was paired with the large battery size. 3.3 All Electric Measures The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs associated with changing the baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment. This includes heat pump space heating, electric resistance reheat coils, electric water heater with storage tank, heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction. The Reach Code Team selected electric systems that would be installed instead of gas-fueled systems in each prototype. 3.3.1 HVAC and Water Heating The nonresidential standards use a mixed-fuel baseline for the Standard Design systems. In most nonresidential occupancies, the baseline is natural gas space heating. Hotel/motels and high-rise residential occupancies also assume natural gas baseline water heating systems for the guest rooms and dwelling units. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving these end-uses is replaced with electric equipment, as described in Figure 9. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 17 2019-07-25 Figure 9. All-Electric HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary. Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel HVAC System Baseline Packaged DX + VAV with HW reheat. Central gas boilers. Single zone packaged DX with gas furnaces NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with HW reheat. Central gas boilers. Res: Single zone DX AC unit with gas furnaces Proposed All- Electric Packaged DX + VAV with electric resistance reheat. Single zone packaged heat pumps NonRes: Packaged DX + VAV with electric resistance reheat Res: Single zone heat pumps Water Heating System Baseline Electric resistance with storage Electric resistance with storage NonRes: Electric resistance storage Res: Central gas storage with recirculation Proposed All- Electric Electric resistance with storage Electric resistance with storage NonRes: Electric resistance storage Res: Individual heat pumps The Reach Code Team received cost data for baseline mixed-fuel equipment as well as electric equipment from an experienced mechanical contractor in the San Francisco Bay Area. The total construction cost includes equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems), and contractor overhead. 3.3.1.1 Medium Office The baseline HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units, and VAV hot water reheat boxes. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30- gallon storage tank. For the medium office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential all- electric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume and temperature systems. After seeking feedback from the design community, the Reach Code Team determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system, given the software modeling constraints is a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box (PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat would further improve efficiency due to reducing ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in compliance software. Note that the actual natural gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use.19 19 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 18 2019-07-25 If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated distribution loss) may be higher. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for medium office designs are presented in Figure 10. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other climate zones. Figure 10. Medium Office HVAC System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $1,202,538 $1,106,432 $(96,106) CZ02 $1,261,531 $1,178,983 $(82,548) CZ03 $1,205,172 $1,113,989 $(91,183) CZ04 $1,283,300 $1,205,434 $(77,865) CZ05 $1,207,345 $1,113,989 $(93,356) CZ06 $1,216,377 $1,131,371 $(85,006) CZ07 $1,227,932 $1,148,754 $(79,178) CZ08 $1,250,564 $1,172,937 $(77,626) CZ09 $1,268,320 $1,196,365 $(71,955) CZ10 $1,313,580 $1,256,825 $(56,755) CZ11 $1,294,145 $1,221,305 $(72,840) CZ12 $1,274,317 $1,197,121 $(77,196) CZ13 $1,292,884 $1,221,305 $(71,579) CZ14 $1,286,245 $1,212,236 $(74,009) CZ15 $1,357,023 $1,311,994 $(45,029) CZ16 $1,295,766 $1,222,817 $(72,949) 3.3.1.2 Medium Retail The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan control requirements in section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one 8.75 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 30-gallon storage tank. For the medium retail all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps instead of the packaged ACs. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for medium retail designs are presented in Figure 11. Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 19 2019-07-25 Figure 11. Medium Retail HVAC System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $328,312 $333,291 $4,978 CZ02 $373,139 $373,702 $563 CZ03 $322,849 $326,764 $3,915 CZ04 $329,900 $335,031 $5,131 CZ05 $359,888 $362,408 $2,520 CZ06 $335,728 $341,992 $6,265 CZ07 $345,544 $349,808 $4,265 CZ08 $368,687 $369,792 $1,104 CZ09 $415,155 $411,069 $(4,087) CZ10 $345,993 $346,748 $755 CZ11 $418,721 $414,546 $(4,175) CZ12 $405,110 $400,632 $(4,477) CZ13 $376,003 $375,872 $(131) CZ14 $405,381 $406,752 $1,371 CZ15 $429,123 $427,606 $(1,517) CZ16 $401,892 $404,147 $2,256 3.3.1.3 Small Hotel The small hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units and twelve VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small electric water heater with storage tank. The residential HVAC design includes one single zone AC unit with gas furnace for each guest room and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms. For the small hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system to remain a small electric resistance water heater. For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the analysis used a single zone (packaged terminal) heat pump and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. Central heat pump water heating with recirculation serving guest rooms cannot yet be modeled in CBECC-Com, and energy impacts were modeled by simulating individual heat pump water heaters in each guest room. The reach code team believes this is a conservative assumption, since individual heat pump water heaters will have much higher tank standby losses. The Reach Code Team attained costs for central heat pump water heating installation including storage tanks and controls and used these costs in the study. Cost data for small hotel designs are presented in Figure 12. The all-electric design presents substantial cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential spaces, as well as the lower cost of packaged terminal heat pumps serving the residential spaces compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 20 2019-07-25 Figure 12. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs Climate Zone Mixed Fuel Baseline All Electric System Incremental cost for All-Electric CZ01 $2,337,531 $1,057,178 $(1,280,353) CZ02 $2,328,121 $1,046,795 $(1,281,326) CZ03 $2,294,053 $1,010,455 $(1,283,598) CZ04 $2,302,108 $1,018,675 $(1,283,433) CZ05 $2,298,700 $1,015,214 $(1,283,486) CZ06 $2,295,380 $1,011,753 $(1,283,627) CZ07 $2,308,004 $1,026,029 $(1,281,975) CZ08 $2,333,662 $1,053,717 $(1,279,946) CZ09 $2,312,099 $1,030,355 $(1,281,744) CZ10 $2,354,093 $1,075,348 $(1,278,745) CZ11 $2,347,980 $1,068,426 $(1,279,554) CZ12 $2,328,654 $1,047,660 $(1,280,994) CZ13 $2,348,225 $1,068,858 $(1,279,367) CZ14 $2,345,988 $1,066,263 $(1,279,725) CZ15 $2,357,086 $1,079,241 $(1,277,845) CZ16 $2,304,094 $1,019,973 $(1,284,121) 3.3.2 Infrastructure Impacts Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent natural gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat. Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas appliances. This includes: ♦ Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small hotel. ♦ Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel. 3.3.2.1 Electrical Panel Sizing and Wiring This section details the additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric measures. In an all-electric new construction scenario, heat pumps replace packaged DX units which are paired with either a gas furnace or a hot water coil (supplied by a gas boiler). The electrical requirements of the replacement heat pump would be the same as the packaged DX unit it replaces, as the electrical requirements would be driven by the cooling capacity, which would remain the same between the two units. VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils that are replaced with electric resistance reheat coils require additional electrical infrastructure. In the case of electric resistance coils, the Reach Code Team assumed that on average, a VAV terminal unit serves around 900 ft2 of conditioned space and has a heating capacity of 5 kW (15 kBtu/hr/ft2). The incremental electrical infrastructure costs were determined based on RS Means. Calculations for the medium office shown in Figure 13 include the cost to add electrical panels as well as the cost to add electrical lines to each VAV terminal unit electric resistance coil in the medium office prototype. Additionally, the Reach Code Team subtracted the electrical infrastructure costs associated with hot water pumps required in the mixed fuel baseline, which are not required in the all-electric measures. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 21 2019-07-25 The Reach Code Team calculated costs to increase electrical capacity for heat pump water heaters in the small hotel similarly. Figure 13. Medium Office Electrical Infrastructure Costs for All-Electric Design A - No. VAV Boxes 60 B - VAV box heating capacity (watts) 4,748 C - No. hot water pumps 2 D - Hot water pump power (watts) 398 E - Voltage 208 F (AxB - CxD)/E Panel ampacity required 1,366 G F/400 Number of 400-amp panels required 4 H - Cost per 400-amp panel $3,100 I GxH Total panel cost $12,400 J - Total electrical line length required (ft) 4,320 K - Cost per linear foot of electrical line $3.62 L JxK Total electrical line cost $15,402 I + L Total electrical infrastructure incremental cost $27,802 3.3.2.2 Natural Gas This analysis assumes that in an all-electric new construction scenario natural gas would not be supplied to the site. Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly connection charges by the utility. The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a service line (branch connection) from the natural gas main to the building meter. In the medium office prototype, natural gas piping is routed to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed that the boiler is on the first floor, and that 30 feet of piping is required from the connection to the main to the boiler. The Reach Code Team assumed 1” corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing distribution. The Reach Code Team included costs for a natural gas plan review, service extension, and a gas meter, as shown in Figure 14 below. The natural gas plan review cost is based on information received from the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The meter costs are from PG&E and include both material and labor. The service extension costs are based on guidance from PG&E, who noted that the cost range is highly varied and that there is no “typical” cost, with costs being highly dependent on length of extension, terrain, whether the building is in a developed or undeveloped area, and number of buildings to be served. While an actual service extension cost is highly uncertain, the team believes the costs assumed in this analysis are within a reasonable range based on a sample range of costs provided by PG&E. These costs assume development in a previously developed area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 22 2019-07-25 Figure 14. Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Prototypes Cost Type Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel Natural Gas Plan Review $2,316 $2,316 $2,316 Service Extension $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Meter $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Plumbing Distribution $633 $9,711 $37,704 Total Cost $18,949 $28,027 $56,020 3.4 Preempted High Efficiency Appliances The Reach Code Team developed a package of high efficiency (HE) space and water heating appliances based on commonly available products for both the mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios. This package assesses the standalone contribution that high efficiency measures would make toward achieving high performance thresholds. The Reach Code Team reviewed the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) certified product database to estimate appropriate efficiencies.20 The Reach Code Team determined the efficiency increases to be appropriate based on equipment type, summarized in Figure 15, with cost premiums attained from a Bay Area mechanical contractor. The ranges in efficiency are indicative of varying federal standard requirements based on equipment size. Figure 15. High Efficiency Appliance Assumptions Federal Minimum Efficiency Preempted Efficiency Cost Premium for HE Appliance Gas space heating and water heating 80-82% 90-95% 10-15% Large packaged rooftop cooling 9.8-12 EER 11.4-12.9 IEER 10.5-13 EER 15-15.5 IEER 10-15% Single zone heat pump space heating 7.7 HSPF 3.2 COP 10 HSPF 3.5 COP 6-15% Heat pump water heating 2.0 UEF 3.3 UEF None (market does not carry 2.0 UEF) 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates from Zero Code reports available in CBECC-Com.21 Zero Code uses 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Fugitive 20 Available at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome?ReturnUrl=%2f 21 More information available at: https://zero-code.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ZERO-Code-TSD-California.pdf 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 23 2019-07-25 emissions are not included. There are two strings of multipliers – one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.22 4 Results The Reach Code Team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixed- fuel code compliant baseline for all climate zones, as detailed in Sections 4.1 -- 4.3 and reiterated in Figure 16: ♦ Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. ♦ Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. ♦ Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies. ♦ Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries. ♦ Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. Figure 16. Package Summary Package Fuel Type Energy Efficiency Measures PV & Battery (PV + B) High Efficiency Appliances (HE) Mixed Fuel All-Electric Mixed-Fuel Code Minimum Baseline X 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE X X 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B X X X 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE X X 2 – All-Electric Federal Code- Minimum Reference X 3A – All-Electric + EE X X 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B X X X 3C – All-Electric + HE X X 22 CBECC-Com documentation does not state which climate zones fall under which region. CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 24 2019-07-25 Section 4.4 presents the results of the PV-only and PV+Battery analysis. The TDV and on-bill based cost effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV in this section. What constitutes a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are as the ‘cost.’ Overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results include: ♦ To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes must both be cost effective and exceed the energy performance budget using TDV (i.e., have a positive compliance margin). To emphasize these two important factors, the figures in this Section highlight in green the modeling results that have either a positive compliance margin or are cost effective. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Conversely, Section 4.4 only highlights results that both have a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, to allow readers to identify reach code-ready scenarios. ♦ Note: Compliance margin represents the proportion of energy usage that is saved compared to the baseline, measured on a TDV basis. ♦ The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for either solar PV or battery storage. Thus, the compliance margins in Packages 1A are the same as 1B, and Package 3A is the same as 3B. However, The Reach Code Team did include the impact of solar PV and battery when calculating TDV cost-effectiveness. ♦ When performance modeling residential buildings, the Energy Commission allows the Standard Design to be electric if the Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for all- electric residential buildings. Nonresidential buildings are not treated in the same way and are compared to a mixed-fuel standard design. ♦ Results do not include an analysis and comparison of utility rates. As mentioned in Section 2.2, The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost effectiveness. Note that most utility time-of-use rates are continuously updated, which can affect cost effectiveness results. ♦ As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 6.5. 4.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office Figure 17 through Figure 23 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Packages achieve +12 to +20 percent compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones using the TDV approach. All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach except for LADWP territory. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 25 2019-07-25 ♦ 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 26 2019-07-25 Figure 17. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reduc- tions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 34,421 -808 4.5 18% $66,649 $125,902 $71,307 1.9 1.1 $59,253 $4,658 CZ02 PG&E 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $163,655 $99,181 2.5 1.5 $97,005 $32,532 CZ03 PG&E 36,266 -463 7.0 20% $66,649 $141,897 $84,051 2.1 1.3 $75,248 $17,401 CZ04 PG&E 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $162,139 $95,410 2.4 1.4 $95,489 $28,761 CZ04-2 CPAU 40,590 -547 7.7 14% $66,649 $85,537 $95,410 1.3 1.4 $18,887 $28,761 CZ05 PG&E 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $154,044 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $87,395 $24,465 CZ05-2 SCG 38,888 -499 7.4 18% $66,649 $156,315 $91,115 2.3 1.4 $89,665 $24,465 CZ06 SCE 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $86,390 $100,469 1.3 1.5 $19,741 $33,820 CZ06-2 LADWP 39,579 -305 8.7 20% $66,649 $51,828 $100,469 0.8 1.5 ($14,821) $33,820 CZ07 SDG&E 41,817 -6 11.3 20% $66,649 $204,394 $112,497 3.1 1.7 $137,745 $45,848 CZ08 SCE 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $89,783 $113,786 1.3 1.7 $23,134 $47,137 CZ08-2 LADWP 41,637 -60 10.8 18% $66,649 $54,876 $113,786 0.8 1.7 ($11,773) $47,137 CZ09 SCE 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $95,636 $115,647 1.4 1.7 $28,987 $48,998 CZ09-2 LADWP 42,539 -210 10.1 16% $66,649 $58,168 $115,647 0.9 1.7 ($8,481) $48,998 CZ10 SDG&E 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $210,303 $108,726 3.2 1.6 $143,654 $42,077 CZ10-2 SCE 41,857 -216 9.8 17% $66,649 $92,736 $108,726 1.4 1.6 $26,087 $42,077 CZ11 PG&E 42,523 -390 9.1 13% $66,649 $166,951 $104,001 2.5 1.6 $100,301 $37,352 CZ12 PG&E 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $161,594 $100,135 2.4 1.5 $94,945 $33,486 CZ12-2 SMUD 41,521 -466 8.4 14% $66,649 $71,734 $100,135 1.1 1.5 $5,085 $33,486 CZ13 PG&E 42,898 -434 9.0 13% $66,649 $169,107 $99,992 2.5 1.5 $102,457 $33,343 CZ14 SDG&E 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $211,529 $106,913 3.2 1.6 $144,880 $40,264 CZ14-2 SCE 42,224 -441 8.6 14% $66,649 $95,809 $106,913 1.4 1.6 $29,160 $40,264 CZ15 SCE 45,723 -147 11.2 12% $66,649 $102,714 $118,034 1.5 1.8 $36,065 $51,384 CZ16 PG&E 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $145,947 $79,755 2.2 1.2 $79,297 $13,106 CZ16-2 LADWP 37,758 -736 5.8 14% $66,649 $40,115 $79,755 0.6 1.2 ($26,534) $13,106 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 27 2019-07-25 Figure 18. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + Battery CZ01 PG&E 211,225 -808 39.9 18% $397,405 $645,010 $454,284 1.6 1.1 $247,605 $56,879 CZ02 PG&E 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $397,405 $819,307 $573,033 2.1 1.4 $421,902 $175,628 CZ03 PG&E 245,421 -463 48.8 20% $397,405 $777,156 $536,330 2.0 1.3 $379,751 $138,925 CZ04 PG&E 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $836,221 $597,471 2.1 1.5 $438,816 $200,066 CZ04-2 CPAU 267,612 -547 52.7 14% $397,405 $621,879 $597,471 1.6 1.5 $224,474 $200,066 CZ05 PG&E 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $897,216 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $499,811 $181,451 CZ05-2 SCG 264,581 -499 52.5 18% $397,405 $899,487 $578,856 2.3 1.5 $502,082 $181,451 CZ06 SCE 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $484,229 $594,416 1.2 1.5 $86,824 $197,011 CZ06-2 LA 257,474 -305 52.1 20% $397,405 $282,360 $594,416 0.7 1.5 ($115,045) $197,011 CZ07 SDG&E 264,530 -6 55.7 20% $397,405 $817,528 $610,548 2.1 1.5 $420,123 $213,143 CZ08 SCE 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $479,073 $625,249 1.2 1.6 $81,668 $227,844 CZ08-2 LA 258,348 -60 54.0 18% $397,405 $275,704 $625,249 0.7 1.6 ($121,701) $227,844 CZ09 SCE 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $480,241 $622,528 1.2 1.6 $82,836 $225,123 CZ09-2 LA 262,085 -210 54.3 16% $397,405 $282,209 $622,528 0.7 1.6 ($115,196) $225,123 CZ10 SDG&E 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $839,931 $595,323 2.1 1.5 $442,526 $197,918 CZ10-2 SCE 258,548 -216 53.4 17% $397,405 $485,523 $595,323 1.2 1.5 $88,118 $197,918 CZ11 PG&E 253,623 -390 50.9 13% $397,405 $826,076 $585,682 2.1 1.5 $428,671 $188,277 CZ12 PG&E 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $802,715 $582,866 2.0 1.5 $405,310 $185,461 CZ12-2 SMUD 252,868 -466 50.3 14% $397,405 $415,597 $582,866 1.0 1.5 $18,192 $185,461 CZ13 PG&E 250,915 -434 50.4 13% $397,405 $806,401 $573,606 2.0 1.4 $408,996 $176,201 CZ14 SDG&E 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $874,753 $676,271 2.2 1.7 $477,348 $278,866 CZ14-2 SCE 283,684 -441 56.4 14% $397,405 $493,888 $676,271 1.2 1.7 $96,483 $278,866 CZ15 SCE 274,771 -147 56.0 12% $397,405 $476,327 $640,379 1.2 1.6 $78,922 $242,974 CZ16 PG&E 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $842,205 $575,563 2.1 1.4 $444,800 $178,158 CZ16-2 LA 266,490 -736 51.8 14% $397,405 $260,372 $575,563 0.7 1.4 ($137,033) $178,158 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 28 2019-07-25 Figure 19. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 288 688 4.1 3% $61,253 $18,656 $12,314 0.3 0.2 ($42,597) ($48,939) CZ02 PG&E 3,795 550 4.3 4% $68,937 $36,683 $24,676 0.5 0.4 ($32,254) ($44,261) CZ03 PG&E 1,241 439 2.9 3% $57,529 $20,150 $11,885 0.4 0.2 ($37,379) ($45,644) CZ04 PG&E 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $44,915 $30,928 0.6 0.4 ($27,158) ($41,145) CZ04-2 CPAU 5,599 529 4.7 5% $72,074 $24,175 $30,928 0.3 0.4 ($47,898) ($41,145) CZ05 PG&E 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $35,072 $18,232 0.6 0.3 ($25,258) ($42,097) CZ05-2 SCG 3,470 453 3.6 4% $60,330 $32,777 $18,232 0.5 0.3 ($27,553) ($42,097) CZ06 SCE 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $19,446 $16,132 0.3 0.3 ($36,148) ($39,462) CZ06-2 LADWP 3,374 298 2.6 3% $55,594 $13,450 $16,132 0.2 0.3 ($42,145) ($39,462) CZ07 SDG&E 5,257 140 2.3 4% $54,111 $41,086 $19,903 0.8 0.4 ($13,025) ($34,208) CZ08 SCE 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $22,210 $24,055 0.4 0.4 ($38,287) ($36,442) CZ08-2 LADWP 5,921 176 2.7 4% $60,497 $14,064 $24,055 0.2 0.4 ($46,434) ($36,442) CZ09 SCE 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $28,576 $31,835 0.5 0.5 ($32,735) ($29,476) CZ09-2 LADWP 7,560 224 3.5 4% $61,311 $18,262 $31,835 0.3 0.5 ($43,049) ($29,476) CZ10 SDG&E 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $50,717 $24,628 0.8 0.4 ($11,968) ($38,057) CZ10-2 SCE 5,786 288 3.2 4% $62,685 $24,575 $24,628 0.4 0.4 ($38,110) ($38,057) CZ11 PG&E 8,128 441 4.9 5% $71,101 $54,188 $37,849 0.8 0.5 ($16,912) ($33,252) CZ12 PG&E 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $47,329 $34,556 0.7 0.5 ($20,999) ($33,773) CZ12-2 SMUD 6,503 478 4.7 5% $68,329 $24,003 $34,556 0.4 0.5 ($44,325) ($33,773) CZ13 PG&E 8,398 432 5.0 5% $69,474 $51,347 $37,229 0.7 0.5 ($18,128) ($32,246) CZ14 SDG&E 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $62,744 $37,133 0.9 0.5 ($6,718) ($32,329) CZ14-2 SCE 7,927 470 5.0 5% $69,463 $32,517 $37,133 0.5 0.5 ($36,946) ($32,329) CZ15 SCE 15,140 219 5.5 5% $66,702 $43,773 $52,359 0.7 0.8 ($22,929) ($14,344) CZ16 PG&E 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $36,002 $24,914 0.5 0.3 ($35,763) ($46,851) CZ16-2 LADWP 3,111 912 6.3 5% $71,765 $23,057 $24,914 0.3 0.3 ($48,708) ($46,851) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 29 2019-07-25 Figure 20. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -53,657 4967 10.1 -15% ($87,253) ($98,237) ($58,420) 0.9 1.5 ($10,984) $28,833 CZ02 PG&E -49,684 3868 5.0 -7% ($73,695) ($101,605) ($41,429) 0.7 1.8 ($27,910) $32,266 CZ03 PG&E -35,886 3142 5.6 -7% ($82,330) ($57,345) ($29,592) 1.4 2.8 $24,986 $52,738 CZ04 PG&E -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($90,527) ($40,570) 0.8 1.7 ($21,515) $28,443 CZ04-2 CPAU -48,829 3759 4.7 -6% ($69,012) ($19,995) ($40,570) 3.5 1.7 $49,018 $28,443 CZ05 PG&E -40,531 3240 4.5 -8% ($84,503) ($63,663) ($39,997) 1.3 2.1 $20,840 $44,506 CZ06 SCE -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $24,908 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $101,061 $55,581 CZ06-2 LADWP -26,174 2117 3.1 -4% ($76,153) $26,366 ($20,571) >1 3.7 $102,518 $55,581 CZ07 SDG&E -12,902 950 0.9 -2% ($70,325) $46,879 ($11,407) >1 6.2 $117,204 $58,918 CZ08 SCE -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $17,859 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $86,633 $56,125 CZ08-2 LADWP -15,680 1219 1.5 -2% ($68,774) $18,603 ($12,648) >1 5.4 $87,376 $56,125 CZ09 SCE -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $20,920 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $84,022 $48,640 CZ09-2 LADWP -19,767 1605 2.4 -2% ($63,102) $21,929 ($14,462) >1 4.4 $85,030 $48,640 CZ10 SDG&E -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $38,918 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $86,820 $24,562 CZ10-2 SCE -27,414 2053 2.2 -4% ($47,902) $20,765 ($23,339) >1 2.1 $68,666 $24,562 CZ11 PG&E -40,156 3062 3.6 -4% ($63,987) ($72,791) ($32,837) 0.9 1.9 ($8,804) $31,150 CZ12 PG&E -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($85,856) ($35,463) 0.8 1.9 ($17,512) $32,880 CZ12-2 SMUD -43,411 3327 4.1 -5% ($68,343) ($5,109) ($35,463) 13.4 1.9 $63,234 $32,880 CZ13 PG&E -39,649 3063 3.8 -4% ($62,726) ($70,705) ($32,408) 0.9 1.9 ($7,980) $30,318 CZ14 SDG&E -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $6,043 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $71,199 $26,735 CZ14-2 SCE -44,322 3266 3.4 -5% ($65,156) $4,798 ($38,422) >1 1.7 $69,954 $26,735 CZ15 SCE -19,917 1537 1.8 -2% ($36,176) $12,822 ($15,464) >1 2.3 $48,998 $20,711 CZ16 PG&E -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) ($212,158) ($150,871) 0.3 0.4 ($148,062) ($86,775) CZ16-2 LADWP -94,062 6185 5.6 -27% ($64,096) $1,493 ($150,871) >1 0.4 $65,589 ($86,775) * The Incremental Package Cost is equal to the sum of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 10, the electrical infrastructure incremental cost of $27,802 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental costs of $(18,949) (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 30 2019-07-25 Figure 21. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -19,115 4967 19.4 7% ($20,604) $20,630 $28,112 >1 >1 $41,234 $48,716 CZ02 PG&E -11,811 3868 15.2 10% ($7,046) $39,260 $58,563 >1 >1 $46,306 $65,609 CZ03 PG&E 2,530 3142 16.2 16% ($15,681) $85,241 $68,682 >1 >1 $100,922 $84,363 CZ04 PG&E -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $59,432 $58,420 >1 >1 $61,795 $60,783 CZ04-2 CPAU -10,839 3759 14.8 9% ($2,363) $70,680 $58,420 >1 >1 $73,043 $60,783 CZ05 PG&E -2,316 3240 14.6 12% ($17,854) $85,380 $58,802 >1 >1 $103,234 $76,656 CZ06 SCE 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $114,962 $89,921 >1 >1 $124,466 $99,425 CZ06-2 LADWP 15,399 2117 14.3 18% ($9,503) $82,389 $89,921 >1 >1 $91,893 $99,425 CZ07 SDG&E 33,318 950 13.8 20% ($3,676) $256,704 $111,399 >1 >1 $260,380 $115,076 CZ08 SCE 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $110,144 $111,781 >1 >1 $112,268 $113,906 CZ08-2 LADWP 30,231 1219 14.2 18% ($2,124) $76,069 $111,781 >1 >1 $78,194 $113,906 CZ09 SCE 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $119,824 $108,249 33.8 30.5 $116,277 $104,702 CZ09-2 LADWP 24,283 1605 14.3 15% $3,547 $83,549 $108,249 23.6 30.5 $80,001 $104,702 CZ10 SDG&E 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $230,553 $82,905 12.3 4.4 $211,806 $64,158 CZ10-2 SCE 12,344 2053 12.6 13% $18,748 $105,898 $82,905 5.6 4.4 $87,150 $64,158 CZ11 PG&E 929 3062 14.5 10% $2,662 $85,988 $75,030 32.3 28.2 $83,326 $72,368 CZ12 PG&E -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $68,866 $69,589 >1 >1 $70,560 $71,283 CZ12-2 SMUD -3,419 3327 14.8 10% ($1,694) $71,761 $69,589 >1 >1 $73,455 $71,283 CZ13 PG&E 1,398 3063 14.8 9% $3,923 $89,799 $71,307 22.9 18.2 $85,875 $67,384 CZ14 SDG&E -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $206,840 $69,016 138.6 46.2 $205,347 $67,523 CZ14-2 SCE -5,469 3266 13.5 9% $1,493 $94,143 $69,016 63.1 46.2 $92,650 $67,523 CZ15 SCE 25,375 1537 13.7 10% $30,474 $114,909 $104,335 3.8 3.4 $84,435 $73,862 CZ16 PG&E -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 ($91,477) ($85,673) -35.8 -33.6 ($94,030) ($88,226) CZ16-2 LADWP -65,877 6185 12.7 -15% $2,553 $72,780 ($85,673) 28.5 -33.6 $70,227 ($88,226) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 31 2019-07-25 Figure 22. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (mtons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 157,733 4967 54.9 7% $310,152 $518,421 $410,946 1.7 1.3 $208,269 $100,794 CZ02 PG&E 203,026 3868 57.8 10% $323,710 $692,336 $532,273 2.1 1.6 $368,626 $208,563 CZ03 PG&E 211,706 3142 58.0 16% $315,075 $708,235 $520,866 2.2 1.7 $393,160 $205,791 CZ04 PG&E 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $741,382 $560,576 2.3 1.7 $412,989 $232,183 CZ04-2 CPAU 216,204 3759 59.9 9% $328,393 $607,074 $560,576 1.8 1.7 $278,681 $232,183 CZ05 PG&E 223,399 3240 59.8 12% $312,902 $799,992 $546,592 2.6 1.7 $487,090 $233,690 CZ06 SCE 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $509,969 $583,963 1.6 1.8 $188,716 $262,711 CZ06-2 LA 233,299 2117 57.7 18% $321,252 $311,931 $583,963 1.0 1.8 ($9,322) $262,711 CZ07 SDG&E 256,034 950 58.3 20% $327,079 $870,156 $609,498 2.7 1.9 $543,076 $282,419 CZ08 SCE 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $499,506 $623,292 1.5 1.9 $170,874 $294,661 CZ08-2 LA 246,944 1219 57.4 18% $328,631 $296,991 $623,292 0.9 1.9 ($31,640) $294,661 CZ09 SCE 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $504,498 $615,178 1.5 1.8 $170,195 $280,875 CZ09-2 LA 243,838 1605 58.5 15% $334,303 $307,626 $615,178 0.9 1.8 ($26,677) $280,875 CZ10 SDG&E 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $851,810 $569,549 2.4 1.6 $502,306 $220,046 CZ10-2 SCE 229,044 2053 56.2 13% $349,503 $491,383 $569,549 1.4 1.6 $141,880 $220,046 CZ11 PG&E 212,047 3062 56.4 10% $333,418 $743,403 $556,758 2.2 1.7 $409,985 $223,340 CZ12 PG&E 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $713,054 $552,415 2.2 1.7 $383,993 $223,353 CZ12-2 SMUD 207,955 3327 56.7 10% $329,062 $414,371 $552,415 1.3 1.7 $85,310 $223,353 CZ13 PG&E 209,431 3063 56.3 9% $334,679 $728,822 $544,969 2.2 1.6 $394,143 $210,289 CZ14 SDG&E 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $865,181 $638,517 2.6 1.9 $532,933 $306,269 CZ14-2 SCE 236,002 3266 61.3 9% $332,249 $488,163 $638,517 1.5 1.9 $155,914 $306,269 CZ15 SCE 254,426 1537 58.5 10% $361,229 $487,715 $626,728 1.4 1.7 $126,486 $265,499 CZ16 PG&E 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $580,353 $406,746 1.7 1.2 $247,044 $73,437 CZ16-2 LA 162,915 6185 58.6 -15% $333,309 $290,566 $406,746 0.9 1.2 ($42,742) $73,437 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 32 2019-07-25 Figure 23. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -53,390 4967 10.2 -14% ($43,987) ($93,740) ($57,752) 0.5 0.8 ($49,753) ($13,765) CZ02 PG&E -45,916 3868 6.1 -5% ($22,722) ($77,212) ($26,394) 0.3 0.9 ($54,490) ($3,672) CZ03 PG&E -34,656 3142 6.0 -6% ($38,261) ($45,796) ($25,153) 0.8 1.5 ($7,535) $13,108 CZ04 PG&E -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($56,932) ($18,996) 0.3 0.8 ($41,703) ($3,767) CZ04-2 CPAU -43,248 3759 6.3 -3% ($15,229) ($5,298) ($18,996) 2.9 0.8 $9,932 ($3,767) CZ05 PG&E -37,068 3240 5.4 -6% ($40,434) ($38,330) ($29,544) 1.1 1.4 $2,104 $10,890 CZ06 SCE -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $39,812 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $70,050 $20,644 CZ06-2 LADWP -22,805 2117 4.0 -2% ($30,237) $35,414 ($9,594) >1 3.2 $65,651 $20,644 CZ07 SDG&E -7,646 950 2.5 1% ($22,564) $86,159 $6,062 >1 >1 $108,722 $28,625 CZ08 SCE -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $37,375 $8,305 >1 >1 $55,818 $26,748 CZ08-2 LADWP -9,761 1219 3.2 1% ($18,443) $29,973 $8,305 >1 >1 $48,416 $26,748 CZ09 SCE -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $46,335 $13,364 >1 >1 $56,617 $23,646 CZ09-2 LADWP -12,211 1605 4.5 2% ($10,282) $37,030 $13,364 >1 >1 $47,313 $23,646 CZ10 SDG&E -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $84,901 ($3,818) 7.5 -0.3 $73,561 ($15,158) CZ10-2 SCE -21,642 2053 3.7 -1% $11,340 $40,659 ($3,818) 3.6 -0.3 $29,319 ($15,158) CZ11 PG&E -32,052 3062 5.9 0% ($8,519) ($29,013) ($3,007) 0.3 2.8 ($20,495) $5,512 CZ12 PG&E -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) ($48,955) ($9,546) 0.3 1.6 ($33,511) $5,898 CZ12-2 SMUD -36,926 3327 6.0 -1% ($15,443) $9,916 ($9,546) >1 1.6 $25,359 $5,898 CZ13 PG&E -31,253 3063 6.3 0% ($7,257) ($27,782) ($3,055) 0.3 2.4 ($20,525) $4,202 CZ14 SDG&E -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $61,605 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $72,256 $819 CZ14-2 SCE -36,402 3266 5.7 -1% ($10,651) $30,625 ($9,832) >1 1.1 $41,276 $819 CZ15 SCE -4,775 1537 6.0 3% $28,927 $52,955 $32,790 1.8 1.1 $24,028 $3,863 CZ16 PG&E -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) ($194,115) ($142,041) 0.0 0.1 ($185,648) ($133,574) CZ16-2 LADWP -90,949 6185 6.5 -26% ($8,467) $37,127 ($142,041) >1 0.1 $45,594 ($133,574) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 33 2019-07-25 4.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail Figure 24 through Figure 30 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: ♦ Packages achieve +9% to +18% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and all packages are cost effective in all climate zones. ♦ Incremental package costs vary across climate zones because of the HVAC system size in some climate zones are small enough (<54 kBtu/h) to have the economizers measure applied. ♦ B/C ratios are high compared to other prototypes because the measures applied are primarily low-cost lighting measures. This suggests room for the inclusion of other energy efficiency measures with lower cost-effectiveness to achieve even higher compliance margins for a cost effective package. ♦ 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approach, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and battery to the efficiency packages reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. ♦ 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Packages achieve +1 to +4% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZs 1, 3 and 5 using the TDV approach. ♦ 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: ♦ Packages achieve between -12% and +1% compliance margins depending on climate zone. ♦ Packages achieve positive savings using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches in CZs 6-10 and 14-15. Packages do not achieve On-Bill or TDV savings in most of PG&E territory (CZs 1, 2, 4, 5, 12-13, and 16). ♦ Packages are cost effective in all climate zones except CZ16. ♦ All incremental costs are negative primarily due to elimination of natural gas infrastructure. ♦ 3A – All-Electric + EE: Packages achieve between +3% and +16% compliance margins depending on climate zone. All packages are cost effective in all climate zones. ♦ 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: All packages are cost effective using both the On-Bill and TDV approaches, except On-Bill in LADWP territory. Adding PV and Battery to the efficiency package reduces the B/C ratio but increases overall NPV savings. ♦ 3C – All-Electric + HE: Packages achieve between -8% and +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone, and packages are cost effective using both On-Bill and TDV approaches in all CZs except CZs 1 and 16. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 34 2019-07-25 Figure 24. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 15,210 1209 11.10 18% $2,712 $68,358 $60,189 25.2 22.2 $65,646 $57,478 CZ02 PG&E 18,885 613 8.73 13% $5,569 $76,260 $59,135 13.7 10.6 $70,691 $53,566 CZ03 PG&E 18,772 462 7.87 16% $5,569 $66,813 $57,135 12.0 10.3 $61,244 $51,566 CZ04 PG&E 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $75,989 $58,036 13.6 10.4 $70,420 $52,467 CZ04-2 CPAU 19,100 439 7.84 14% $5,569 $51,556 $58,036 9.3 10.4 $45,987 $52,467 CZ05 PG&E 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $63,182 $55,003 11.3 9.9 $57,613 $49,435 CZ05-2 SCG 17,955 415 7.41 16% $5,569 $61,810 $55,003 11.1 9.9 $56,241 $49,435 CZ06 SCE 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $31,990 $41,401 11.8 15.3 $29,278 $38,689 CZ06-2 LADWP 12,375 347 5.54 10% $2,712 $21,667 $41,401 8.0 15.3 $18,956 $38,689 CZ07 SDG&E 17,170 136 5.65 13% $5,569 $73,479 $49,883 13.2 9.0 $67,910 $44,314 CZ08 SCE 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $30,130 $41,115 11.1 15.2 $27,419 $38,403 CZ08-2 LADWP 12,284 283 5.15 10% $2,712 $20,243 $41,115 7.5 15.2 $17,531 $38,403 CZ09 SCE 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $32,663 $46,126 5.9 8.3 $27,094 $40,557 CZ09-2 LADWP 13,473 302 5.51 10% $5,569 $22,435 $46,126 4.0 8.3 $16,866 $40,557 CZ10 SDG&E 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $83,319 $58,322 15.0 10.5 $77,751 $52,753 CZ10-2 SCE 19,873 267 6.99 12% $5,569 $39,917 $58,322 7.2 10.5 $34,348 $52,753 CZ11 PG&E 21,120 578 9.14 13% $5,569 $86,663 $67,485 15.6 12.1 $81,095 $61,916 CZ12 PG&E 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $81,028 $64,409 14.6 11.6 $75,459 $58,840 CZ12-2 SMUD 20,370 562 8.85 13% $5,569 $44,991 $64,409 8.1 11.6 $39,422 $58,840 CZ13 PG&E 22,115 620 9.98 15% $2,712 $109,484 $83,109 40.4 30.6 $106,772 $80,398 CZ14 SDG&E 25,579 406 9.38 13% $2,712 $116,354 $80,055 42.9 29.5 $113,643 $77,343 CZ14-2 SCE 26,327 383 9.42 13% $2,712 $57,290 $83,065 21.1 30.6 $54,578 $80,354 CZ15 SCE 26,433 169 8.35 12% $2,712 $57,152 $79,506 21.1 29.3 $54,440 $76,794 CZ16 PG&E 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $72,427 $55,025 26.7 20.3 $69,715 $52,314 CZ16-2 LADWP 15,975 752 8.72 13% $2,712 $31,906 $55,025 11.8 20.3 $29,194 $52,314 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 35 2019-07-25 Figure 25. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + PV + Battery CZ01 PG&E 158,584 1209 40.79 18% $277,383 $509,092 $383,683 1.8 1.4 $231,709 $106,300 CZ02 PG&E 189,400 613 43.75 13% $280,240 $590,043 $465,474 2.1 1.7 $309,803 $185,234 CZ03 PG&E 191,016 462 43.52 16% $280,240 $578,465 $452,795 2.1 1.6 $298,224 $172,554 CZ04 PG&E 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $605,369 $480,989 2.2 1.7 $325,129 $200,748 CZ04-2 CPAU 195,014 439 44.14 14% $280,240 $451,933 $480,989 1.6 1.7 $171,693 $200,748 CZ05 PG&E 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $589,771 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $309,530 $184,509 CZ05-2 SCG 196,654 415 44.30 16% $280,240 $588,407 $464,749 2.1 1.7 $308,167 $184,509 CZ06 SCE 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $322,495 $456,596 1.2 1.6 $45,111 $179,213 CZ06-2 LA 185,903 347 41.61 10% $277,383 $191,428 $456,596 0.7 1.6 ($85,955) $179,213 CZ07 SDG&E 197,650 136 43.24 13% $280,240 $496,786 $477,582 1.8 1.7 $216,545 $197,342 CZ08 SCE 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $326,810 $478,132 1.2 1.7 $49,427 $200,749 CZ08-2 LA 187,869 283 41.48 10% $277,383 $190,379 $478,132 0.7 1.7 ($87,004) $200,749 CZ09 SCE 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $334,869 $472,770 1.2 1.7 $54,629 $192,530 CZ09-2 LA 191,399 302 42.32 10% $280,240 $201,759 $472,770 0.7 1.7 ($78,481) $192,530 CZ10 SDG&E 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $547,741 $472,880 2.0 1.7 $267,501 $192,640 CZ10-2 SCE 200,033 267 44.01 12% $280,240 $340,822 $472,880 1.2 1.7 $60,582 $192,640 CZ11 PG&E 192,846 578 44.07 13% $280,240 $582,969 $490,855 2.1 1.8 $302,728 $210,615 CZ12 PG&E 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $586,836 $485,076 2.1 1.7 $306,596 $204,836 CZ12-2 SMUD 191,720 562 43.70 13% $280,240 $319,513 $485,076 1.1 1.7 $39,273 $204,836 CZ13 PG&E 195,031 620 45.19 15% $277,383 $605,608 $486,285 2.2 1.8 $328,225 $208,901 CZ14 SDG&E 217,183 406 47.86 13% $277,383 $559,148 $534,915 2.0 1.9 $281,765 $257,532 CZ14-2 SCE 217,927 383 47.91 14% $277,383 $354,757 $538,058 1.3 1.9 $77,373 $260,674 CZ15 SCE 208,662 169 44.51 12% $277,383 $338,772 $496,107 1.2 1.8 $61,389 $218,724 CZ16 PG&E 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $608,779 $490,262 2.2 1.8 $331,395 $212,879 CZ16-2 LA 210,242 752 48.76 13% $277,383 $207,160 $490,262 0.7 1.8 ($70,223) $212,879 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 36 2019-07-25 Figure 26. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 57 346 2.04 2% $9,006 $6,301 $6,065 0.7 0.7 ($2,705) ($2,941) CZ02 PG&E 2,288 229 2.01 3% $9,726 $23,016 $13,998 2.4 1.4 $13,291 $4,273 CZ03 PG&E 1,087 171 1.31 2% $9,063 $6,782 $7,186 0.7 0.8 ($2,282) ($1,877) CZ04 PG&E 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $17,891 $10,878 2.0 1.2 $8,887 $1,874 CZ04-2 CPAU 1,862 159 1.46 3% $9,004 $7,821 $10,878 0.9 1.2 ($1,182) $1,874 CZ05 PG&E 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $5,119 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,335) ($4,729) CZ05-2 SCG 664 162 1.11 1% $9,454 $4,558 $4,725 0.5 0.5 ($4,896) ($4,729) CZ06 SCE 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $11,646 $11,427 1.3 1.3 $2,703 $2,484 CZ06-2 LADWP 2,648 90 1.24 3% $8,943 $7,329 $11,427 0.8 1.3 ($1,614) $2,484 CZ07 SDG&E 2,376 49 0.95 2% $9,194 $20,103 $9,779 2.2 1.1 $10,909 $585 CZ08 SCE 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $11,989 $12,877 1.2 1.3 $2,344 $3,233 CZ08-2 LADWP 2,822 72 1.20 3% $9,645 $7,427 $12,877 0.8 1.3 ($2,218) $3,233 CZ09 SCE 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $16,856 $18,745 1.6 1.8 $6,410 $8,299 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,206 88 1.73 4% $10,446 $10,604 $18,745 1.0 1.8 $158 $8,299 CZ10 SDG&E 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $36,412 $19,008 3.8 2.0 $26,898 $9,494 CZ10-2 SCE 4,226 119 1.88 4% $9,514 $17,094 $19,008 1.8 2.0 $7,580 $9,494 CZ11 PG&E 4,188 225 2.56 4% $10,479 $31,872 $22,393 3.0 2.1 $21,392 $11,913 CZ12 PG&E 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $29,653 $20,525 2.8 2.0 $19,243 $10,115 CZ12-2 SMUD 3,675 214 2.34 4% $10,409 $12,823 $20,525 1.2 2.0 $2,414 $10,115 CZ13 PG&E 4,818 180 2.46 4% $9,809 $34,149 $23,623 3.5 2.4 $24,340 $13,814 CZ14 SDG&E 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $44,705 $26,348 3.7 2.2 $32,601 $14,245 CZ14-2 SCE 6,439 153 2.71 4% $12,103 $22,032 $26,348 1.8 2.2 $9,929 $14,245 CZ15 SCE 8,802 48 2.76 5% $12,534 $25,706 $31,402 2.1 2.5 $13,171 $18,868 CZ16 PG&E 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $22,663 $13,888 1.9 1.2 $10,665 $1,890 CZ16-2 LADWP 2,316 390 2.97 3% $11,999 $11,921 $13,888 1.0 1.2 ($78) $1,890 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 37 2019-07-25 Figure 27. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -29,155 3893 13.85 -4.1% ($23,048) ($8,333) ($13,910) 2.8 1.7 $14,715 $9,138 CZ02 PG&E -21,786 2448 7.49 -1.0% ($27,464) ($16,476) ($4,483) 1.7 6.1 $10,987 $22,981 CZ03 PG&E -14,583 1868 6.26 -0.4% ($24,111) $263 ($1,450) >1 16.6 $24,374 $22,661 CZ04 PG&E -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) ($8,753) ($220) 2.6 104.2 $14,143 $22,676 CZ04-2 CPAU -14,186 1706 5.30 -0.1% ($22,896) $12,493 ($220) >1 104.2 $35,389 $22,676 CZ05 PG&E -14,334 1746 5.47 -1.2% ($25,507) ($1,567) ($4,197) 16.3 6.1 $23,940 $21,309 CZ06 SCE -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $18,590 $1,868 >1 >1 $40,351 $23,630 CZ06-2 LADWP -7,527 1002 3.32 0.5% ($21,762) $19,309 $1,868 >1 >1 $41,071 $23,630 CZ07 SDG&E -3,812 522 1.76 0.3% ($23,762) $54,345 $1,318 >1 >1 $78,107 $25,080 CZ08 SCE -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $16,735 $1,846 >1 >1 $43,658 $28,768 CZ08-2 LADWP -5,805 793 2.70 0.4% ($26,922) $17,130 $1,846 >1 >1 $44,052 $28,768 CZ09 SCE -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $18,582 $1,978 >1 >1 $50,695 $34,091 CZ09-2 LADWP -7,241 970 3.32 0.4% ($32,113) $19,089 $1,978 >1 >1 $51,202 $34,091 CZ10 SDG&E -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $54,453 $505 >1 >1 $81,724 $27,777 CZ10-2 SCE -10,336 1262 3.99 0.1% ($27,272) $20,996 $505 >1 >1 $48,268 $27,777 CZ11 PG&E -19,251 2415 7.95 0.5% ($32,202) ($7,951) $2,615 4.1 >1 $24,251 $34,817 CZ12 PG&E -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) ($14,153) ($461) 2.3 70.4 $18,351 $32,042 CZ12-2 SMUD -19,471 2309 7.28 -0.1% ($32,504) $12,939 ($461) >1 70.4 $45,443 $32,042 CZ13 PG&E -16,819 1983 6.15 -0.4% ($28,158) ($10,575) ($2,022) 2.7 13.9 $17,582 $26,136 CZ14 SDG&E -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $41,117 $4,461 >1 >1 $67,772 $31,117 CZ14-2 SCE -13,208 1672 5.44 0.7% ($26,656) $18,467 $4,461 >1 >1 $45,123 $31,117 CZ15 SCE -2,463 518 2.14 0.9% ($29,544) $16,796 $5,823 >1 >1 $46,339 $35,367 CZ16 PG&E -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) ($49,862) ($52,542) 0.5 0.5 ($24,091) ($26,771) CZ16-2 LADWP -41,418 4304 13.23 -12.2% ($25,771) $39,319 ($52,542) >1 0.5 $65,090 ($26,771) * The Incremental Package Cost is the addition of the incremental HVAC and water heating equipment costs from Figure 11 and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savings of $28,027 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 38 2019-07-25 Figure 28. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -5,478 3893 20.64 15% ($20,336) $63,593 $51,224 >1 >1 $83,929 $71,560 CZ02 PG&E 2,843 2448 14.58 13% ($21,895) $74,997 $56,893 >1 >1 $96,892 $78,788 CZ03 PG&E 7,791 1868 12.73 16% ($18,542) $68,968 $56,586 >1 >1 $87,511 $75,128 CZ04 PG&E 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $81,957 $57,904 >1 >1 $99,284 $75,231 CZ04-2 CPAU 8,572 1706 11.89 14% ($17,327) $63,082 $57,904 >1 >1 $80,408 $75,231 CZ05 PG&E 6,973 1746 11.68 15% ($19,938) $63,677 $51,949 >1 >1 $83,615 $71,887 CZ06 SCE 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $47,072 $42,610 >1 >1 $66,122 $61,660 CZ06-2 LADWP 7,431 1002 7.72 11% ($19,050) $37,078 $42,610 >1 >1 $56,128 $61,660 CZ07 SDG&E 14,350 522 6.98 13% ($18,193) $127,461 $50,828 >1 >1 $145,654 $69,021 CZ08 SCE 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $43,679 $42,258 >1 >1 $67,890 $66,468 CZ08-2 LADWP 8,524 793 6.90 10% ($24,210) $34,038 $42,258 >1 >1 $58,248 $66,468 CZ09 SCE 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $47,819 $47,356 >1 >1 $74,364 $73,901 CZ09-2 LADWP 8,403 970 7.81 10% ($26,545) $37,934 $47,356 >1 >1 $64,478 $73,901 CZ10 SDG&E 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $137,436 $58,761 >1 >1 $159,139 $80,464 CZ10-2 SCE 11,737 1262 10.23 12% ($21,703) $58,257 $58,761 >1 >1 $79,959 $80,464 CZ11 PG&E 5,892 2415 15.13 12% ($26,633) $85,256 $65,859 >1 >1 $111,889 $92,492 CZ12 PG&E 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $80,631 $63,903 >1 >1 $107,566 $90,838 CZ12-2 SMUD 5,548 2309 14.46 12% ($26,935) $59,311 $63,903 >1 >1 $86,246 $90,838 CZ13 PG&E 10,184 1983 14.15 14% ($25,446) $110,105 $80,604 >1 >1 $135,551 $106,050 CZ14 SDG&E 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $171,200 $88,471 >1 >1 $195,145 $112,415 CZ14-2 SCE 16,583 1672 13.83 15% ($23,944) $656,178 $159,604 >1 >1 $680,122 $183,548 CZ15 SCE 23,642 518 9.44 12% ($26,832) $65,573 $76,781 >1 >1 $92,404 $103,612 CZ16 PG&E -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $38,796 $14,152 >1 >1 $61,855 $37,211 CZ16-2 LADWP -18,232 4304 19.80 3% ($23,059) $67,793 $14,152 >1 >1 $90,852 $37,211 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 39 2019-07-25 Figure 29. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 137,956 3893 50.51 15% $254,335 $510,831 $374,432 2.0 1.5 $256,496 $120,097 CZ02 PG&E 173,387 2448 49.87 13% $252,777 $590,112 $463,431 2.3 1.8 $337,336 $210,654 CZ03 PG&E 180,055 1868 48.55 16% $256,129 $585,861 $452,399 2.3 1.8 $329,732 $196,270 CZ04 PG&E 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $608,814 $481,011 2.4 1.9 $351,470 $223,666 CZ04-2 CPAU 184,499 1706 48.38 14% $257,345 $465,690 $481,011 1.8 1.9 $208,345 $223,666 CZ05 PG&E 185,690 1746 48.84 15% $254,734 $600,933 $461,804 2.4 1.8 $346,199 $207,071 CZ06 SCE 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $335,909 $457,959 1.3 1.8 $80,288 $202,337 CZ06-2 LADWP 180,968 1002 43.91 11% $255,621 $206,021 $457,959 0.8 1.8 ($49,601) $202,337 CZ07 SDG&E 194,837 522 44.67 13% $256,478 $550,714 $478,637 2.1 1.9 $294,236 $222,159 CZ08 SCE 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $340,301 $479,406 1.4 1.9 $89,840 $228,945 CZ08-2 LADWP 184,120 793 43.32 10% $250,461 $203,813 $479,406 0.8 1.9 ($46,648) $228,945 CZ09 SCE 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $349,524 $474,176 1.4 1.9 $101,397 $226,049 CZ09-2 LADWP 186,346 970 44.77 10% $248,127 $216,654 $474,176 0.9 1.9 ($31,473) $226,049 CZ10 SDG&E 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $593,514 $473,605 2.3 1.9 $340,545 $220,636 CZ10-2 SCE 191,923 1262 47.46 12% $252,969 $356,958 $473,605 1.4 1.9 $103,989 $220,636 CZ11 PG&E 177,639 2415 50.26 12% $248,039 $585,689 $489,317 2.4 2.0 $337,650 $241,278 CZ12 PG&E 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $591,104 $484,702 2.4 2.0 $343,368 $236,966 CZ12-2 SMUD 176,919 2309 49.46 12% $247,736 $335,286 $484,702 1.4 2.0 $87,550 $236,966 CZ13 PG&E 183,129 1983 49.48 14% $249,226 $608,560 $483,670 2.4 1.9 $359,334 $234,444 CZ14 SDG&E 208,183 1672 52.54 15% $250,727 $593,232 $544,079 2.4 2.2 $342,505 $293,351 CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1672 80.97 15% $250,727 $656,178 $580,403 2.6 2.3 $405,450 $329,676 CZ15 SCE 205,869 518 45.67 12% $247,840 $347,125 $493,339 1.4 2.0 $99,285 $245,499 CZ16 PG&E 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $567,822 $446,795 2.3 1.8 $316,210 $195,183 CZ16-2 LADWP 176,114 4304 60.13 3% $251,612 $241,757 $446,795 1.0 1.8 ($9,856) $195,183 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 40 2019-07-25 Figure 30. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -26,199 3893 14.76 -2% ($587) $369 ($5,757) >1 0.1 $956 ($5,170) CZ02 PG&E -16,989 2448 8.95 3% ($4,211) $12,323 $11,251 >1 >1 $16,534 $15,463 CZ03 PG&E -11,703 1868 7.15 2% ($2,213) $9,159 $6,944 >1 >1 $11,372 $9,157 CZ04 PG&E -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $14,317 $11,383 >1 >1 $14,633 $11,700 CZ04-2 CPAU -10,675 1706 6.37 3% ($316) $20,599 $11,383 >1 >1 $20,915 $11,700 CZ05 PG&E -11,969 1746 6.19 1% ($2,298) $5,592 $1,824 >1 >1 $7,890 $4,122 CZ06 SCE -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $29,751 $13,734 21.0 9.7 $28,333 $12,316 CZ06-2 LADWP -3,919 1002 4.35 3% $1,418 $25,891 $13,734 18.3 9.7 $24,473 $12,316 CZ07 SDG&E -955 522 2.59 3% ($710) $74,518 $11,229 >1 >1 $75,227 $11,939 CZ08 SCE -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $28,067 $15,075 >1 >1 $31,785 $18,793 CZ08-2 LADWP -2,224 793 3.74 4% ($3,719) $23,848 $15,075 >1 >1 $27,566 $18,793 CZ09 SCE -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $34,648 $21,162 >1 >1 $42,916 $29,430 CZ09-2 LADWP -2,089 970 4.84 4% ($8,268) $28,837 $21,162 >1 >1 $37,105 $29,430 CZ10 SDG&E -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $91,136 $20,041 >1 >1 $96,358 $25,263 CZ10-2 SCE -4,868 1262 5.58 4% ($5,222) $37,200 $20,041 >1 >1 $42,422 $25,263 CZ11 PG&E -12,651 2415 9.95 5% ($8,217) $29,015 $26,172 >1 >1 $37,232 $34,389 CZ12 PG&E -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $20,839 $21,228 >1 >1 $30,078 $30,466 CZ12-2 SMUD -13,479 2309 9.10 4% ($9,239) $26,507 $21,228 >1 >1 $35,746 $30,466 CZ13 PG&E -9,935 1983 8.23 4% ($4,975) $30,123 $24,063 >1 >1 $35,097 $29,037 CZ14 SDG&E -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $88,669 $31,029 732.5 256.3 $88,547 $30,908 CZ14-2 SCE -5,407 1672 7.71 5% $121 $40,709 $31,029 336.3 256.3 $40,588 $30,908 CZ15 SCE 6,782 518 4.77 6% ($2,508) $42,238 $37,379 >1 >1 $44,745 $39,887 CZ16 PG&E -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 ($21,384) ($33,754) -19.4 -30.6 ($22,486) ($34,856) CZ16-2 LADWP -35,297 4304 15.03 -8% $1,102 $48,625 ($33,754) 44.1 -30.6 $47,523 ($34,856) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 41 2019-07-25 4.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel The following issues must be considered when reviewing the Small Hotel results: ♦ The Small Hotel is a mix of residential and nonresidential space types, which results in different occupancy and load profiles than the office and retail prototypes. ♦ A potential laundry load has not been examined for the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team attempted to characterize and apply the energy use intensity of laundry loads in hotels but did not find readily available data for use. Thus, cost effectiveness including laundry systems has not been examined. ♦ Contrary to the office and retail prototypes, the Small Hotel baseline water heater is a central gas storage type. Current compliance software cannot model central heat pump water heater systems with recirculation serving guest rooms.23 The only modeling option for heat pump water heating is individual water heaters at each guest room even though this is a very uncommon configuration. TRC modeled individual heat pump water heaters but as a proxy for central heat pump water heating performance, but integrated costs associated with tank and controls for central heat pump water heating into cost effectiveness calculations. ♦ Assuming central heat pump water heating also enabled the inclusion of a solar hot water thermal collection system, which was a key efficiency measure to achieving compliance in nearly all climate zones. Figure 31 through Figure 37 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: ♦ Packages achieve +3 to +10% compliance margins depending on climate zone. ♦ Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs except 12 (using SMUD rates), 14 (using SCE rates), and 15 (with SCE rates). ♦ The hotel is primarily guest rooms with a smaller proportion of nonresidential space. Thus, the inexpensive VAV minimum flow measure and lighting measures that have been applied to the entirety of the Medium Office and Medium Retail prototypes have a relatively small impact in the Small Hotel.24 ♦ 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Packages are cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach in all CZs. Solar PV generally increases cost effectiveness compared to efficiency-only, particularly when using an NPV metric. ♦ 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE: Packages achieve +2 to +5% compliance margins depending on climate zone. The package is cost effective using the On-Bill approach in a minority of climate zones, and cost effective using TDV approach only in CZ15. 23 The IOUs and CEC are actively working on including central heat pump water heater modeling with recirculation systems in early 2020. 24 Title 24 requires that hotel/motel guest room lighting design comply with the residential lighting standards, which are all mandatory and are not awarded compliance credit for improved efficacy. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 42 2019-07-25 ♦ 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 43 2019-07-25 Figure 31. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE CZ01 PG&E 3,855 1288 5.65 9% $20,971 $34,339 $36,874 1.6 1.8 $13,368 $15,903 CZ02 PG&E 3,802 976 3.91 7% $20,971 $26,312 $29,353 1.3 1.4 $5,341 $8,381 CZ03 PG&E 4,153 1046 4.48 10% $20,971 $31,172 $35,915 1.5 1.7 $10,201 $14,944 CZ04 PG&E 5,007 395 0.85 6% $21,824 $24,449 $24,270 1.1 1.1 $2,625 $2,446 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,916 422 0.98 6% $21,824 $18,713 $24,306 0.9 1.1 ($3,111) $2,483 CZ05 PG&E 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $28,782 $34,448 1.4 1.6 $7,810 $13,477 CZ05-2 SCG 3,530 1018 4.13 9% $20,971 $23,028 $34,448 1.1 1.6 $2,057 $13,477 CZ06 SCE 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $16,001 $26,934 0.7 1.2 ($5,823) $5,110 CZ06-2 LADWP 5,137 418 1.16 8% $21,824 $11,706 $26,934 0.5 1.2 ($10,118) $5,110 CZ07 SDG&E 5,352 424 1.31 8% $21,824 $26,699 $27,975 1.2 1.3 $4,876 $6,152 CZ08 SCE 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $15,931 $23,576 0.7 1.1 ($5,893) $1,752 CZ08-2 LADWP 5,151 419 1.21 7% $21,824 $11,643 $23,576 0.5 1.1 ($10,180) $1,752 CZ09 SCE 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $15,837 $22,365 0.7 1.0 ($5,987) $541 CZ09-2 LADWP 5,229 406 1.16 6% $21,824 $11,632 $22,365 0.5 1.0 ($10,192) $541 CZ10 SDG&E 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $25,506 $22,219 1.2 1.0 $3,683 $396 CZ10-2 SCE 4,607 342 0.92 5% $21,824 $13,868 $22,219 0.6 1.0 ($7,956) $396 CZ11 PG&E 4,801 325 0.87 4% $21,824 $22,936 $19,503 1.1 0.9 $1,112 ($2,321) CZ12 PG&E 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $22,356 $21,305 1.0 0.98 $532 ($519) CZ12-2 SMUD 5,276 327 0.90 5% $21,824 $15,106 $21,305 0.7 0.98 ($6,717) ($519) CZ13 PG&E 4,975 310 0.87 4% $21,824 $23,594 $19,378 1.1 0.9 $1,770 ($2,445) CZ14 SDG&E 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $24,894 $21,035 1.1 0.96 $3,070 ($789) CZ14-2 SCE 4,884 370 0.82 4% $21,824 $14,351 $21,035 0.7 0.96 ($7,473) ($789) CZ15 SCE 5,187 278 1.23 3% $21,824 $13,645 $18,089 0.6 0.8 ($8,178) ($3,735) CZ16 PG&E 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $27,813 $30,869 1.3 1.5 $6,842 $9,898 CZ16-2 LADWP 2,992 1197 4.95 6% $20,971 $19,782 $30,869 0.9 1.5 ($1,190) $9,898 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 44 2019-07-25 Figure 32. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + B CZ01 PG&E 107,694 1288 28.73 9% $228,341 $366,509 $295,731 1.6 1.3 $138,168 $67,390 CZ02 PG&E 130,144 976 31.14 7% $228,341 $359,248 $336,575 1.6 1.5 $130,907 $108,233 CZ03 PG&E 129,107 1046 31.57 10% $228,341 $430,737 $335,758 1.9 1.5 $202,396 $107,416 CZ04 PG&E 132,648 395 28.46 6% $229,194 $355,406 $338,455 1.6 1.5 $126,212 $109,262 CZ04-2 CPAU 132,556 422 28.59 6% $229,194 $322,698 $338,492 1.4 1.5 $93,504 $109,298 CZ05 PG&E 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $452,611 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $224,269 $124,001 CZ05-2 SCG 136,318 1018 32.73 9% $228,341 $446,858 $352,342 2.0 1.5 $218,516 $124,001 CZ06 SCE 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $217,728 $336,843 0.9 1.5 ($11,466) $107,649 CZ06-2 LADWP 131,051 418 28.47 8% $229,194 $131,052 $336,843 0.6 1.5 ($98,142) $107,649 CZ07 SDG&E 136,359 424 29.63 8% $229,194 $306,088 $345,378 1.3 1.5 $76,894 $116,184 CZ08 SCE 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $227,297 $353,013 1.0 1.5 ($1,897) $123,819 CZ08-2 LADWP 132,539 419 28.85 7% $229,194 $134,739 $353,013 0.6 1.5 ($94,455) $123,819 CZ09 SCE 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $230,791 $343,665 1.0 1.5 $1,597 $114,471 CZ09-2 LADWP 131,422 406 28.82 6% $229,194 $136,024 $343,665 0.6 1.5 ($93,170) $114,471 CZ10 SDG&E 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $339,612 $342,574 1.5 1.5 $110,418 $113,380 CZ10-2 SCE 134,146 342 29.05 5% $229,194 $226,244 $342,574 1.0 1.5 ($2,949) $113,380 CZ11 PG&E 128,916 325 27.62 4% $229,194 $352,831 $337,208 1.5 1.5 $123,637 $108,014 CZ12 PG&E 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $425,029 $338,026 1.9 1.5 $195,835 $108,832 CZ12-2 SMUD 131,226 327 28.04 5% $229,194 $213,176 $338,026 0.9 1.5 ($16,018) $108,832 CZ13 PG&E 127,258 310 27.33 4% $229,194 $351,244 $324,217 1.5 1.4 $122,050 $95,023 CZ14 SDG&E 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $861,445 $217,675 3.8 0.9 $632,251 ($11,518) CZ14-2 SCE 147,017 370 30.96 4% $229,194 $244,100 $381,164 1.1 1.7 $14,906 $151,970 CZ15 SCE 137,180 278 29.12 3% $229,194 $225,054 $348,320 1.0 1.5 ($4,140) $119,127 CZ16 PG&E 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $377,465 $357,241 1.7 1.6 $149,124 $128,899 CZ16-2 LADWP 141,478 1197 34.60 6% $228,341 $136,563 $357,241 0.6 1.6 ($91,778) $128,899 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 45 2019-07-25 Figure 33. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 1C – Mixed-Fuel + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE CZ01 PG&E 10 632 3.76 2% $22,839 $11,015 $10,218 0.5 0.4 ($11,823) ($12,621) CZ02 PG&E 981 402 2.69 3% $23,092 $16,255 $11,808 0.7 0.5 ($6,837) ($11,284) CZ03 PG&E 81 383 2.30 2% $20,510 $7,066 $6,850 0.3 0.3 ($13,444) ($13,660) CZ04 PG&E 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $8,593 $7,645 0.4 0.3 ($13,571) ($14,519) CZ04-2 CPAU 161 373 2.26 2% $22,164 $7,097 $7,645 0.3 0.3 ($15,067) ($14,519) CZ05 PG&E 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $6,897 $6,585 0.3 0.3 ($14,521) ($14,833) CZ05-2 SCG 154 361 2.19 2% $21,418 $4,786 $6,585 0.2 0.3 ($16,632) ($14,833) CZ06 SCE 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,789 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,152) ($16,059) CZ06-2 LADWP 237 201 1.27 2% $20,941 $3,219 $4,882 0.2 0.2 ($17,722) ($16,059) CZ07 SDG&E 1,117 158 1.28 2% $19,625 $13,771 $7,342 0.7 0.4 ($5,854) ($12,283) CZ08 SCE 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $8,378 $8,591 0.4 0.4 ($12,300) ($12,088) CZ08-2 LADWP 1,302 169 1.39 2% $20,678 $5,802 $8,591 0.3 0.4 ($14,877) ($12,088) CZ09 SCE 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $10,489 $11,164 0.5 0.6 ($9,563) ($8,888) CZ09-2 LADWP 1,733 178 1.56 3% $20,052 $7,307 $11,164 0.4 0.6 ($12,745) ($8,888) CZ10 SDG&E 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $35,195 $19,149 1.6 0.8 $12,513 ($3,533) CZ10-2 SCE 3,170 220 2.29 4% $22,682 $16,701 $19,149 0.7 0.8 ($5,981) ($3,533) CZ11 PG&E 3,343 323 2.96 4% $23,344 $27,633 $20,966 1.2 0.9 $4,288 ($2,379) CZ12 PG&E 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,597 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($10,705) ($6,710) CZ12-2 SMUD 1,724 320 2.44 4% $22,302 $11,156 $15,592 0.5 0.7 ($11,146) ($6,710) CZ13 PG&E 3,083 316 2.81 3% $22,882 $23,950 $17,068 1.0 0.7 $1,068 ($5,814) CZ14 SDG&E 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $35,301 $21,155 1.5 0.9 $12,002 ($2,144) CZ14-2 SCE 3,714 312 2.99 4% $23,299 $18,460 $21,155 0.8 0.9 ($4,839) ($2,144) CZ15 SCE 8,684 97 3.21 5% $20,945 $26,738 $31,600 1.3 1.5 $5,792 $10,655 CZ16 PG&E 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $18,608 $14,494 0.8 0.6 ($6,007) ($10,121) CZ16-2 LADWP 836 700 4.42 3% $24,616 $15,237 $14,494 0.6 0.6 ($9,378) ($10,121) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 46 2019-07-25 Figure 34. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum CZ01 PG&E -159,802 16917 53.92 -28% ($1,296,784) ($582,762) ($115,161) 2.2 11.3 $714,022 $1,181,623 CZ02 PG&E -118,739 12677 40.00 -12% ($1,297,757) ($245,434) ($51,620) 5.3 25.1 $1,052,322 $1,246,137 CZ03 PG&E -110,595 12322 40.48 -14% ($1,300,029) ($326,633) ($51,166) 4.0 25.4 $973,396 $1,248,863 CZ04 PG&E -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($225,307) ($53,134) 5.8 24.5 $1,074,556 $1,246,730 CZ04-2 CPAU -113,404 11927 36.59 -13% ($1,299,864) ($17,768) ($53,134) 73.2 24.5 $1,282,096 $1,246,730 CZ05 PG&E -108,605 11960 38.34 -15% ($1,299,917) ($350,585) ($54,685) 3.7 23.8 $949,332 $1,245,232 CZ06 SCE -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) ($61,534) ($28,043) 21.1 46.4 $1,238,524 $1,272,015 CZ06-2 LA -78,293 8912 29.36 -5% ($1,300,058) $43,200 ($28,043) >1 46.4 $1,343,258 $1,272,015 CZ07 SDG&E -69,819 8188 28.04 -7% ($1,298,406) ($137,638) ($23,199) 9.4 56.0 $1,160,768 $1,275,207 CZ08 SCE -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) ($53,524) ($22,820) 24.2 56.8 $1,242,852 $1,273,556 CZ08-2 LA -71,914 8353 28.21 -6% ($1,296,376) $42,841 ($22,820) >1 56.8 $1,339,217 $1,273,556 CZ09 SCE -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) ($44,979) ($21,950) 28.9 59.1 $1,253,196 $1,276,224 CZ09-2 LA -72,262 8402 28.38 -6% ($1,298,174) $46,679 ($21,950) >1 59.1 $1,344,853 $1,276,224 CZ10 SDG&E -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($172,513) ($36,179) 7.5 35.8 $1,122,663 $1,258,997 CZ10-2 SCE -80,062 8418 26.22 -8% ($1,295,176) ($63,974) ($36,179) 20.2 35.8 $1,231,202 $1,258,997 CZ11 PG&E -99,484 10252 30.99 -10% ($1,295,985) ($186,037) ($49,387) 7.0 26.2 $1,109,948 $1,246,598 CZ12 PG&E -99,472 10403 32.08 -10% ($1,297,425) ($340,801) ($45,565) 3.8 28.5 $956,624 $1,251,860 CZ12-2 SMUD -99,067 10403 32.21 -10% ($1,297,425) $5,794 ($44,354) >1 29.3 $1,303,219 $1,253,071 CZ13 PG&E -96,829 10029 30.60 -10% ($1,295,797) ($184,332) ($50,333) 7.0 25.7 $1,111,465 $1,245,464 CZ14 SDG&E -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($325,928) ($56,578) 4.0 22.9 $970,228 $1,239,578 CZ14-2 SCE -101,398 10056 29.68 -11% ($1,296,156) ($121,662) ($56,578) 10.7 22.9 $1,174,494 $1,239,578 CZ15 SCE -49,853 5579 18.07 -4% ($1,294,276) $209 ($21,420) >1 60.4 $1,294,485 $1,272,856 CZ16 PG&E -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) ($645,705) ($239,178) 2.0 5.4 $654,847 $1,061,374 CZ16-2 LA -216,708 17599 41.89 -50% ($1,300,552) $30,974 ($239,178) >1 5.4 $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 electrical infrastructure incremental cost of $26,800 (see section 3.3.2.1), and the natural gas infrastructure incremental cost savings of $56,020 (see section 3.3.2.2). 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 47 2019-07-25 Figure 35. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3A – All-Electric + EE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp-liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3A: All-Electric + EE CZ01 PG&E -113,259 16917 62.38 1.3% ($1,251,544) ($200,367) $5,460 6.2 >1 $1,051,177 $1,257,005 CZ02 PG&E -90,033 12677 45.46 4% ($1,265,064) ($108,075) $15,685 11.7 >1 $1,156,989 $1,280,749 CZ03 PG&E -83,892 12322 45.93 6% ($1,267,509) ($198,234) $20,729 6.4 >1 $1,069,274 $1,288,237 CZ04 PG&E -91,197 11927 40.36 0.2% ($1,263,932) ($112,892) $703 11.2 >1 $1,151,041 $1,264,635 CZ04-2 CPAU -90,981 11927 40.42 0.2% ($1,263,932) $32,557 $918 >1 >1 $1,296,489 $1,264,850 CZ05 PG&E -82,491 11960 43.62 5% ($1,267,355) ($221,492) $18,488 5.7 >1 $1,045,863 $1,285,843 CZ06 SCE -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) ($33,475) $15,142 37.9 >1 $1,234,441 $1,283,057 CZ06-2 LADWP -61,523 8912 32.45 7% ($1,267,916) $57,215 $15,142 >1 >1 $1,325,130 $1,283,057 CZ07 SDG&E -53,308 8188 31.22 7% ($1,266,354) ($81,338) $22,516 15.6 >1 $1,185,015 $1,288,870 CZ08 SCE -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) ($23,893) $9,391 52.9 >1 $1,240,515 $1,273,800 CZ08-2 LADWP -55,452 8353 31.33 3% ($1,264,408) $57,058 $9,391 >1 >1 $1,321,466 $1,273,800 CZ09 SCE -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) ($19,887) $9,110 63.7 >1 $1,246,415 $1,275,412 CZ09-2 LADWP -55,887 8402 31.40 2% ($1,266,302) $60,441 $9,110 >1 >1 $1,326,743 $1,275,412 CZ10 SDG&E -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($126,072) $7,365 10.0 >1 $1,129,930 $1,263,367 CZ10-2 SCE -60,239 8418 29.96 2% ($1,256,002) ($33,061) $7,365 38.0 >1 $1,222,940 $1,263,367 CZ11 PG&E -77,307 10252 35.12 1% ($1,256,149) ($80,187) $3,114 15.7 >1 $1,175,962 $1,259,263 CZ12 PG&E -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) ($234,275) $9,048 5.4 >1 $1,022,550 $1,265,872 CZ12-2 SMUD -75,098 10403 36.73 2% ($1,256,824) $54,941 $9,048 >1 >1 $1,311,765 $1,265,872 CZ13 PG&E -75,052 10029 34.72 0.3% ($1,256,109) ($79,378) $1,260 15.8 >1 $1,176,731 $1,257,369 CZ14 SDG&E -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($170,975) $543 7.3 >1 $1,084,729 $1,256,247 CZ14-2 SCE -76,375 10056 34.28 0.1% ($1,255,704) ($34,418) $543 36.5 >1 $1,221,286 $1,256,247 CZ15 SCE -33,722 5579 21.43 2% ($1,257,835) $26,030 $12,262 >1 >1 $1,283,864 $1,270,097 CZ16 PG&E -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) ($197,174) ($66,650) 6.4 18.8 $1,058,190 $1,188,714 CZ16-2 LADWP -139,676 17599 55.25 -14% ($1,255,364) $165,789 ($66,650) >1 18.8 $1,421,153 $1,188,714 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 48 2019-07-25 Figure 36. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B CZ01 PG&E -8,900 16917 87.15 1% ($1,044,174) $90,964 $324,376 >1 >1 $1,135,139 $1,368,551 CZ02 PG&E 36,491 12677 73.03 4% ($1,057,694) $242,514 $313,711 >1 >1 $1,300,208 $1,371,405 CZ03 PG&E 41,239 12322 73.43 6% ($1,060,139) $155,868 $308,385 >1 >1 $1,216,007 $1,368,524 CZ04 PG&E 36,628 11927 69.70 0.2% ($1,056,562) $240,799 $308,682 >1 >1 $1,297,361 $1,365,244 CZ04-2 CPAU 36,844 11927 69.76 0.2% ($1,056,562) $336,813 $418,836 >1 >1 $1,393,375 $1,475,398 CZ05 PG&E 36,365 11960 73.11 5% ($1,059,985) $119,173 $317,952 >1 >1 $1,179,158 $1,377,937 CZ06 SCE 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $156,327 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,216,872 $1,372,275 CZ06-2 LADWP 64,476 8912 60.47 7% ($1,060,545) $180,648 $311,730 >1 >1 $1,241,193 $1,372,275 CZ07 SDG&E 77,715 8188 60.45 7% ($1,058,983) $197,711 $330,458 >1 >1 $1,256,694 $1,389,441 CZ08 SCE 71,990 8353 59.49 3% ($1,057,038) $165,393 $320,814 >1 >1 $1,222,432 $1,377,852 CZ08-2 LADWP 71,990 8353 60.24 3% ($1,057,038) $180,367 $443,809 >1 >1 $1,237,405 $1,500,847 CZ09 SCE 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $175,602 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,234,534 $1,360,391 CZ09-2 LADWP 70,465 8402 59.29 2% ($1,058,932) $183,220 $301,459 >1 >1 $1,242,152 $1,360,391 CZ10 SDG&E 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $161,513 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,210,145 $1,343,162 CZ10-2 SCE 69,581 8418 58.04 2% ($1,048,632) $164,837 $294,530 >1 >1 $1,213,469 $1,343,162 CZ11 PG&E 47,260 10252 61.57 1% ($1,048,779) $253,717 $286,797 >1 >1 $1,302,496 $1,335,576 CZ12 PG&E 51,115 10403 64.07 2% ($1,049,454) $104,523 $305,446 >1 >1 $1,153,977 $1,354,900 CZ12-2 SMUD 51,115 10403 64.99 2% ($1,049,454) $253,197 $430,977 >1 >1 $1,302,651 $1,480,431 CZ13 PG&E 47,757 10029 60.77 0.3% ($1,048,739) $251,663 $281,877 >1 >1 $1,300,402 $1,330,616 CZ14 SDG&E 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $148,510 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,196,844 $1,383,272 CZ14-2 SCE 66,084 10056 64.54 0.1% ($1,048,334) $185,018 $334,938 >1 >1 $1,233,352 $1,383,272 CZ15 SCE 98,755 5579 49.04 2.1% ($1,050,465) $233,308 $311,121 >1 >1 $1,283,772 $1,361,585 CZ16 PG&E -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $191,994 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,239,987 $1,288,718 CZ16-2 LADWP -873 17599 84.99 -14% ($1,047,994) $291,279 $240,724 >1 >1 $1,339,273 $1,288,718 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 49 2019-07-25 Figure 37. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Package 3C – All-Electric + HE CZ Utility Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG Reductions (mtons) Comp- liance Margin Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Utility Cost Savings $TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Package 3C: All-Electric + HE CZ01 PG&E -154,840 16917 56.24 -24% ($1,281,338) ($606,619) ($101,272) 2.1 12.7 $674,719 $1,180,066 CZ02 PG&E -118,284 12677 41.18 -11% ($1,283,243) ($395,641) ($44,505) 3.2 28.8 $887,602 $1,238,738 CZ03 PG&E -113,413 12322 40.80 -14% ($1,288,782) ($522,458) ($51,582) 2.5 25.0 $766,324 $1,237,200 CZ04 PG&E -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($383,177) ($53,285) 3.4 24.2 $904,701 $1,234,593 CZ04-2 CPAU -115,928 11927 37.09 -13% ($1,287,878) ($24,170) ($53,285) 53.3 24.2 $1,263,708 $1,234,593 CZ05 PG&E -111,075 11960 38.75 -15% ($1,288,242) ($530,740) ($56,124) 2.4 23.0 $757,502 $1,232,119 CZ06 SCE -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($154,625) ($32,244) 8.3 40.0 $1,134,069 $1,256,451 CZ06-2 LADWP -83,000 8912 29.41 -15% ($1,288,695) ($17,626) ($32,244) 73.1 40.0 $1,271,068 $1,256,451 CZ07 SDG&E -73,823 8188 28.32 -7% ($1,285,759) ($268,207) ($24,069) 4.8 53.4 $1,017,552 $1,261,690 CZ08 SCE -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($157,393) ($21,912) 8.1 58.5 $1,123,848 $1,259,329 CZ08-2 LADWP -75,573 8353 28.56 -6% ($1,281,241) ($18,502) ($21,912) 69.2 58.5 $1,262,739 $1,259,329 CZ09 SCE -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($138,746) ($16,992) 9.3 75.6 $1,146,393 $1,268,147 CZ09-2 LADWP -74,790 8402 29.04 -4% ($1,285,139) ($6,344) ($16,992) 202.6 75.6 $1,278,794 $1,268,147 CZ10 SDG&E -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($235,479) ($24,107) 5.4 53.0 $1,042,617 $1,253,990 CZ10-2 SCE -80,248 8418 27.57 -5% ($1,278,097) ($123,371) ($24,107) 10.4 53.0 $1,154,726 $1,253,990 CZ11 PG&E -98,041 10252 32.73 -7% ($1,279,528) ($278,242) ($35,158) 4.6 36.4 $1,001,286 $1,244,370 CZ12 PG&E -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($480,347) ($38,715) 2.7 33.1 $802,487 $1,244,119 CZ12-2 SMUD -100,080 10403 33.24 -9% ($1,282,834) ($23,362) ($38,715) 54.9 33.1 $1,259,472 $1,244,119 CZ13 PG&E -94,607 10029 32.47 -7% ($1,279,301) ($276,944) $244,552 4.6 >1 $1,002,357 $1,523,853 CZ14 SDG&E -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($302,123) ($37,769) 4.2 33.9 $977,770 $1,242,124 CZ14-2 SCE -97,959 10056 31.91 -7% ($1,279,893) ($129,082) ($37,769) 9.9 33.9 $1,150,811 $1,242,124 CZ15 SCE -45,226 5579 20.17 0.04% ($1,276,847) ($6,533) $227 195.4 >1 $1,270,314 $1,277,074 CZ16 PG&E -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) ($605,601) ($185,438) 2.1 6.9 $682,848 $1,103,011 CZ16-2 LADWP -198,840 17599 47.73 -39% ($1,288,450) $40,268 ($185,438) >1 6.9 $1,328,718 $1,103,011 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 50 2019-07-25 4.4 Cost Effectiveness Results – PV-only and PV+Battery The Reach Code Team ran packages of PV-only and PV+Battery measures, without any additional efficiency measures, to assess cost effectiveness on top of the mixed-fuel baseline building and the all- electric federal code minimum reference (Package 2 in Sections 4.1 – 4.3). Jurisdictions interested in adopting PV-only reach codes should reference the mixed-fuel cost effectiveness results because a mixed-fuel building is the baseline for the nonresidential prototypes analyzed in this study. PV or PV+Battery packages are added to all-electric federal code minimum reference which (in many scenarios) do not have a positive compliance margin compared to the mixed- fuel baseline model, and are solely provided for informational purposes. Jurisdictions interested in reach codes requiring all-electric+PV or all-electric+PV+battery should reference package 3B results in Sections 4.1 – 4.3.25 Each of the following eight packages were evaluated against a mixed fuel baseline designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh battery ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery ♦ All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery Figure 38 through Figure 40 summarize the on-bill and TDV B/C ratios for each prototype for the two PV only packages and the two PV plus battery packages. 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 51 2019-07-25 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 52 2019-07-25 Figure 38. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.8 1.5 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.9 1.6 0.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.1 1.7 CZ02 PG&E 3.7 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.8 2.2 0.9 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 CZ03 PG&E 3.7 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.9 3.9 2.0 4.0 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.2 CZ04 PG&E 3.6 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.9 2.1 1.1 2.7 3.3 2.5 2.9 2.2 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 7.7 2.1 9.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 CZ05 PG&E 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.7 4.0 2.7 3.4 2.3 CZ05-2 SCG 4.2 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 9.4 2.6 CZ06 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.3 CZ06-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 7.2 >1 8.2 1.5 2.7 1.3 2.3 CZ07 SDG&E 3.2 2.0 1.9 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 2.7 3.2 2.3 CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.7 1.9 2.4 CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.7 1.1 2.4 CZ09 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.3 CZ09-2 LA 1.1 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.3 2.6 1.2 2.3 CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 1.9 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.0 CZ10-2 SCE 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 >1 3.3 >1 6.3 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 CZ11 PG&E 3.6 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.5 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.1 CZ12 PG&E 3.5 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.9 2.5 1.2 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.04 1.5 >1 2.5 >1 3.2 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ13 PG&E 3.5 1.8 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.5 1.5 3.6 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.0 CZ14 SDG&E 3.4 2.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.2 2.5 CZ14-2 SCE 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.7 >1 2.3 >1 3.1 2.2 2.8 1.9 2.5 CZ15 SCE 1.8 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 7.5 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ16 PG&E 3.9 2.0 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.6 CZ16-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.5 >1 0.4 >1 0.6 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.6 CZ 135kW 0 05kWh 50kWh 3kW 0 135kW 0 3kW 5kWh 135kW 50kWh Mixed Fuel All-Electric 3kW 135kW3kW 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 53 2019-07-25 Figure 39. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 >1 3.0 >1 2.7 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.5 CZ02 PG&E 3.2 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.0 2.1 2.6 1.9 CZ04 PG&E 3.3 1.9 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.0 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 CZ05 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.2 2.1 2.7 2.0 CZ05-2 SCG 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 3.7 1.9 3.2 1.6 CZ06 SCE 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.0 CZ06-2 LA 1.3 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.2 0.9 2.0 CZ07 SDG&E 4.0 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 CZ08 SCE 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1 CZ08-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.01 2.4 0.9 2.1 CZ09 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.4 1.6 2.1 CZ09-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.1 2.4 0.99 2.1 CZ10 SDG&E 3.8 2.0 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.0 CZ10-2 SCE 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.0 CZ11 PG&E 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 CZ12 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.997 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.3 1.4 2.1 CZ13 PG&E 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.7 2.2 2.4 1.9 CZ14 SDG&E 3.5 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.2 CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.6 1.5 2.2 CZ15 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.02 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.1 CZ16 PG&E 3.7 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.7 2.0 2.3 1.8 CZ16-2 LA 1.3 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 >1 0.5 >1 0.4 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.8 3kW 90 kW3kW 0 05kWh 50kWh CZ Mixed Fuel 0 05kWh 50kWh 3kW 90 kW3kW 90 kW All-Electric 90 kW 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 54 2019-07-25 Figure 40. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - PV and Battery PV Battery Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV CZ01 PG&E 2.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1 2.3 >1 2.3 >1 4.8 >1 4.7 >1 CZ02 PG&E 2.3 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 5.6 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ03 PG&E 2.7 1.8 1.6 1.05 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.4 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ04 PG&E 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 6.2 >1 6.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ04-2 CPAU 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ05 PG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 3.9 >1 3.9 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ05-2 SCG 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ06 SCE 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ06-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ07 SDG&E 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ08 SCE 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ08-2 LA 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.5 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ09 SCE 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.997 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ09-2 LA 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.6 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ10 SDG&E 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 8.2 >1 8.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ10-2 SCE 1.7 1.9 0.99 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.99 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ11 PG&E 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 7.6 >1 7.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ12 PG&E 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.4 4.0 >1 4.0 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ12-2 SMUD 1.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.95 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ13 PG&E 2.6 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 7.7 >1 7.7 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ14 SDG&E 3.0 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.6 4.2 >1 4.2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ14-2 SCE 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ15 SCE 1.7 2.0 1.002 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.003 1.4 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 CZ16 PG&E 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.1 5.7 2.1 5.6 5.8 >1 5.8 >1 CZ16-2 LA 1.02 2.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.5 >1 5.7 >1 5.6 >1 >1 >1 >1 5kWh 50kWh 0 CZ Mixed Fuel All-Electric 3kW 80kW3kW 80kW 3kW 80kW3kW 80kW 05kWh 50kWh00 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 55 2019-07-25 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Considerations The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and battery storage systems, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results. 5.1 Summary Figure 41 through Figure 43 summarize results for each prototype and depict the compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Code Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies: ♦ Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. ♦ Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. For more detail on the results in the Figures, please refer to Section 4 Results. As described in Section 4.4, PV-only and PV+Battery packages in the mixed-fuel building were found to be cost effective across all prototypes, climate zones, and packages using the TDV approach, and results are not reiterated in the following figures. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 56 2019-07-25 Figure 41. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 3% -15% 7% 7% -14% CZ02 PG&E 17% 17% 4% -7% 10% 10% -5% CZ03 PG&E 20% 20% 3% -7% 16% 16% -6% CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3% CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 5% -6% 9% 9% -3% CZ05 PG&E 18% 18% 4% -8% 12% 12% -6% CZ05-2 SCG 18% 18% 4% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2% CZ06-2 LADWP 20% 20% 3% -4% 18% 18% -2% CZ07 SDG&E 20% 20% 4% -2% 20% 20% 1% CZ08 SCE 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1% CZ08-2 LADWP 18% 18% 4% -2% 18% 18% 1% CZ09 SCE 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2% CZ09-2 LADWP 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2% CZ10 SDG&E 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1% CZ10-2 SCE 17% 17% 4% -4% 13% 13% -1% CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 10% 10% 0% CZ12 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1% CZ12-2 SMUD 14% 14% 5% -5% 10% 10% -1% CZ13 PG&E 13% 13% 5% -4% 9% 9% 0% CZ14 SDG&E 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1% CZ14-2 SCE 14% 14% 5% -5% 9% 9% -1% CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% -2% 10% 10% 3% CZ16 PG&E 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26% CZ16-2 LADWP 14% 14% 5% -27% -15% -15% -26% 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 57 2019-07-25 Figure 42. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 18% 18% 2% -4.1% 15% 15% -2% CZ02 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -1.0% 13% 13% 3% CZ03 PG&E 16% 16% 2% -0.4% 16% 16% 2% CZ04 PG&E 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3% CZ04-2 CPAU 14% 14% 3% -0.1% 14% 14% 3% CZ05 PG&E 16% 16% 1% -1.2% 15% 15% 1% CZ05-2 SCG 16% 16% 1% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3% CZ06-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.5% 11% 11% 3% CZ07 SDG&E 13% 13% 2% 0.3% 13% 13% 3% CZ08 SCE 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ08-2 LADWP 10% 10% 3% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ09 SCE 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ09-2 LADWP 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4% CZ10 SDG&E 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ10-2 SCE 12% 12% 4% 0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ11 PG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.5% 12% 12% 5% CZ12 PG&E 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ12-2 SMUD 13% 13% 4% -0.1% 12% 12% 4% CZ13 PG&E 15% 15% 4% -0.4% 14% 14% 4% CZ14 SDG&E 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5% CZ14-2 SCE 13% 13% 4% 0.7% 15% 15% 5% CZ15 SCE 12% 12% 5% 0.9% 12% 12% 6% CZ16 PG&E 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8% CZ16-2 LADWP 13% 13% 3% -12.2% 3% 3% -8% 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 58 2019-07-25 Figure 43. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE CZ01 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -28% 1% 1% -24% CZ02 PG&E 7% 7% 3% -12% 4% 4% -11% CZ03 PG&E 10% 10% 2% -14% 6% 6% -14% CZ04 PG&E 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13% CZ04-2 CPAU 6% 6% 2% -13% 0.2% 0.2% -13% CZ05 PG&E 9% 9% 2% -15% 5% 5% -15% CZ05-2 SCG 9% 9% 2% NA NA NA NA CZ06 SCE 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15% CZ06-2 LADWP 8% 8% 2% -5% 7% 7% -15% CZ07 SDG&E 8% 8% 2% -7% 7% 7% -7% CZ08 SCE 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6% CZ08-2 LADWP 7% 7% 2% -6% 3% 3% -6% CZ09 SCE 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4% CZ09-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -6% 2% 2% -4% CZ10 SDG&E 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5% CZ10-2 SCE 5% 5% 4% -8% 2% 2% -5% CZ11 PG&E 4% 4% 4% -10% 1% 1% -7% CZ12 PG&E 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9% CZ12-2 SMUD 5% 5% 4% -10% 2% 2% -9% CZ13 PG&E 4% 4% 3% -10% 0.3% 0.3% -7% CZ14 SDG&E 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7% CZ14-2 SCE 4% 4% 4% -11% 0.1% 0.1% -7% CZ15 SCE 3% 3% 5% -4% 2% 2% 0.04% CZ16 PG&E 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39% CZ16-2 LADWP 6% 6% 3% -50% -14% -14% -39% 5.2 Conclusions and Further Considerations Findings are specific to the scenarios analyzed under this specific methodology, and largely pertain to office, retail, and hotel-type occupancies. Nonresidential buildings constitute a wide variety of occupancy profiles and process loads, making findings challenging to generalize across multiple building types. Findings indicate the following overall conclusions: 1. This study assumed that electrifying space heating and service water heating could eliminate natural gas infrastructure alone, because these were the only gas end-uses included the prototypes. Avoiding the installation of natural gas infrastructure results in significant cost savings and is a primary factor toward cost-effective outcomes in all-electric designs, even with necessary increases in electrical capacity. 2. There is ample opportunity for cost effective energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated by the compliance margins achieved in many of the efficiency-only and efficiency + PV packages. Though much of the energy savings are attributable to lighting measures, efficiency measures selected for these prototypes are confined to the building systems that can be modeled. There is 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 59 2019-07-25 likely further opportunity for energy savings through measures that cannot be currently demonstrated in compliance software, such as high-performance control sequences or variable speed parallel fan powered boxes. 3. High efficiency appliances triggering federal preemption do not achieve as high compliance margins as the other efficiency measures analyzed in this study. Cost effectiveness appears to be dependent on the system type and building type. Nonetheless, specifying high efficiency equipment will always be a key feature in integrated design. 4. Regarding the Small Hotel prototype: a. The Small Hotel presents a challenging prototype to cost-effectively exceed the state’s energy performance budget without efficiency measures. The Reach Code Team is uncertain of the precision of the results due to the inability to directly model either drain water heat recovery or a central heat pump water heater with a recirculation loop. b. Hotel results may be applicable to high-rise (4 or more stories) multifamily buildings. Both hotel and multifamily buildings have the same or similar mandatory and prescriptive compliance options for hot water systems, lighting, and envelope. Furthermore, the Alternate Calculation Method Reference Manual specifies the same baseline HVAC system for both building types. c. Hotel compliance margins were the lowest among the three building types analyzed, and thus the most conservative performance thresholds applicable to other nonresidential buildings not analyzed in this study. As stated previously, the varying occupancy and energy profiles of nonresidential buildings makes challenging to directly apply these results across all buildings. 5. Many all-electric and solar PV packages demonstrated greater GHG reductions than their mixed- fuel counterparts, contrary to TDV-based performance, suggesting a misalignment among the TDV metric and California’s long-term GHG-reduction goals. The Energy Commission has indicated that they are aware of this issue and are seeking to address it. 6. Changes to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual can drastically impact results. Two examples include: a. When performance modeling residential buildings, the Standard Design is electric if the Proposed Design is electric, which removes TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. This essentially allows for a compliance pathway for all-electric residential buildings. If nonresidential buildings were treated in the same way, all-electric cost effectiveness using the TDV approach would improve. b. The baseline mixed-fuel system for a hotel includes a furnace in each guest room, which carries substantial plumbing costs and labor costs for assembly. A change in the baseline system would lead to different base case costs and different cost effectiveness outcomes. 7. All-electric federal code-minimum packages appear to be cost effective, largely due to avoided natural gas infrastructure, but in most cases do not comply with the Energy Commission’s minimum performance budget (as described in item 7a above). For most cases it appears that adding cost-effective efficiency measures achieves compliance. All-electric nonresidential projects can leverage the initial cost savings of avoiding natural gas infrastructure by adding energy efficiency measures that would not be cost effective independently. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 60 2019-07-25 6 Appendices 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 44. The map in Figure 44 along with a zip- code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 44. Map of California Climate Zones 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 61 2019-07-25 6.2 Lighting Efficiency Measures Figure 45 details the applicability and impact of each lighting efficiency measure by prototype and space function and includes the resulting LPD that is modeled as the proposed by building type and by space function. Figure 45. Impact of Lighting Measures on Proposed LPDs by Space Function Space Function Baseline Impact Modeled Proposed LPD (W/ft2) Interior Lighting Reduced LPD Institutional Tuning Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Occupant Sensing in Open Office Plan LPD (W/ft2) Medium Office Office Area (Open plan office) - Interior 0.65 15% 10% - 17% 0.429 Office Area (Open plan office) - Perimeter 0.65 15% 5% 10% 30% 0.368 Medium Retail Commercial/Industrial Storage (Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386 Main Entry Lobby 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729 Retail Sales Area (Retail Merchandise Sales) 0.95 5% 5% - - 0.857 Small Hotel Commercial/Industrial Storage (Warehouse) 0.45 10% 5% - - 0.386 Convention, Conference, Multipurpose, and Meeting 0.85 10% 5% - - 0.729 Corridor Area 0.60 10% 5% - - 0.514 Exercise/Fitness Center and Gymnasium Areas 0.50 10% - - - 0.450 Laundry Area 0.45 10% - - - 0.405 Lounge, Breakroom, or Waiting Area 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557 Mechanical 0.40 10% - - - 0.360 Office Area (>250 ft2) 0.65 10% 5% - - 0.557 6.3 Drain Water Heat Recovery Measure Analysis To support potential DWHR savings in the Small Hotel prototype, the Reach Code Team modeled the drain water heat recovery measure in CBECC-Res 2019 in the all-electric and mixed fuel 6,960 ft2 prototype residential buildings. The Reach Code Team assumed one heat recovery device for every three showers assuming unequal flow to the shower. Based on specifications from three different drain water heat recovery device manufacturers for device effectiveness in hotel applications, the team assumed a heat recovery efficiency of 50 percent. The Reach Code Team modeled mixed fuel and all-electric residential prototype buildings both with and without heat recovery in each climate zone. Based on these model results, the Reach Code Team determined the percentage savings of domestic water heating energy in terms of gas, electricity, and TDV for mixed fuel and all-electric, in each climate zone. The Reach Code Team then applied the savings 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 62 2019-07-25 percentages to the Small Hotel prototype domestic water heating energy in both the mixed-fuel and all- electric to determine energy savings for the drain water heat recovery measure in the Small Hotel. The Reach Code Team applied volumetric energy rates to estimate on-bill cost impacts from this measure. 6.4 Utility Rate Schedules The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in Figure 46 to determine the On-Bill savings for each prototype. Figure 46. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on Climate Zone – Detailed View Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity (Time-of-use) Natural Gas Medium Office Medium Retail Small Hotel All Prototypes CZ01 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ02 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ03 PG&E A-10 A-1 or A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ04 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ04-2 CPAU/PG&E E-2 E-2 E-2 G-NR1 CZ05 PG&E A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ05-2 PG&E/SCG A-10 A-1 A-1 or A-10 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ06 LADWP/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ07 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ08 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ08-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) CZ09 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 or TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) CZ10 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ10-2 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ11 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1 CZ12 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ12-2 SMUD/PG&E GS GS GS G-NR1 CZ13 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-10 G-NR1 CZ14 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10) CZ14-2 SDG&E AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) AL-TOU+EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3 CZ15 SCE/SCG TOU-GS-3 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ16 PG&E A-10 A-10 A-1 or A-10 G-NR1 CZ16-2 LADWP/SCG A-2 (B) A-2 (B) A-2 (B) G-10 (GN-10) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 63 2019-07-25 6.5 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures Figures 47 to 49 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed fuel design baseline. Figure 47. Medium Office – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Medium Office Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 358,455 4,967 $109,507 $6,506 84 266,893 CZ02 PG&E 404,865 3,868 $130,575 $5,256 122 282,762 CZ03 PG&E 370,147 3,142 $116,478 $4,349 88 251,759 CZ04 PG&E 431,722 3,759 $140,916 $5,144 141 299,993 CZ04-2 CPAU 431,722 3,759 $75,363 $5,144 141 299,993 CZ05 PG&E 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $4,481 106 269,768 CZ05-2 SCG 400,750 3,240 $131,277 $3,683 106 269,768 CZ06 SCE 397,441 2,117 $74,516 $2,718 105 253,571 CZ06-2 LA 397,441 2,117 $44,311 $2,718 105 253,571 CZ07 SDG&E 422,130 950 $164,991 $4,429 118 257,324 CZ08 SCE 431,207 1,219 $79,181 $1,820 132 265,179 CZ08-2 LA 431,207 1,219 $46,750 $1,820 132 265,179 CZ09 SCE 456,487 1,605 $86,190 $2,196 155 287,269 CZ09-2 LA 456,487 1,605 $51,111 $2,196 155 287,269 CZ10 SDG&E 431,337 2,053 $173,713 $5,390 130 272,289 CZ10-2 SCE 431,337 2,053 $80,636 $2,603 130 272,289 CZ11 PG&E 464,676 3,062 $150,520 $4,333 163 310,307 CZ12 PG&E 441,720 3,327 $142,902 $4,647 152 299,824 CZ12-2 SMUD 441,720 3,327 $65,707 $4,647 152 299,824 CZ13 PG&E 471,540 3,063 $150,919 $4,345 161 316,228 CZ14 SDG&E 467,320 3,266 $185,812 $6,448 165 314,258 CZ14-2 SCE 467,320 3,266 $92,071 $3,579 165 314,258 CZ15 SCE 559,655 1,537 $105,388 $2,058 211 347,545 CZ16 PG&E 405,269 6,185 $127,201 $8,056 116 312,684 CZ16-2 LA 405,269 6,185 $43,115 $8,056 116 312,684 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 64 2019-07-25 Figure 48. Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Medium Retail Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 184,234 3,893 $43,188 $5,247 155 156,972 CZ02 PG&E 214,022 2,448 $70,420 $3,572 202 157,236 CZ03 PG&E 199,827 1,868 $47,032 $2,871 165 140,558 CZ04 PG&E 208,704 1,706 $66,980 $2,681 187 143,966 CZ04-2 CPAU 208,704 1,706 $36,037 $2,681 187 143,966 CZ05 PG&E 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,697 155 135,849 CZ05-2 SCG 195,864 1,746 $45,983 $2,342 155 135,849 CZ06 SCE 211,123 1,002 $36,585 $1,591 183 135,557 CZ06-2 LA 211,123 1,002 $21,341 $1,591 183 135,557 CZ07 SDG&E 211,808 522 $75,486 $4,055 178 130,436 CZ08 SCE 212,141 793 $36,758 $1,373 190 133,999 CZ08-2 LA 212,141 793 $21,436 $1,373 190 133,999 CZ09 SCE 227,340 970 $40,083 $1,560 218 146,680 CZ09-2 LA 227,340 970 $23,487 $1,560 218 146,680 CZ10 SDG&E 235,465 1,262 $87,730 $4,700 228 154,572 CZ10-2 SCE 235,465 1,262 $41,000 $1,853 228 154,572 CZ11 PG&E 234,560 2,415 $76,670 $3,547 244 170,232 CZ12 PG&E 228,958 2,309 $75,084 $3,426 234 165,133 CZ12-2 SMUD 228,958 2,309 $32,300 $3,426 234 165,133 CZ13 PG&E 242,927 1,983 $81,995 $3,034 258 170,345 CZ14 SDG&E 264,589 1,672 $97,581 $5,059 277 178,507 CZ14-2 SCE 264,589 1,672 $46,217 $2,172 277 178,507 CZ15 SCE 290,060 518 $50,299 $1,083 300 179,423 CZ16 PG&E 212,204 4,304 $67,684 $5,815 197 180,630 CZ16-2 LA 212,204 4,304 $20,783 $5,815 197 180,630 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 65 2019-07-25 Figure 49. Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel Baseline Climate Zone Utility Electricity Consumption (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) Electricity Cost Natural Gas Cost Compliance TDV GHG Emissions (lbs) Small Hotel Mixed Fuel Baseline CZ01 PG&E 177,734 16,936 40,778 20,465 110 340,491 CZ02 PG&E 189,319 12,696 53,396 15,664 110 293,056 CZ03 PG&E 183,772 12,341 42,325 15,210 98 284,217 CZ04 PG&E 187,482 11,945 52,118 14,806 106 281,851 CZ04-2 CPAU 187,482 11,945 32,176 14,806 106 281,851 CZ05 PG&E 187,150 11,979 43,182 14,733 98 281,183 CZ05-2 SCG 187,150 11,979 43,182 10,869 98 281,183 CZ06 SCE 191,764 8,931 28,036 8,437 98 244,664 CZ06-2 LA 191,764 8,931 16,636 8,437 98 244,664 CZ07 SDG&E 189,174 8,207 58,203 10,752 90 233,884 CZ08 SCE 190,503 8,372 27,823 7,991 94 236,544 CZ08-2 LA 190,503 8,372 16,555 7,991 94 236,544 CZ09 SCE 198,204 8,421 30,262 8,030 103 242,296 CZ09-2 LA 198,204 8,421 17,951 8,030 103 242,296 CZ10 SDG&E 215,364 8,437 71,713 10,926 122 255,622 CZ10-2 SCE 215,364 8,437 33,736 8,043 122 255,622 CZ11 PG&E 219,852 10,271 63,724 12,882 131 282,232 CZ12 PG&E 199,499 10,422 46,245 13,022 115 270,262 CZ12-2 SMUD 199,499 10,422 26,872 13,022 115 270,262 CZ13 PG&E 226,925 10,048 65,559 12,629 132 284,007 CZ14 SDG&E 226,104 10,075 73,621 12,167 134 283,287 CZ14-2 SCE 226,104 10,075 35,187 9,350 134 283,287 CZ15 SCE 280,595 5,598 42,852 5,777 152 260,378 CZ16 PG&E 191,231 17,618 51,644 21,581 127 358,590 CZ16-2 LA 191,231 17,618 16,029 21,581 127 358,590 6.6 Hotel TDV Cost Effectiveness with Propane Baseline The Reach Codes Team further analyzed TDV cost effectiveness of the all-electric packages with a mixed- fuel design baseline using propane instead of natural gas. Results for each package are shown in Figure 50. through Figure 53. below. All electric models compared to a propane baseline have positive compliance margins in all climate zones when compared to results using a natural gas baseline. Compliance margin improvement is roughly 30 percent, which also leads to improved cost effectiveness for the all-electric packages. These outcomes are likely due to the TDV penalty associated with propane when compared to natural gas. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 66 2019-07-25 Across packages, TDV cost effectiveness with a propane baseline follows similar trends as the natural gas baseline. Adding efficiency measures increased compliance margins by 3 to 10 percent depending on climate zone, while adding high efficiency HVAC and SHW equipment alone increased compliance margins by smaller margins of about 2 to 4 percent compared to the All-Electric package. Figure 50. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 2 All- Electric Federal Code Minimum Climate Zone Complianc e Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 -4% ($1,271,869) ($28,346) 44.9 $1,243,523 CZ02 27% ($1,272,841) $170,263 >1 $1,443,104 CZ03 -3% ($1,275,114) ($16,425) 77.6 $1,258,689 CZ04 26% ($1,274,949) $155,466 >1 $1,430,414 CZ05 27% ($1,275,002) $154,709 >1 $1,429,710 CZ06 17% ($1,275,143) $126,212 >1 $1,401,355 CZ07 25% ($1,273,490) $117,621 >1 $1,391,111 CZ08 24% ($1,271,461) $122,087 >1 $1,393,548 CZ09 23% ($1,273,259) $123,525 >1 $1,396,784 CZ10 18% ($1,270,261) $109,522 >1 $1,379,783 CZ11 19% ($1,271,070) $129,428 >1 $1,400,498 CZ12 -4% ($1,272,510) ($26,302) 48.4 $1,246,208 CZ13 18% ($1,270,882) $124,357 >1 $1,395,239 CZ14 17% ($1,271,241) $117,621 >1 $1,388,861 CZ15 -7% ($1,269,361) ($45,338) 28.0 $1,224,023 CZ16 9% ($1,275,637) $68,272 >1 $1,343,908 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 67 2019-07-25 Figure 51. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3A (All- Electric + EE) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 35% ($1,250,898) $252,831 >1 $1,503,729 CZ02 34% ($1,251,870) $217,238 >1 $1,469,108 CZ03 37% ($1,254,142) $218,642 >1 $1,472,784 CZ04 31% ($1,250,769) $191,393 >1 $1,442,162 CZ05 36% ($1,254,031) $208,773 >1 $1,462,804 CZ06 25% ($1,250,964) $159,714 >1 $1,410,677 CZ07 32% ($1,249,311) $154,111 >1 $1,403,422 CZ08 29% ($1,247,282) $146,536 >1 $1,393,818 CZ09 27% ($1,249,080) $146,671 >1 $1,395,751 CZ10 22% ($1,246,081) $134,477 >1 $1,380,559 CZ11 23% ($1,246,891) $157,138 >1 $1,404,029 CZ12 27% ($1,248,330) $167,945 >1 $1,416,276 CZ13 22% ($1,246,703) $149,270 >1 $1,395,973 CZ14 21% ($1,247,061) $145,269 >1 $1,392,331 CZ15 14% ($1,245,182) $93,647 >1 $1,338,829 CZ16 20% ($1,254,665) $154,035 >1 $1,408,701 Figure 52. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3B (All- Electric + EE + PV) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 35% ($1,043,528) $511,688 >1 $1,555,215 CZ02 34% ($1,044,500) $524,460 >1 $1,568,960 CZ03 37% ($1,046,772) $518,485 >1 $1,565,257 CZ04 31% ($1,043,399) $505,579 >1 $1,548,978 CZ05 36% ($1,046,660) $526,668 >1 $1,573,328 CZ06 25% ($1,043,594) $469,623 >1 $1,513,216 CZ07 32% ($1,041,941) $471,513 >1 $1,513,454 CZ08 29% ($1,039,912) $475,973 >1 $1,515,885 CZ09 27% ($1,041,710) $467,971 >1 $1,509,681 CZ10 22% ($1,038,711) $454,832 >1 $1,493,543 CZ11 23% ($1,039,521) $474,844 >1 $1,514,364 CZ12 27% ($1,040,960) $484,667 >1 $1,525,627 CZ13 22% ($1,039,333) $454,108 >1 $1,493,441 CZ14 21% ($1,039,691) $505,398 >1 $1,545,090 CZ15 14% ($1,037,811) $423,879 >1 $1,461,691 CZ16 20% ($1,047,295) $480,407 >1 $1,527,702 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 68 2019-07-25 Figure 53. TDV Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel, Propane Baseline – Package 3C (All Electric + HE) Climate Zone Compliance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (TDV) CZ01 27% ($1,256,423) $194,975 >1 $1,451,398 CZ02 28% ($1,258,328) $177,378 >1 $1,435,706 CZ03 28% ($1,263,867) $164,094 >1 $1,427,961 CZ04 26% ($1,262,963) $155,314 >1 $1,418,277 CZ05 26% ($1,263,327) $153,271 >1 $1,416,598 CZ06 17% ($1,263,779) $122,011 >1 $1,385,790 CZ07 24% ($1,260,844) $116,751 >1 $1,377,594 CZ08 25% ($1,256,326) $122,995 >1 $1,379,321 CZ09 24% ($1,260,223) $128,482 >1 $1,388,706 CZ10 20% ($1,253,181) $121,595 >1 $1,374,776 CZ11 21% ($1,254,613) $143,658 >1 $1,398,271 CZ12 23% ($1,257,919) $142,901 >1 $1,400,820 CZ13 21% ($1,254,386) $138,625 >1 $1,393,011 CZ14 20% ($1,254,978) $136,430 >1 $1,391,407 CZ15 14% ($1,251,932) $96,087 >1 $1,348,019 CZ16 15% ($1,263,534) $122,011 >1 $1,385,545 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 69 2019-07-25 6.7 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details The Reach Code Tea evaluated cost effectiveness of installing a PV system and battery storage in six different measure combinations over a 2019 code-compliant baseline for all climate zones. The baseline for all nonresidential buildings is a mixed-fuel design. All mixed fuel models are compliant with 2019 Title24, whereas all electric models can show negative compliance. The compliance margin is the same as that of their respective federal minimum design and is not affected by addition of solar PV or battery. These scenarios evaluate the cost effectiveness of PV and/or battery measure individually. The climate zones where all-electric design is not compliant will 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. 6.7.1 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Office Figure 54 through Figure 61 contain the 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 packages are mostly cost effective on a TDV basis except in CZ1. As compared to the 3 kW PV only package, battery reduces cost effectiveness. This package is not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD territories using an On-Bill approach. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV only: The packages are less cost effective as compared to 3 kW PV packages in most climate zones. In areas served by LADWP, the B/C ratio is narrowly less than 1 and not cost effective. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: The packages are cost effective in all climate zones except for in the areas served by LADWP. On-Bill and TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are on-bill cost effective in ten of sixteen climate zones. Climate zones 1,2,4,12, and 16 were not found to be cost-effective 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 + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Packages are slightly more cost effective than the previous minimal PV only package. Packages are on-bill cost effective in most 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. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 70 2019-07-25 ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: All packages are cost effective and achieve savings using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. On-Bill and TDV B/C ratios are slightly lower compared to the PV only package. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 71 2019-07-25 Figure 54. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office - Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle $- TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $15,743 $8,448 2.8 1.5 $10,177 $2,882 CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,372 $10,500 3.7 1.9 $14,806 $4,934 CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $5,566 $20,603 $9,975 3.7 1.8 $15,037 $4,409 CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $20,235 $11,073 3.6 2.0 $14,669 $5,507 CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,945 $11,073 2.1 2.0 $6,379 $5,507 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $23,159 $10,834 4.2 1.9 $17,593 $5,268 CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,968 $10,930 2.0 2.0 $5,402 $5,364 CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,575 $10,930 1.2 2.0 $1,009 $5,364 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $17,904 $11,025 3.2 2.0 $12,338 $5,459 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,768 $11,359 1.9 2.0 $5,202 $5,793 CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,503 $11,359 1.2 2.0 $937 $5,793 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,622 $11,216 1.9 2.0 $5,056 $5,650 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,217 $11,216 1.1 2.0 $651 $5,650 CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $21,280 $10,787 3.8 1.9 $15,714 $5,221 CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $5,566 $11,598 $10,787 2.1 1.9 $6,032 $5,221 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,869 $10,644 3.6 1.9 $14,303 $5,078 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,643 $10,644 3.5 1.9 $14,077 $5,078 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $5,566 $8,005 $10,644 1.4 1.9 $2,439 $5,078 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $19,231 $10,262 3.5 1.8 $13,665 $4,696 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $18,789 $12,600 3.4 2.3 $13,223 $7,034 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,512 $12,600 1.9 2.3 $4,946 $7,034 CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $5,566 $10,109 $11,550 1.8 2.1 $4,543 $5,984 CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $21,836 $10,882 3.9 2.0 $16,270 $5,316 CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $5,566 $6,501 $10,882 1.2 2.0 $935 $5,316 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 72 2019-07-25 Figure 55. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $15,743 $8,448 1.7 0.9 $6,223 ($1,072) CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,372 $10,500 2.1 1.1 $10,852 $980 CZ03 PG&E 4,660 0 0.9 $9,520 $20,603 $9,975 2.2 1.0 $11,083 $455 CZ04 PG&E 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $20,235 $11,073 2.1 1.2 $10,714 $1,553 CZ04-2 CPAU 5,056 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,945 $11,073 1.3 1.2 $2,425 $1,553 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $23,159 $10,834 2.4 1.1 $13,639 $1,314 CZ06 SCE 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,968 $10,930 1.2 1.1 $1,448 $1,410 CZ06-2 LADWP 4,853 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,575 $10,930 0.7 1.1 ($2,945) $1,410 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $17,904 $11,025 1.9 1.2 $8,384 $1,505 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,768 $11,359 1.1 1.2 $1,248 $1,839 CZ08-2 LADWP 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,503 $11,359 0.7 1.2 ($3,017) $1,839 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,622 $11,216 1.1 1.2 $1,102 $1,696 CZ09-2 LADWP 4,889 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,217 $11,216 0.7 1.2 ($3,303) $1,696 CZ10 SDG&E 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $21,280 $10,787 2.2 1.1 $11,760 $1,267 CZ10-2 SCE 4,826 0 0.9 $9,520 $11,598 $10,787 1.2 1.1 $2,078 $1,267 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,869 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,349 $1,123 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,643 $10,644 2.1 1.1 $10,123 $1,123 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.9 $9,520 $8,005 $10,644 0.8 1.1 ($1,515) $1,123 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $19,231 $10,262 2.0 1.1 $9,711 $742 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $18,789 $12,600 2.0 1.3 $9,269 $3,080 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,512 $12,600 1.1 1.3 $992 $3,080 CZ15 SCE 5,099 0 1.0 $9,520 $10,109 $11,550 1.1 1.2 $589 $2,030 CZ16 PG&E 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $21,836 $10,882 2.3 1.1 $12,316 $1,362 CZ16-2 LADWP 5,096 0 1.0 $9,520 $6,501 $10,882 0.7 1.1 ($3,019) $1,362 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 73 2019-07-25 Figure 56. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel +135kW PV CZ01 PG&E 177,340 0 34.3 $302,856 $526,352 $380,399 1.7 1.3 $223,497 $77,544 CZ02 PG&E 215,311 0 41.5 $302,856 $666,050 $471,705 2.2 1.6 $363,194 $168,849 CZ03 PG&E 209,717 0 40.7 $302,856 $645,010 $449,797 2.1 1.5 $342,154 $146,942 CZ04 PG&E 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $686,434 $497,431 2.3 1.6 $383,578 $194,575 CZ04-2 CPAU 227,535 0 44.0 $302,856 $537,521 $497,431 1.8 1.6 $234,665 $194,575 CZ05 PG&E 226,195 0 44.1 $302,856 $753,230 $486,596 2.5 1.6 $450,374 $183,741 CZ06 SCE 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $401,645 $492,515 1.3 1.6 $98,789 $189,659 CZ06-2 LADWP 218,387 0 42.3 $302,856 $233,909 $492,515 0.8 1.6 ($68,947) $189,659 CZ07 SDG&E 223,185 0 43.3 $302,856 $623,078 $496,667 2.1 1.6 $320,223 $193,811 CZ08 SCE 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $389,435 $510,270 1.3 1.7 $86,579 $207,414 CZ08-2 LADWP 217,171 0 42.0 $302,856 $222,066 $510,270 0.7 1.7 ($80,790) $207,414 CZ09 SCE 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $387,977 $505,783 1.3 1.7 $85,122 $202,928 CZ09-2 LADWP 220,010 0 43.2 $302,856 $226,516 $505,783 0.7 1.7 ($76,340) $202,928 CZ10 SDG&E 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $632,726 $485,451 2.1 1.6 $329,870 $182,595 CZ10-2 SCE 217,148 0 42.5 $302,856 $394,884 $485,451 1.3 1.6 $92,028 $182,595 CZ11 PG&E 211,556 0 40.9 $302,856 $671,691 $478,912 2.2 1.6 $368,835 $176,056 CZ12 PG&E 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $653,242 $478,101 2.2 1.6 $350,386 $175,245 CZ12-2 SMUD 211,824 0 40.9 $302,856 $345,255 $478,101 1.1 1.6 $42,399 $175,245 CZ13 PG&E 208,465 0 40.5 $302,856 $651,952 $462,732 2.2 1.5 $349,096 $159,876 CZ14 SDG&E 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $659,487 $566,351 2.2 1.9 $356,632 $263,496 CZ14-2 SCE 241,965 0 46.7 $302,856 $401,712 $566,351 1.3 1.9 $98,856 $263,496 CZ15 SCE 229,456 0 43.9 $302,856 $378,095 $520,102 1.2 1.7 $75,239 $217,246 CZ16 PG&E 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $707,095 $489,508 2.3 1.6 $404,239 $186,652 CZ16-2 LADWP 229,317 0 44.8 $302,856 $223,057 $489,508 0.7 1.6 ($79,799) $186,652 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 74 2019-07-25 Figure 57. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 176,903 0 35.3 $330,756 $525,948 $381,450 1.6 1.2 $195,192 $50,694 CZ02 PG&E 214,861 0 42.6 $330,756 $665,864 $472,898 2.0 1.4 $335,108 $142,142 CZ03 PG&E 209,255 0 41.8 $330,756 $644,170 $451,611 1.9 1.4 $313,414 $120,855 CZ04 PG&E 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $685,605 $502,108 2.1 1.5 $354,849 $171,352 CZ04-2 CPAU 227,076 0 45.0 $330,756 $536,463 $502,108 1.6 1.5 $205,707 $171,352 CZ05 PG&E 225,752 0 45.1 $330,756 $753,558 $487,742 2.3 1.5 $422,803 $156,986 CZ06 SCE 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $401,356 $494,042 1.2 1.5 $70,601 $163,286 CZ06-2 LADWP 217,939 0 43.4 $330,756 $233,673 $494,042 0.7 1.5 ($97,083) $163,286 CZ07 SDG&E 222,746 0 44.4 $330,756 $628,383 $498,147 1.9 1.5 $297,627 $167,391 CZ08 SCE 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $389,184 $511,511 1.2 1.5 $58,428 $180,755 CZ08-2 LADWP 216,724 0 43.1 $330,756 $221,839 $511,511 0.7 1.5 ($108,917) $180,755 CZ09 SCE 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $387,728 $506,929 1.2 1.5 $56,972 $176,173 CZ09-2 LADWP 219,563 0 44.2 $330,756 $226,303 $506,929 0.7 1.5 ($104,453) $176,173 CZ10 SDG&E 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $638,040 $486,644 1.9 1.5 $307,284 $155,888 CZ10-2 SCE 216,700 0 43.5 $330,756 $394,633 $486,644 1.2 1.5 $63,877 $155,888 CZ11 PG&E 211,129 0 41.9 $330,756 $670,932 $481,298 2.0 1.5 $340,177 $150,543 CZ12 PG&E 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $652,465 $482,826 2.0 1.5 $321,709 $152,070 CZ12-2 SMUD 211,386 0 41.9 $330,756 $344,668 $482,826 1.0 1.5 $13,913 $152,070 CZ13 PG&E 208,045 0 41.5 $330,756 $651,191 $473,280 2.0 1.4 $320,435 $142,524 CZ14 SDG&E 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $672,601 $569,454 2.0 1.7 $341,846 $238,698 CZ14-2 SCE 241,502 0 47.7 $330,756 $401,450 $569,454 1.2 1.7 $70,694 $238,698 CZ15 SCE 229,062 0 44.8 $330,756 $377,827 $521,963 1.1 1.6 $47,071 $191,208 CZ16 PG&E 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $706,201 $496,190 2.1 1.5 $375,445 $165,434 CZ16-2 LADWP 228,825 0 45.9 $330,756 $222,802 $496,190 0.7 1.5 ($107,953) $165,434 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 75 2019-07-25 Figure 58. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office– All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($80,523) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($4,242) $30,551 CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($66,965) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.8 2.2 ($16,150) $36,037 CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($75,600) ($39,441) ($19,617) 1.9 3.9 $36,159 $55,983 CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($70,999) ($29,496) 0.9 2.1 ($8,717) $32,786 CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($62,282) ($8,050) ($29,496) 7.7 2.1 $54,232 $32,786 CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($77,773) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.8 2.7 $35,214 $48,611 CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $105,284 $59,781 CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($69,422) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 7.2 $102,358 $59,781 CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($63,595) $64,781 ($382) >1 166.6 $128,376 $63,214 CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $90,694 $60,755 CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($62,043) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 48.1 $87,165 $60,755 CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $87,913 $53,126 CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($56,372) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 17.4 $84,517 $53,126 CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $100,924 $28,619 CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($41,171) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 3.3 $73,211 $28,619 CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($57,257) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.1 2.6 $3,481 $35,063 CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) ($66,808) ($24,819) 0.9 2.5 ($5,195) $36,794 CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($61,613) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 2.5 $64,510 $36,794 CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($55,996) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.1 2.5 $3,836 $33,849 CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $83,293 $32,605 CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($58,426) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 2.3 $73,764 $32,605 CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($29,445) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 7.5 $52,298 $25,532 CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.3 0.4 ($136,002) ($82,623) CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($57,366) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.4 $93,720 ($82,623) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 76 2019-07-25 Figure 59. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -49,716 4967 10.9 ($78,897) ($84,765) ($49,972) 0.9 1.6 ($5,868) $28,925 CZ02 PG&E -44,899 3868 6.0 ($78,897) ($83,115) ($30,928) 0.9 2.6 ($4,218) $47,969 CZ03 PG&E -31,226 3142 6.5 ($78,897) ($39,441) ($19,617) 2.0 4.0 $39,456 $59,280 CZ04 PG&E -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($70,999) ($29,496) 1.1 2.7 $7,898 $49,400 CZ04-2 CPAU -43,772 3759 5.7 ($78,897) ($8,050) ($29,496) 9.8 2.7 $70,847 $49,400 CZ05 PG&E -35,504 3240 5.5 ($78,897) ($42,559) ($29,162) 1.9 2.7 $36,338 $49,735 CZ06 SCE -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $35,862 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $114,759 $69,256 CZ06-2 LADWP -21,321 2117 4.0 ($78,897) $32,936 ($9,641) >1 8.2 $111,833 $69,256 CZ07 SDG&E -7,943 950 1.9 ($78,897) $64,781 ($382) >1 206.6 $143,678 $78,515 CZ08 SCE -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $28,651 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $107,548 $77,608 CZ08-2 LADWP -10,854 1219 2.5 ($78,897) $25,122 ($1,289) >1 61.2 $104,019 $77,608 CZ09 SCE -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $31,542 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $110,439 $75,651 CZ09-2 LADWP -14,878 1605 3.3 ($78,897) $28,145 ($3,246) >1 24.3 $107,042 $75,651 CZ10 SDG&E -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $59,752 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $138,649 $66,344 CZ10-2 SCE -22,588 2053 3.1 ($78,897) $32,039 ($12,553) >1 6.3 $110,936 $66,344 CZ11 PG&E -35,455 3062 4.5 ($78,897) ($53,776) ($22,194) 1.5 3.6 $25,121 $56,703 CZ12 PG&E -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) ($66,808) ($24,819) 1.2 3.2 $12,089 $54,078 CZ12-2 SMUD -38,704 3327 5.0 ($78,897) $2,897 ($24,819) >1 3.2 $81,794 $54,078 CZ13 PG&E -35,016 3063 4.7 ($78,897) ($52,159) ($22,146) 1.5 3.6 $26,738 $56,751 CZ14 SDG&E -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $24,867 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $103,764 $53,076 CZ14-2 SCE -38,945 3266 4.5 ($78,897) $15,338 ($25,821) >1 3.1 $94,235 $53,076 CZ15 SCE -14,818 1537 2.8 ($78,897) $22,852 ($3,914) >1 20.2 $101,749 $74,983 CZ16 PG&E -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) ($193,368) ($139,989) 0.4 0.6 ($114,472) ($61,092) CZ16-2 LADWP -88,966 6185 6.6 ($78,897) $36,354 ($139,989) >1 0.6 $115,250 ($61,092) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 77 2019-07-25 Figure 60. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 135kW PV CZ01 PG&E 123,683 4967 44.5 $163,217 $405,731 $321,979 2.5 2.0 $242,514 $158,762 CZ02 PG&E 165,627 3868 46.6 $176,775 $562,528 $430,276 3.2 2.4 $385,753 $253,501 CZ03 PG&E 173,831 3142 46.3 $168,140 $575,864 $420,205 3.4 2.5 $407,725 $252,066 CZ04 PG&E 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $601,431 $456,861 3.3 2.5 $419,973 $275,403 CZ04-2 CPAU 178,706 3759 48.7 $181,458 $517,526 $456,861 2.9 2.5 $336,069 $275,403 CZ05 PG&E 185,664 3240 48.6 $165,967 $664,842 $446,600 4.0 2.7 $498,875 $280,633 CZ06 SCE 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $423,657 $471,944 2.4 2.7 $249,340 $297,626 CZ06-2 LADWP 192,214 2117 45.3 $174,317 $259,270 $471,944 1.5 2.7 $84,953 $297,626 CZ07 SDG&E 210,282 950 44.3 $180,145 $669,979 $485,260 3.7 2.7 $489,834 $305,115 CZ08 SCE 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $407,277 $497,622 2.2 2.7 $225,580 $315,925 CZ08-2 LADWP 201,491 1219 43.5 $181,696 $240,657 $497,622 1.3 2.7 $58,960 $315,925 CZ09 SCE 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $408,922 $491,322 2.2 2.6 $221,554 $303,953 CZ09-2 LADWP 200,242 1605 45.6 $187,368 $248,452 $491,322 1.3 2.6 $61,084 $303,953 CZ10 SDG&E 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $667,551 $462,111 3.3 2.3 $464,982 $259,543 CZ10-2 SCE 189,734 2053 44.7 $202,568 $412,659 $462,111 2.0 2.3 $210,091 $259,543 CZ11 PG&E 171,399 3062 44.5 $186,483 $597,807 $446,074 3.2 2.4 $411,324 $259,592 CZ12 PG&E 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $571,758 $442,638 3.1 2.4 $389,632 $260,511 CZ12-2 SMUD 168,413 3327 45.0 $182,127 $343,602 $442,638 1.9 2.4 $161,475 $260,511 CZ13 PG&E 168,817 3063 44.3 $187,744 $581,964 $430,324 3.1 2.3 $394,220 $242,580 CZ14 SDG&E 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $667,762 $527,930 3.6 2.8 $482,449 $342,616 CZ14-2 SCE 197,643 3266 50.1 $185,314 $408,424 $527,930 2.2 2.8 $223,110 $342,616 CZ15 SCE 209,539 1537 45.7 $214,294 $390,267 $504,638 1.8 2.4 $175,972 $290,343 CZ16 PG&E 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $470,199 $338,637 2.5 1.8 $283,825 $152,263 CZ16-2 LADWP 135,255 6185 50.4 $186,374 $250,807 $338,637 1.3 1.8 $64,433 $152,263 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 78 2019-07-25 Figure 61. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office – All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 135kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 123,280 4967 45.4 $191,117 $404,994 $323,077 2.1 1.7 $213,877 $131,960 CZ02 PG&E 165,200 3868 47.7 $204,675 $561,747 $431,469 2.7 2.1 $357,072 $226,795 CZ03 PG&E 173,384 3142 47.4 $196,040 $575,043 $422,019 2.9 2.2 $379,003 $225,979 CZ04 PG&E 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $600,621 $461,634 2.9 2.2 $391,263 $252,276 CZ04-2 CPAU 178,259 3759 49.8 $209,358 $516,495 $461,634 2.5 2.2 $307,137 $252,276 CZ05 PG&E 185,229 3240 49.7 $193,867 $664,046 $447,793 3.4 2.3 $470,179 $253,926 CZ06 SCE 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $423,369 $473,519 2.1 2.3 $221,152 $271,301 CZ06-2 LADWP 191,767 2117 46.5 $202,217 $259,033 $473,519 1.3 2.3 $56,816 $271,301 CZ07 SDG&E 209,848 950 45.4 $208,045 $675,307 $486,787 3.2 2.3 $467,262 $278,743 CZ08 SCE 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $407,027 $498,910 1.9 2.4 $197,430 $289,314 CZ08-2 LADWP 201,047 1219 44.7 $209,596 $240,432 $498,910 1.1 2.4 $30,835 $289,314 CZ09 SCE 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $408,676 $492,515 1.9 2.3 $193,408 $277,246 CZ09-2 LADWP 199,802 1605 46.6 $215,268 $248,242 $492,515 1.2 2.3 $32,974 $277,246 CZ10 SDG&E 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $672,867 $463,352 2.9 2.0 $442,399 $232,884 CZ10-2 SCE 189,293 2053 45.7 $230,468 $412,412 $463,352 1.8 2.0 $181,944 $232,884 CZ11 PG&E 170,987 3062 45.5 $214,383 $597,062 $448,509 2.8 2.1 $382,680 $234,126 CZ12 PG&E 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $571,002 $447,411 2.7 2.1 $360,975 $237,384 CZ12-2 SMUD 167,995 3327 46.0 $210,027 $343,043 $447,411 1.6 2.1 $133,017 $237,384 CZ13 PG&E 168,408 3063 45.3 $215,644 $581,225 $440,920 2.7 2.0 $365,580 $225,275 CZ14 SDG&E 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $680,893 $531,080 3.2 2.5 $467,679 $317,866 CZ14-2 SCE 197,188 3266 51.2 $213,214 $408,166 $531,080 1.9 2.5 $194,952 $317,866 CZ15 SCE 209,148 1537 46.6 $242,194 $390,000 $506,499 1.6 2.1 $147,806 $264,305 CZ16 PG&E 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $469,378 $341,978 2.2 1.6 $255,105 $127,704 CZ16-2 LADWP 134,809 6185 51.4 $214,274 $250,580 $341,978 1.2 1.6 $36,306 $127,704 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 79 2019-07-25 6.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Results – Medium Retail Figure 62 through Figure 69 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones using the On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the 3 kW PV only package and not cost effective for LADWP and SMUD service area. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + PV only: Packages achieve positive energy cost savings and are cost effective using the On-Bill approach for all climate zones except for LADWP territory (CZs 6, 8, 9 and 16). Packages achieve positive savings and are cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate 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 except for LADWP territory. Packages achieve savings and cost effective using the TDV approach for all climate zones. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, adding battery is cost effective as well using the On-Bill and TDV approach for all climate zones except for CZ16 under PG&E service. ♦ All-Electric + PV only: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings in all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces B/C ratios for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. Packages are not cost effective for all climate zones except CZ6, CZ8 and CZ9 under LADWP service area. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 80 2019-07-25 Figure 62. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $5,566 $12,616 $8,460 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,894 CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $5,566 $17,635 $10,262 3.2 1.8 $12,069 $4,696 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $5,566 $15,146 $10,152 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,586 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $18,519 $10,614 3.3 1.9 $12,953 $5,048 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $5,566 $11,507 $10,614 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $5,048 CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $5,566 $15,641 $10,548 2.8 1.9 $10,075 $4,982 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,374 $10,724 2.0 1.9 $5,808 $5,158 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,069 $10,724 1.3 1.9 $1,503 $5,158 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $5,566 $22,452 $11,031 4.0 2.0 $16,886 $5,465 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $11,838 $11,339 2.1 2.0 $6,272 $5,773 CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $5,566 $7,342 $11,339 1.3 2.0 $1,776 $5,773 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $11,187 $11,229 2.0 2.0 $5,621 $5,663 CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $5,566 $6,728 $11,229 1.2 2.0 $1,162 $5,663 CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $20,999 $10,987 3.8 2.0 $15,433 $5,421 CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $5,566 $11,384 $10,987 2.0 2.0 $5,818 $5,421 CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $5,566 $15,381 $10,680 2.8 1.9 $9,815 $5,114 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $16,442 $10,614 3.0 1.9 $10,876 $5,048 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $5,566 $8,247 $10,614 1.5 1.9 $2,681 $5,048 CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $5,566 $16,638 $10,592 3.0 1.9 $11,072 $5,026 CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $19,576 $12,218 3.5 2.2 $14,010 $6,652 CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $5,566 $10,227 $12,218 1.8 2.2 $4,661 $6,652 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $5,566 $10,476 $11,339 1.9 2.0 $4,910 $5,773 CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $20,418 $11,361 3.7 2.0 $14,852 $5,795 CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $5,566 $6,987 $11,361 1.3 2.0 $1,421 $5,795 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 81 2019-07-25 Figure 63. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.76 $9,520 $12,616 $8,460 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,060) CZ02 PG&E 4,685 0 0.91 $9,520 $17,635 $10,262 1.9 1.1 $8,115 $742 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.92 $9,520 $15,146 $10,152 1.6 1.1 $5,626 $632 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $18,519 $10,614 1.9 1.1 $8,999 $1,094 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 0.94 $9,520 $11,507 $10,614 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $1,094 CZ05 PG&E 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028 CZ05-2 SCG 4,910 0 0.95 $9,520 $15,641 $10,548 1.6 1.1 $6,120 $1,028 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,374 $10,724 1.2 1.1 $1,854 $1,204 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,069 $10,724 0.7 1.1 ($2,452) $1,204 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 0.96 $9,520 $22,452 $11,031 2.4 1.2 $12,932 $1,511 CZ08 SCE 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $11,838 $11,339 1.2 1.2 $2,317 $1,819 CZ08-2 LA 4,826 0 0.93 $9,520 $7,342 $11,339 0.8 1.2 ($2,178) $1,819 CZ09 SCE 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $11,187 $11,229 1.2 1.2 $1,667 $1,709 CZ09-2 LA 4,889 0 0.96 $9,520 $6,728 $11,229 0.7 1.2 ($2,792) $1,709 CZ10 SDG&E 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $20,999 $10,987 2.2 1.2 $11,479 $1,467 CZ10-2 SCE 4,948 0 0.97 $9,520 $11,384 $10,987 1.2 1.2 $1,863 $1,467 CZ11 PG&E 4,718 0 0.91 $9,520 $15,381 $10,680 1.6 1.1 $5,861 $1,160 CZ12 PG&E 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $16,442 $10,614 1.7 1.1 $6,922 $1,094 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,707 0 0.91 $9,520 $8,247 $10,614 0.9 1.1 ($1,273) $1,094 CZ13 PG&E 4,750 0 0.92 $9,520 $16,638 $10,592 1.7 1.1 $7,117 $1,072 CZ14 SDG&E 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $19,576 $12,218 2.1 1.3 $10,056 $2,698 CZ14-2 SCE 5,258 0 1.01 $9,520 $10,227 $12,218 1.1 1.3 $707 $2,698 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 0.96 $9,520 $10,476 $11,339 1.1 1.2 $956 $1,819 CZ16 PG&E 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $20,418 $11,361 2.1 1.2 $10,898 $1,841 CZ16-2 LA 5,336 0 1.04 $9,520 $6,987 $11,361 0.7 1.2 ($2,533) $1,841 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 82 2019-07-25 Figure 64. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV CZ01 PG&E 144,499 0 27.97 $201,904 $454,462 $309,935 2.3 1.5 $252,558 $108,031 CZ02 PG&E 171,790 0 33.31 $201,904 $477,584 $376,300 2.4 1.9 $275,681 $174,396 CZ03 PG&E 173,534 0 33.55 $201,904 $538,530 $372,146 2.7 1.8 $336,626 $170,243 CZ04 PG&E 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $489,934 $389,067 2.4 1.9 $288,030 $187,163 CZ04-2 CPAU 177,229 0 34.42 $201,904 $418,173 $389,067 2.1 1.9 $216,269 $187,163 CZ05 PG&E 180,044 0 34.84 $201,904 $556,787 $386,958 2.8 1.9 $354,883 $185,054 CZ06 SCE 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $288,188 $393,198 1.4 1.9 $86,284 $191,295 CZ06-2 LA 174,855 0 33.92 $201,904 $165,538 $393,198 0.8 1.9 ($36,366) $191,295 CZ07 SDG&E 181,854 0 35.32 $201,904 $373,974 $404,713 1.9 2.0 $172,070 $202,809 CZ08 SCE 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $284,481 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $82,577 $213,885 CZ08-2 LA 176,954 0 34.23 $201,904 $161,366 $415,789 0.8 2.1 ($40,538) $213,885 CZ09 SCE 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $289,050 $412,097 1.4 2.0 $87,146 $210,193 CZ09-2 LA 179,267 0 35.18 $201,904 $168,822 $412,097 0.8 2.0 ($33,082) $210,193 CZ10 SDG&E 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $410,310 $402,999 2.0 2.0 $208,406 $201,095 CZ10-2 SCE 181,443 0 35.41 $201,904 $291,236 $402,999 1.4 2.0 $89,332 $201,095 CZ11 PG&E 172,983 0 33.46 $201,904 $464,776 $391,550 2.3 1.9 $262,872 $189,646 CZ12 PG&E 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $467,870 $389,573 2.3 1.9 $265,966 $187,669 CZ12-2 SMUD 172,597 0 33.33 $201,904 $267,086 $389,573 1.3 1.9 $65,182 $187,669 CZ13 PG&E 174,151 0 33.81 $201,904 $478,857 $387,968 2.4 1.9 $276,953 $186,065 CZ14 SDG&E 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $396,181 $448,268 2.0 2.2 $194,277 $246,364 CZ14-2 SCE 192,789 0 36.97 $201,904 $288,782 $448,268 1.4 2.2 $86,878 $246,364 CZ15 SCE 183,214 0 35.12 $201,904 $277,867 $415,789 1.4 2.1 $75,963 $213,885 CZ16 PG&E 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $522,352 $416,558 2.6 2.1 $320,448 $214,654 CZ16-2 LA 195,665 0 37.97 $201,904 $171,802 $416,558 0.9 2.1 ($30,101) $214,654 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 83 2019-07-25 Figure 65. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – Mixed-Fuel + 110 kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 143,423 0 29.48 $229,804 $452,119 $324,373 2.0 1.4 $222,315 $94,569 CZ02 PG&E 170,542 0 35.14 $229,804 $486,704 $398,363 2.1 1.7 $256,900 $168,559 CZ03 PG&E 172,266 0 35.66 $229,804 $535,974 $395,374 2.3 1.7 $306,170 $165,570 CZ04 PG&E 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $525,788 $422,579 2.3 1.8 $295,984 $192,775 CZ04-2 CPAU 175,940 0 36.32 $229,804 $416,019 $422,579 1.8 1.8 $186,216 $192,775 CZ05 PG&E 178,728 0 36.91 $229,804 $554,968 $409,086 2.4 1.8 $325,164 $179,283 CZ06 SCE 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $290,599 $412,690 1.3 1.8 $60,795 $182,886 CZ06-2 LA 173,567 0 35.99 $229,804 $169,786 $412,690 0.7 1.8 ($60,018) $182,886 CZ07 SDG&E 180,508 0 37.61 $229,804 $425,793 $427,040 1.9 1.9 $195,989 $197,236 CZ08 SCE 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $296,318 $434,687 1.3 1.9 $66,514 $204,883 CZ08-2 LA 175,616 0 36.29 $229,804 $170,489 $434,687 0.7 1.9 ($59,315) $204,883 CZ09 SCE 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $300,540 $421,195 1.3 1.8 $70,736 $191,391 CZ09-2 LA 177,966 0 36.74 $229,804 $178,852 $421,195 0.8 1.8 ($50,952) $191,391 CZ10 SDG&E 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $459,486 $410,537 2.0 1.8 $229,683 $180,733 CZ10-2 SCE 180,248 0 36.91 $229,804 $301,219 $410,537 1.3 1.8 $71,415 $180,733 CZ11 PG&E 171,779 0 34.85 $229,804 $490,245 $417,679 2.1 1.8 $260,442 $187,875 CZ12 PG&E 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $497,363 $417,371 2.2 1.8 $267,559 $187,567 CZ12-2 SMUD 171,392 0 34.77 $229,804 $273,783 $417,371 1.2 1.8 $43,979 $187,567 CZ13 PG&E 173,052 0 34.97 $229,804 $488,196 $397,791 2.1 1.7 $258,392 $167,987 CZ14 SDG&E 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $420,241 $452,641 1.8 2.0 $190,437 $222,837 CZ14-2 SCE 191,703 0 38.31 $229,804 $294,010 $452,641 1.3 2.0 $64,206 $222,837 CZ15 SCE 182,299 0 36.01 $229,804 $279,036 $416,382 1.2 1.8 $49,232 $186,578 CZ16 PG&E 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $535,137 $432,951 2.3 1.9 $305,333 $203,147 CZ16-2 LA 194,293 0 40.00 $229,804 $175,573 $432,951 0.8 1.9 ($54,231) $203,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 84 2019-07-25 Figure 66. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($16,318) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 3.0 $20,606 $10,868 CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($20,734) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $21,593 $26,513 CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($17,381) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $32,799 $26,083 CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $25,276 $26,560 CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($16,166) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $40,166 $26,560 CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($18,776) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $32,852 $25,127 CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,741 $27,623 CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($15,032) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $41,324 $27,623 CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($17,032) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $93,842 $29,382 CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $48,768 $33,377 CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($20,192) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $44,667 $33,377 CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $55,159 $38,590 CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($25,383) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $51,207 $38,590 CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $95,999 $32,034 CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($20,541) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $52,936 $32,034 CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($25,471) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $33,090 $38,766 CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $27,984 $35,926 CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($25,774) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $46,988 $35,926 CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($21,428) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $27,075 $29,998 CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $80,338 $36,605 CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($19,926) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $48,557 $36,605 CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($22,813) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $50,084 $39,976 CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.6 0.5 ($11,070) ($22,140) CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($19,041) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.5 $64,747 ($22,140) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 85 2019-07-25 Figure 67. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -25,214 3893 14.61 ($14,692) $4,288 ($5,450) >1 2.7 $18,980 $9,242 CZ02 PG&E -17,101 2448 8.40 ($14,692) $859 $5,779 >1 >1 $15,551 $20,472 CZ03 PG&E -9,851 1868 7.18 ($14,692) $15,418 $8,702 >1 >1 $30,110 $23,394 CZ04 PG&E -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $9,110 $10,394 >1 >1 $23,802 $25,086 CZ04-2 CPAU -9,353 1706 6.24 ($14,692) $24,000 $10,394 >1 >1 $38,693 $25,086 CZ05 PG&E -9,423 1746 6.42 ($14,692) $14,076 $6,351 >1 >1 $28,768 $21,043 CZ06 SCE -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $29,710 $12,592 >1 >1 $44,402 $27,284 CZ06-2 LA -2,759 1002 4.24 ($14,692) $26,292 $12,592 >1 >1 $40,984 $27,284 CZ07 SDG&E 1,148 522 2.72 ($14,692) $76,810 $12,350 >1 >1 $91,502 $27,042 CZ08 SCE -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $28,576 $13,185 >1 >1 $43,268 $27,877 CZ08-2 LA -979 793 3.64 ($14,692) $24,475 $13,185 >1 >1 $39,167 $27,877 CZ09 SCE -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $29,776 $13,207 >1 >1 $44,468 $27,899 CZ09-2 LA -2,352 970 4.28 ($14,692) $25,823 $13,207 >1 >1 $40,516 $27,899 CZ10 SDG&E -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $75,458 $11,493 >1 >1 $90,150 $26,185 CZ10-2 SCE -5,388 1262 4.95 ($14,692) $32,394 $11,493 >1 >1 $47,086 $26,185 CZ11 PG&E -14,533 2415 8.86 ($14,692) $7,618 $13,295 >1 >1 $22,310 $27,987 CZ12 PG&E -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $2,210 $10,152 >1 >1 $16,902 $24,845 CZ12-2 SMUD -14,764 2309 8.19 ($14,692) $21,215 $10,152 >1 >1 $35,907 $24,845 CZ13 PG&E -12,069 1983 7.08 ($14,692) $5,647 $8,570 >1 >1 $20,339 $23,262 CZ14 SDG&E -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $60,412 $16,679 >1 >1 $75,104 $31,371 CZ14-2 SCE -7,950 1672 6.45 ($14,692) $28,631 $16,679 >1 >1 $43,323 $31,371 CZ15 SCE 2,534 518 3.10 ($14,692) $27,271 $17,162 >1 >1 $41,963 $31,855 CZ16 PG&E -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) ($30,111) ($41,181) 0.5 0.4 ($15,419) ($26,489) CZ16-2 LA -36,081 4304 14.26 ($14,692) $45,706 ($41,181) >1 0.4 $60,398 ($26,489) 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 86 2019-07-25 Figure 68. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 110kW PV CZ01 PG&E 115,344 3893 41.82 $143,932 $454,277 $296,025 3.2 2.1 $310,345 $152,093 CZ02 PG&E 150,004 2448 40.80 $139,516 $470,236 $371,817 3.4 2.7 $330,720 $232,301 CZ03 PG&E 158,951 1868 39.82 $142,869 $544,095 $370,696 3.8 2.6 $401,226 $227,827 CZ04 PG&E 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $488,619 $388,847 3.4 2.7 $344,534 $244,763 CZ04-2 CPAU 163,043 1706 39.73 $144,084 $432,905 $388,847 3.0 2.7 $288,821 $244,763 CZ05 PG&E 165,711 1746 40.30 $141,473 $565,525 $382,760 4.0 2.7 $424,051 $241,287 CZ06 SCE 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $306,670 $395,066 2.1 2.7 $161,452 $249,848 CZ06-2 LA 167,328 1002 37.24 $145,218 $184,797 $395,066 1.3 2.7 $39,579 $249,848 CZ07 SDG&E 178,042 522 37.07 $143,218 $428,332 $406,032 3.0 2.8 $285,114 $262,814 CZ08 SCE 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $301,219 $417,635 2.2 3.0 $161,161 $277,577 CZ08-2 LA 171,149 793 36.94 $140,058 $178,419 $417,635 1.3 3.0 $38,361 $277,577 CZ09 SCE 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $307,640 $414,075 2.3 3.1 $172,773 $279,208 CZ09-2 LA 172,027 970 38.50 $134,867 $187,813 $414,075 1.4 3.1 $52,946 $279,208 CZ10 SDG&E 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $463,692 $403,505 3.3 2.9 $323,984 $263,796 CZ10-2 SCE 171,107 1262 39.40 $139,708 $311,464 $403,505 2.2 2.9 $171,755 $263,796 CZ11 PG&E 153,732 2415 41.41 $134,778 $467,356 $394,165 3.5 2.9 $332,578 $259,387 CZ12 PG&E 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $467,106 $389,111 3.5 2.9 $332,630 $254,635 CZ12-2 SMUD 153,126 2309 40.61 $134,476 $283,343 $389,111 2.1 2.9 $148,867 $254,635 CZ13 PG&E 157,332 1983 39.97 $138,822 $477,831 $385,947 3.4 2.8 $339,008 $247,124 CZ14 SDG&E 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $437,575 $452,729 3.1 3.2 $297,251 $312,405 CZ14-2 SCE 179,582 1672 42.42 $140,324 $309,064 $452,729 2.2 3.2 $168,740 $312,405 CZ15 SCE 180,751 518 37.26 $137,436 $294,877 $421,612 2.1 3.1 $157,440 $284,176 CZ16 PG&E 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $473,892 $364,016 3.4 2.6 $332,682 $222,807 CZ16-2 LA 154,248 4304 51.20 $141,209 $211,677 $364,016 1.5 2.6 $70,467 $222,807 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 87 2019-07-25 Figure 69. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail – All-Electric + 110kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 90kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 114,356 3893 43.52 $171,832 $451,043 $310,265 2.6 1.8 $279,211 $138,433 CZ02 PG&E 148,793 2448 42.89 $167,416 $475,081 $394,099 2.8 2.4 $307,664 $226,683 CZ03 PG&E 157,707 1868 42.12 $170,769 $541,418 $394,034 3.2 2.3 $370,649 $223,265 CZ04 PG&E 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $523,603 $422,535 3.0 2.5 $351,618 $250,551 CZ04-2 CPAU 161,769 1706 41.82 $171,984 $430,567 $422,535 2.5 2.5 $258,582 $250,551 CZ05 PG&E 164,408 1746 42.68 $169,373 $561,966 $405,087 3.3 2.4 $392,592 $235,714 CZ06 SCE 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $306,697 $414,756 1.8 2.4 $133,579 $241,638 CZ06-2 LA 166,052 1002 39.48 $173,118 $187,941 $414,756 1.1 2.4 $14,823 $241,638 CZ07 SDG&E 176,705 522 39.47 $171,118 $479,038 $428,490 2.8 2.5 $307,920 $257,372 CZ08 SCE 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $312,602 $436,709 1.9 2.6 $144,645 $268,751 CZ08-2 LA 169,825 793 39.14 $167,958 $187,142 $436,709 1.1 2.6 $19,185 $268,751 CZ09 SCE 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $318,113 $423,370 2.0 2.6 $155,346 $260,604 CZ09-2 LA 170,747 970 40.23 $162,767 $197,006 $423,370 1.2 2.6 $34,240 $260,604 CZ10 SDG&E 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $503,504 $411,284 3.0 2.5 $335,896 $243,675 CZ10-2 SCE 169,935 1262 41.08 $167,608 $317,927 $411,284 1.9 2.5 $150,319 $243,675 CZ11 PG&E 152,559 2415 42.99 $162,678 $491,775 $420,667 3.0 2.6 $329,096 $257,989 CZ12 PG&E 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $494,703 $417,063 3.0 2.6 $332,327 $254,687 CZ12-2 SMUD 151,956 2309 42.21 $162,376 $288,950 $417,063 1.8 2.6 $126,573 $254,687 CZ13 PG&E 156,271 1983 41.25 $166,722 $485,422 $395,770 2.9 2.4 $318,699 $229,047 CZ14 SDG&E 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $452,456 $457,387 2.7 2.7 $284,232 $289,163 CZ14-2 SCE 178,505 1672 43.94 $168,224 $311,520 $457,387 1.9 2.7 $143,296 $289,163 CZ15 SCE 179,840 518 38.23 $165,336 $296,004 $422,293 1.8 2.6 $130,668 $256,957 CZ16 PG&E 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $483,205 $378,299 2.9 2.2 $314,096 $209,190 CZ16-2 LA 152,965 4304 53.53 $169,109 $215,341 $378,299 1.3 2.2 $46,231 $209,190 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 88 2019-07-25 6.7.3 Cost Effectiveness Results – Small Hotel Figure 70 through Figure 77 contain the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include: ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV: Packages are cost effective and achieve savings for all climate zones for both the On-Bill and TDV approaches. ♦ Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: The packages are less cost effective as compared to the previous minimal PV only package and not 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 LADWP territory. 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 are not cost effective for LADWP territory, SMUD territory as well as for climate zones 6,8,9 under PG&E service area. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV: All packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. All packages are cost effective using the TDV approach but do not achieve positive energy cost savings. ♦ All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery: Similar to minimal PV only package, all packages are cost effective using the On-Bill approach. All packages 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 all climate zones. ♦ All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: Adding battery slightly reduces On-Bill B/C ratios but is still cost effective for all climate zones. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 89 2019-07-25 Figure 70. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle $- TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On-bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $5,566 $12,616 $8,326 2.3 1.5 $7,050 $2,760 CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $5,566 $12,639 $10,332 2.3 1.9 $7,073 $4,766 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,146 $9,991 2.7 1.8 $9,580 $4,425 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $13,266 $10,445 2.4 1.9 $7,700 $4,879 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $5,566 $11,507 $10,445 2.1 1.9 $5,941 $4,879 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,048 $10,634 2.9 1.9 $10,482 $5,068 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,276 $10,559 1.8 1.9 $4,710 $4,993 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,307 $10,559 1.1 1.9 $741 $4,993 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,576 $10,861 2.6 2.0 $9,010 $5,295 CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,837 $11,202 1.9 2.0 $5,271 $5,636 CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,505 $11,202 1.2 2.0 $939 $5,636 CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $10,298 $10,824 1.9 1.9 $4,732 $5,258 CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $5,566 $6,201 $10,824 1.1 1.9 $635 $5,258 CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $16,302 $10,710 2.9 1.9 $10,736 $5,144 CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,468 $10,710 1.7 1.9 $3,902 $5,144 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,193 $10,483 2.6 1.9 $8,627 $4,917 CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $15,262 $10,596 2.7 1.9 $9,696 $5,030 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $5,566 $7,848 $10,596 1.4 1.9 $2,282 $5,030 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $5,566 $14,674 $10,105 2.6 1.8 $9,108 $4,539 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $16,615 $12,375 3.0 2.2 $11,049 $6,809 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $5,566 $10,021 $12,375 1.8 2.2 $4,455 $6,809 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $5,566 $9,542 $11,164 1.7 2.0 $3,976 $5,598 CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $14,961 $10,975 2.7 2.0 $9,395 $5,409 CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $5,566 $5,670 $10,975 1.0 2.0 $104 $5,409 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 90 2019-07-25 Figure 71. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On-bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 3,941 0 0.8 $9,520 $12,616 $8,326 1.3 0.9 $3,096 ($1,194) CZ02 PG&E 4,785 0 0.9 $9,520 $12,639 $10,332 1.3 1.1 $3,119 $811 CZ03 PG&E 4,733 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,146 $9,991 1.6 1.0 $5,626 $471 CZ04 PG&E 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $13,266 $10,445 1.4 1.1 $3,746 $925 CZ04-2 CPAU 4,834 0 1.0 $9,520 $11,507 $10,445 1.2 1.1 $1,987 $925 CZ05 PG&E 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114 CZ05-2 SCG 5,027 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,048 $10,634 1.7 1.1 $6,528 $1,114 CZ06 SCE 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,276 $10,559 1.1 1.1 $756 $1,039 CZ06-2 LA 4,769 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,307 $10,559 0.7 1.1 ($3,213) $1,039 CZ07 SDG&E 4,960 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,576 $10,861 1.5 1.1 $5,056 $1,341 CZ08 SCE 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,837 $11,202 1.1 1.2 $1,317 $1,682 CZ08-2 LA 4,824 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,505 $11,202 0.7 1.2 ($3,015) $1,682 CZ09 SCE 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $10,298 $10,824 1.1 1.1 $778 $1,303 CZ09-2 LA 4,779 0 0.9 $9,520 $6,201 $10,824 0.7 1.1 ($3,319) $1,303 CZ10 SDG&E 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $16,302 $10,710 1.7 1.1 $6,782 $1,190 CZ10-2 SCE 4,905 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,468 $10,710 0.99 1.1 ($52) $1,190 CZ11 PG&E 4,701 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,193 $10,483 1.5 1.1 $4,673 $963 CZ12 PG&E 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $15,262 $10,596 1.6 1.1 $5,742 $1,076 CZ12-2 SMUD 4,770 0 0.9 $9,520 $7,848 $10,596 0.8 1.1 ($1,672) $1,076 CZ13 PG&E 4,633 0 0.9 $9,520 $14,674 $10,105 1.5 1.1 $5,154 $584 CZ14 SDG&E 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $16,615 $12,375 1.7 1.3 $7,095 $2,855 CZ14-2 SCE 5,377 0 1.1 $9,520 $10,021 $12,375 1.1 1.3 $501 $2,855 CZ15 SCE 4,997 0 1.0 $9,520 $9,542 $11,164 1.0 1.2 $22 $1,644 CZ16 PG&E 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $14,961 $10,975 1.6 1.2 $5,441 $1,455 CZ16-2 LA 5,240 0 1.0 $9,520 $5,670 $10,975 0.6 1.2 ($3,851) $1,455 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 91 2019-07-25 Figure 72. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel - Mixed Fuel +80kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV CZ01 PG&E 105,090 0 20.6 $179,470 $336,440 $221,883 1.9 1.2 $156,970 $42,413 CZ02 PG&E 127,592 0 25.0 $179,470 $320,009 $275,130 1.8 1.5 $140,539 $95,660 CZ03 PG&E 126,206 0 24.8 $179,470 $403,900 $266,426 2.3 1.5 $224,430 $86,956 CZ04 PG&E 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $322,782 $278,536 1.8 1.6 $143,312 $99,066 CZ04-2 CPAU 128,894 0 25.4 $179,470 $306,862 $278,536 1.7 1.6 $127,392 $99,066 CZ05 PG&E 134,041 0 26.5 $179,470 $427,935 $283,834 2.4 1.6 $248,465 $104,364 CZ06 SCE 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $200,425 $281,488 1.1 1.6 $20,955 $102,018 CZ06-2 LA 127,168 0 25.0 $179,470 $119,357 $281,488 0.7 1.6 ($60,113) $102,018 CZ07 SDG&E 132,258 0 26.1 $179,470 $247,646 $289,700 1.4 1.6 $68,176 $110,230 CZ08 SCE 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $207,993 $298,594 1.2 1.7 $28,523 $119,124 CZ08-2 LA 128,641 0 25.3 $179,470 $122,591 $298,594 0.7 1.7 ($56,879) $119,124 CZ09 SCE 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $211,567 $288,830 1.2 1.6 $32,096 $109,360 CZ09-2 LA 127,447 0 25.3 $179,470 $123,486 $288,830 0.7 1.6 ($55,984) $109,360 CZ10 SDG&E 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $274,832 $285,386 1.5 1.6 $95,361 $105,916 CZ10-2 SCE 130,792 0 25.8 $179,470 $206,865 $285,386 1.2 1.6 $27,395 $105,916 CZ11 PG&E 125,366 0 24.6 $179,470 $316,781 $279,331 1.8 1.6 $137,311 $99,861 CZ12 PG&E 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $406,977 $282,358 2.3 1.6 $227,507 $102,888 CZ12-2 SMUD 127,203 0 25.0 $179,470 $198,254 $282,358 1.1 1.6 $18,784 $102,888 CZ13 PG&E 123,535 0 24.4 $179,470 $317,261 $269,908 1.8 1.5 $137,791 $90,437 CZ14 SDG&E 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $309,521 $330,345 1.7 1.8 $130,051 $150,875 CZ14-2 SCE 143,387 0 28.1 $179,470 $225,083 $330,345 1.3 1.8 $45,612 $150,875 CZ15 SCE 133,246 0 25.9 $179,470 $207,277 $297,648 1.2 1.7 $27,807 $118,177 CZ16 PG&E 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $341,724 $292,728 1.9 1.6 $162,254 $113,258 CZ16-2 LA 139,738 0 27.3 $179,470 $114,215 $292,728 0.6 1.6 ($65,255) $113,258 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 92 2019-07-25 Figure 73. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Mixed Fuel + 80kW PV + 50kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E 104,026 0 23.2 $207,370 $332,596 $237,740 1.6 1.1 $125,226 $30,370 CZ02 PG&E 126,332 0 28.1 $207,370 $336,179 $296,058 1.6 1.4 $128,809 $88,688 CZ03 PG&E 124,934 0 28.0 $207,370 $399,220 $289,360 1.9 1.4 $191,850 $81,990 CZ04 PG&E 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $332,161 $308,887 1.6 1.5 $124,790 $101,517 CZ04-2 CPAU 127,602 0 28.5 $207,370 $303,828 $308,887 1.5 1.5 $96,458 $101,517 CZ05 PG&E 132,725 0 29.8 $207,370 $423,129 $303,627 2.0 1.5 $215,758 $96,257 CZ06 SCE 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $193,814 $297,950 0.9 1.4 ($13,556) $90,580 CZ06-2 LA 125,880 0 28.4 $207,370 $123,083 $297,950 0.6 1.4 ($84,287) $90,580 CZ07 SDG&E 130,940 0 29.5 $207,370 $274,313 $309,682 1.3 1.5 $66,943 $102,312 CZ08 SCE 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $199,786 $312,899 1.0 1.5 ($7,584) $105,529 CZ08-2 LA 127,332 0 28.5 $207,370 $124,651 $312,899 0.6 1.5 ($82,719) $105,529 CZ09 SCE 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $206,706 $292,804 1.0 1.4 ($664) $85,433 CZ09-2 LA 126,232 0 28.2 $207,370 $126,710 $292,804 0.6 1.4 ($80,660) $85,433 CZ10 SDG&E 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $292,202 $287,278 1.4 1.4 $84,832 $79,908 CZ10-2 SCE 129,683 0 28.4 $207,370 $206,171 $287,278 1.0 1.4 ($1,199) $79,908 CZ11 PG&E 124,337 0 26.9 $207,370 $315,330 $283,683 1.5 1.4 $107,960 $76,313 CZ12 PG&E 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $403,127 $297,118 1.9 1.4 $195,757 $89,748 CZ12-2 SMUD 126,013 0 27.8 $207,370 $198,007 $297,118 1.0 1.4 ($9,363) $89,748 CZ13 PG&E 122,591 0 26.5 $207,370 $315,541 $280,996 1.5 1.4 $108,171 $73,626 CZ14 SDG&E 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $317,565 $334,697 1.5 1.6 $110,195 $127,327 CZ14-2 SCE 142,257 0 30.7 $207,370 $224,195 $334,697 1.1 1.6 $16,824 $127,327 CZ15 SCE 132,418 0 27.8 $207,370 $208,044 $299,199 1.0 1.4 $674 $91,829 CZ16 PG&E 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $358,582 $315,699 1.7 1.5 $151,212 $108,329 CZ16-2 LA 138,402 0 30.7 $207,370 $118,770 $315,699 0.6 1.5 ($88,600) $108,329 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 93 2019-07-25 Figure 74. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost* Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Lifecycle TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304 CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,266,111) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.5 30.7 $1,036,679 $1,224,823 CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,268,383) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.1 30.8 $958,510 $1,227,208 CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.1 29.7 $1,059,980 $1,225,530 CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,268,218) ($6,261) ($42,689) 202.6 29.7 $1,261,958 $1,225,530 CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,268,272) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.8 28.8 $935,393 $1,224,221 CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,268,413) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 72.5 $1,317,311 $1,250,929 CZ06-2 LA -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,266,760) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.5 102.7 $1,145,918 $1,254,423 CZ07 SDG&E -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) ($43,964) ($11,618) 28.8 108.9 $1,220,767 $1,253,113 CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,264,731) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 108.9 $1,313,467 $1,253,113 CZ08-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) ($35,547) ($11,126) 35.6 113.8 $1,230,982 $1,255,403 CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,266,529) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 113.8 $1,318,939 $1,255,403 CZ09-2 LA -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.0 49.6 $1,106,558 $1,238,061 CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,263,531) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.1 49.6 $1,208,820 $1,238,061 CZ10-2 SCE -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,264,340) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.4 32.5 $1,094,493 $1,225,436 CZ11 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,265,779) ($324,908) ($34,968) 3.9 36.2 $940,872 $1,230,811 CZ12 PG&E -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,265,779) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 37.5 $1,279,382 $1,232,022 CZ12-2 SMUD -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,264,152) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.5 31.4 $1,095,794 $1,223,923 CZ13 PG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.1 28.6 $955,969 $1,220,308 CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,264,510) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.4 28.6 $1,153,780 $1,220,308 CZ14-2 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,262,631) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 123.1 $1,271,627 $1,252,375 CZ15 SCE -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.0 5.6 $643,236 $1,040,704 CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,268,907) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,306,049 $1,040,704 CZ16-2 LA -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,265,139) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.2 11.8 $696,246 $1,158,304 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 94 2019-07-25 Figure 75. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 3kW PV + 5kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -155,861 16917 54.7 ($1,288,428) ($568,892) ($106,835) 2.3 12.1 $719,536 $1,181,593 CZ02 PG&E -113,954 12677 40.9 ($1,288,428) ($229,433) ($41,288) 5.6 31.2 $1,058,996 $1,247,140 CZ03 PG&E -105,862 12322 41.4 ($1,288,428) ($309,874) ($41,175) 4.2 31.3 $978,554 $1,247,253 CZ04 PG&E -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($208,239) ($42,689) 6.2 30.2 $1,080,190 $1,245,740 CZ04-2 CPAU -108,570 11927 37.5 ($1,288,428) ($6,261) ($42,689) 205.8 30.2 $1,282,167 $1,245,740 CZ05 PG&E -103,579 11960 39.3 ($1,288,428) ($332,879) ($44,051) 3.9 29.2 $955,549 $1,244,377 CZ06 SCE -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) ($52,341) ($17,484) 24.6 73.7 $1,236,087 $1,270,944 CZ06-2 LA -73,524 8912 30.3 ($1,288,428) $48,898 ($17,484) >1 73.7 $1,337,326 $1,270,944 CZ07 SDG&E -64,859 8188 29.0 ($1,288,428) ($120,842) ($12,337) 10.7 104.4 $1,167,586 $1,276,091 CZ08 SCE -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) ($43,964) ($11,618) 29.3 110.9 $1,244,464 $1,276,810 CZ08-2 LA -67,090 8353 29.2 ($1,288,428) $48,736 ($11,618) >1 110.9 $1,337,164 $1,276,810 CZ09 SCE -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) ($35,547) ($11,126) 36.2 115.8 $1,252,881 $1,277,302 CZ09-2 LA -67,483 8402 29.3 ($1,288,428) $52,410 ($11,126) >1 115.8 $1,340,838 $1,277,302 CZ10 SDG&E -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($156,973) ($25,469) 8.2 50.6 $1,131,455 $1,262,959 CZ10-2 SCE -75,157 8418 27.2 ($1,288,428) ($54,711) ($25,469) 23.5 50.6 $1,233,718 $1,262,959 CZ11 PG&E -94,783 10252 31.9 ($1,288,428) ($169,847) ($38,904) 7.6 33.1 $1,118,582 $1,249,524 CZ12 PG&E -94,702 10403 33.0 ($1,288,428) ($324,908) ($34,968) 4.0 36.8 $963,520 $1,253,460 CZ12-2 SMUD -94,297 10403 33.1 ($1,288,428) $13,603 ($33,757) >1 38.2 $1,302,031 $1,254,671 CZ13 PG&E -92,196 10029 31.5 ($1,288,428) ($168,358) ($40,229) 7.7 32.0 $1,120,071 $1,248,199 CZ14 SDG&E -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($308,542) ($44,202) 4.2 29.1 $979,887 $1,244,226 CZ14-2 SCE -96,021 10056 30.7 ($1,288,428) ($110,730) ($44,202) 11.6 29.1 $1,177,698 $1,244,226 CZ15 SCE -44,856 5579 19.0 ($1,288,428) $8,996 ($10,256) >1 125.6 $1,297,425 $1,278,172 CZ16 PG&E -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) ($625,671) ($228,203) 2.1 5.6 $662,757 $1,060,225 CZ16-2 LA -211,468 17599 42.9 ($1,288,428) $37,142 ($228,203) >1 5.6 $1,325,570 $1,060,225 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 95 2019-07-25 Figure 76. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 80kW PV CZ01 PG&E -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164 CZ02 PG&E 8,853 12677 65.0 ($1,124,415) $128,649 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,253,063 $1,347,925 CZ03 PG&E 15,612 12322 65.3 ($1,126,687) $44,532 $215,260 >1 >1 $1,171,219 $1,341,947 CZ04 PG&E 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $145,778 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,272,300 $1,351,924 CZ04-2 CPAU 15,490 11927 62.0 ($1,126,522) $289,094 $225,402 >1 >1 $1,415,616 $1,351,924 CZ05 PG&E 25,436 11960 64.8 ($1,126,575) $56,019 $229,149 >1 >1 $1,182,594 $1,355,724 CZ06 SCE 48,875 8912 54.4 ($1,126,716) $163,343 $253,445 >1 >1 $1,290,060 $1,380,161 CZ06-2 LA 62,439 8188 54.1 ($1,125,064) $115,822 $266,502 >1 >1 $1,240,886 $1,391,565 CZ07 SDG&E 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $147,987 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,271,022 $1,398,808 CZ08 SCE 56,727 8353 53.5 ($1,123,034) $163,971 $275,773 >1 >1 $1,287,005 $1,398,808 CZ08-2 LA 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $155,101 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,279,933 $1,391,712 CZ09 SCE 55,185 8402 53.7 ($1,124,832) $169,010 $266,880 >1 >1 $1,293,843 $1,391,712 CZ09-2 LA 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $113,936 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,235,770 $1,371,041 CZ10 SDG&E 50,731 8418 52.0 ($1,121,834) $138,265 $249,207 >1 >1 $1,260,099 $1,371,041 CZ10-2 SCE 25,882 10252 55.6 ($1,122,643) $162,626 $229,944 >1 >1 $1,285,269 $1,352,587 CZ11 PG&E 27,731 10403 57.1 ($1,124,083) $12,954 $236,794 >1 >1 $1,137,037 $1,360,876 CZ12 PG&E 28,136 10403 57.2 ($1,124,083) $206,756 $238,005 >1 >1 $1,330,839 $1,362,087 CZ12-2 SMUD 26,706 10029 55.0 ($1,122,455) $165,991 $219,574 >1 >1 $1,288,446 $1,342,030 CZ13 PG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $22,333 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,145,147 $1,396,582 CZ14 SDG&E 41,989 10056 57.8 ($1,122,814) $120,943 $273,768 >1 >1 $1,243,757 $1,396,582 CZ14-2 SCE 83,393 5579 44.0 ($1,120,934) $210,511 $276,228 >1 >1 $1,331,445 $1,397,162 CZ15 SCE -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) ($199,308) $53,550 5.7 >1 $927,902 $1,180,760 CZ16 PG&E -76,971 17599 69.2 ($1,127,210) $172,787 $53,550 >1 >1 $1,299,997 $1,180,760 CZ16-2 LA -54,712 16917 74.6 ($1,123,442) ($240,170) $106,722 4.7 >1 $883,272 $1,230,164 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 96 2019-07-25 Figure 77. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel – All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50 kWh Battery CZ IOU territory Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) All-Electric + 80kW PV + 50kWh Battery CZ01 PG&E -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147 CZ02 PG&E 7,849 12677 67.4 ($1,096,515) $129,794 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,226,309 $1,336,146 CZ03 PG&E 14,594 12322 67.7 ($1,098,787) $43,166 $235,280 >1 >1 $1,141,953 $1,334,067 CZ04 PG&E 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $148,698 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,247,320 $1,347,866 CZ04-2 CPAU 14,459 11927 64.4 ($1,098,622) $286,573 $249,244 >1 >1 $1,385,195 $1,347,866 CZ05 PG&E 24,292 11960 67.6 ($1,098,675) $53,719 $244,514 >1 >1 $1,152,394 $1,343,189 CZ06 SCE 47,762 8912 57.2 ($1,098,816) $165,763 $267,221 >1 >1 $1,264,579 $1,366,037 CZ06-2 LA 61,252 8188 57.1 ($1,097,164) $138,060 $283,797 >1 >1 $1,235,223 $1,380,960 CZ07 SDG&E 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $138,718 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,233,852 $1,381,618 CZ08 SCE 55,588 8353 56.2 ($1,095,134) $165,932 $286,483 >1 >1 $1,261,066 $1,381,618 CZ08-2 LA 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $149,615 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,246,548 $1,366,386 CZ09 SCE 54,162 8402 56.1 ($1,096,932) $171,168 $269,453 >1 >1 $1,268,101 $1,366,386 CZ09-2 LA 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $120,627 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,214,561 $1,344,654 CZ10 SDG&E 49,832 8418 54.1 ($1,093,934) $136,144 $250,720 >1 >1 $1,230,078 $1,344,654 CZ10-2 SCE 25,148 10252 57.3 ($1,094,743) $160,744 $233,842 >1 >1 $1,255,487 $1,328,585 CZ11 PG&E 26,813 10403 59.2 ($1,096,183) $10,314 $247,504 >1 >1 $1,106,497 $1,343,686 CZ12 PG&E 27,217 10403 59.3 ($1,096,183) $206,749 $248,790 >1 >1 $1,302,931 $1,344,973 CZ12-2 SMUD 26,027 10029 56.5 ($1,094,555) $164,506 $229,300 >1 >1 $1,259,061 $1,323,856 CZ13 PG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $25,707 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,120,621 $1,371,860 CZ14 SDG&E 41,123 10056 59.7 ($1,094,914) $119,382 $276,947 >1 >1 $1,214,296 $1,371,860 CZ14-2 SCE 82,697 5579 45.5 ($1,093,034) $209,837 $277,287 >1 >1 $1,302,871 $1,370,321 CZ15 SCE -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) ($193,758) $65,850 5.7 >1 $905,552 $1,165,160 CZ16 PG&E -77,815 17599 71.1 ($1,099,310) $175,872 $65,850 >1 >1 $1,275,182 $1,165,160 CZ16-2 LA -55,323 16917 75.7 ($1,095,542) ($238,351) $118,605 4.6 >1 $857,191 $1,214,147 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 97 2019-07-25 6.8 List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement measures, as well as measures from the 2018 International Green Construction Code, which is based on ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017. The team also developed new measures based on their experience. This original list was over 100 measures long. The measures were filtered based on applicability to the prototypes in 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 criteria and were investigated to some degree. The column to the far right indicates whether the measure was ultimately included in analysis or not. Figure 78. List of Relevant Efficiency Measures Explored Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Water Heating Drain water Heat Recovery Add drain water heat recovery in hotel prototype Requires calculations outside of modeling software. Y Envelope High performance fenestration Improved fenestration SHGC (reduce to 0.22). Y Envelope High SHGC for cold climates Raise prescriptive fenestration SHGC (to 0.45) in cold climates where additional heat is beneficial. Y Envelope Allowable fenestration by orientation Limit amount of fenestration as a function of orientation Y Envelope High Thermal Mass Buildings Increase 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 Envelope Opaque Insulation Increases 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 Envelope Triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows Initial energy modeling results showed only marginal energy savings and, in some cases, increased energy use. N 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 98 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Envelope Duct Leakage Testing Expand duct leakage testing requirements based on ASHRAE 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 Envelope Fenestration area Reduce maximum allowable fenestration area to 30%. Instead of this measure, analyzed measure which looked at limiting fenestration based on wall orientation. N Envelope Skinny triple pane windows U-factor of 0.20 for all windows, with no changes to existing framing or building structure. Market not ready. No commercially-available products for commercial buildings. N Envelope Permanent projections Detailed 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 Envelope Reduced infiltration Reduce 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 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 99 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? HVAC Heat recovery ventilation For 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 by infiltration or window operation. b. Through a Z-duct that connects the zone AC unit’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 HVAC Require Economizers in Smaller Capacity Systems Lower the capacity trigger for air economizers. Previous studies have shown cost effectiveness for systems as low as 3 tons. Y HVAC Reduce VAV minimum flow limit Current T24 and 90.1 requirements limit VAV minimum flow rates to no more than 20% of maximum flow. Proposal based on ASHRAE Guideline 36 which 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 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 100 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? HVAC Building Automation System (BAS) improvements With 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-based reset of SP, dual-maximum zone sequences, and zone groups for scheduling. In order to realize any savings in the difference, we would need a 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 HVAC Fault 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 HVAC Small circulator pumps ECM, trim to flow rate Circulator pumps for industry and commercial. Hot water pump energy use is small already (<1% building electricity usage) so not much savings potential. More savings for CHW pumps. Modeling limitations as well. N HVAC High 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 HVAC Parallel fan-powered boxes Use of parallel fan-powered boxes Unable to model PFPB with variable speed fans in modeling software. N Lighting Daylight Dimming Plus OFF Automatic daylight dimming controls requirements include the OFF step. Y Lighting Occupant Sensing in Open Plan Offices Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y Lighting Institutional tuning Take the PAF without allowing for increased design wattage Y 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 101 2019-07-25 Building Component Measure Name Measure Description Notes Include? Lighting Reduced Interior Lighting Power Density Reduced interior LPD values. Y Lighting Shift from general to task illumination Low 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 Lighting Future-proof lighting controls Fill 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 future Major lighting controls already covered in other measures being considered N Lighting Integrated control of lighting and HVAC systems Formalize 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 Other NR Plug Load Controls Energy 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 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 102 2019-07-25 6.9 Additional Rates Analysis - Healdsburg After the final version of the report was released, the Reach Code Team provided additional cost effectiveness analysis in Climate Zone 2 using City of Healdsburg electric utility rates and PG&E gas rates. All aspects of the methodology remain the same, and the results for each package and prototype are aggregated below in Figure 79 through Figure 81. Results generally indicate: ♦ Mixed fuel prototypes achieve positive compliance margins for EE packages and are cost effective. ♦ All-electric prototypes achieve slightly lower compliance margins than mixed fuel for EE packages and are cost effective. ♦ All PV and PV+Battery packages are cost effective both using an on-bill and TDV approach. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 103 2019-07-25 Figure 79. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Office, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Medium Office Mixed Fuel + EE 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $89,645 $99,181 1.3 1.5 $22,996 $32,532 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 255,787 -505 50.6 17% $359,648 $510,922 $573,033 1.4 1.6 $151,274 $213,385 Mixed Fuel + HE 3,795 550 4.3 4% $68,937 $24,204 $24,676 0.4 0.4 -$44,733 -$44,261 All-Electric -49,684 3,868 5.0 -7% -$73,695 -$7,042 -$41,429 10.5 1.8 $66,653 $32,266 All-Electric + EE -11,811 3,868 15.2 10% -$7,046 $83,285 $58,563 >1 >1 $90,331 $65,609 All-Electric + EE + PVB 203,026 3,868 57.8 10% $285,953 $511,954 $532,273 1.8 1.9 $226,001 $246,320 All-Electric + HE -45,916 3,868 6.1 -5% -$22,722 $6,983 -$26,394 >1 0.9 $29,705 -$3,672 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $10,430 $10,500 1.9 1.9 $4,864 $4,934 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $10,430 $10,500 1.2 1.3 $2,074 $2,144 Mixed Fuel + 135kW 215,311 0 41.5 n/a $250,470 $424,452 $471,705 1.7 1.9 $173,982 $221,235 Mixed Fuel + 135kW + 50kWh 214,861 0 42.6 n/a $278,370 $423,721 $472,898 1.5 1.7 $145,351 $194,528 All-Electric + 3kW -44,899 3,868 6.0 n/a -$68,129 $3,299 -$30,928 >1 2.2 $71,429 $37,201 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh -44,899 3,868 6.0 n/a -$65,339 $3,299 -$30,928 >1 2.1 $68,639 $34,411 All-Electric + 135kW 165,627 3,868 46.6 n/a $176,775 $424,146 $430,276 2.4 2.4 $247,371 $253,501 All-Electric + 135kW + 50kWh 165,200 3,868 47.7 n/a $204,675 $423,466 $431,469 2.1 2.1 $218,792 $226,795 All-Electric + 80kW + 50kWh 40,985 -505 8.1 17% $66,649 $89,645 $99,181 1.3 1.5 $22,996 $32,532 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 104 2019-07-25 Figure 80. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Medium Retail, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Medium Retail Mixed Fuel + EE 18,885 613 8.7 13% $5,569 $49,546 $59,135 8.9 10.6 $43,977 $53,566 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 189,400 613 43.8 13% $249,475 $376,219 $465,474 1.5 1.9 $126,744 $215,999 Mixed Fuel + HE 2,288 229 2.0 3% $9,726 $13,143 $13,998 1.4 1.4 $3,417 $4,273 All-Electric -21,786 2,448 7.5 -1% -$27,464 $9,228 -$4,483 >1 6.1 $36,692 $22,981 All-Electric + EE 2,843 2,448 14.6 13% -$21,895 $61,918 $56,893 >1 >1 $83,813 $78,788 All-Electric + EE + PVB 173,387 2,448 49.9 13% $222,012 $391,257 $463,431 1.8 2.1 $169,245 $241,419 All-Electric + HE -16,989 2,448 8.9 3% -$4,211 $23,567 $11,251 >1 >1 $27,779 $15,463 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,685 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $10,256 $10,262 1.8 1.8 $4,690 $4,696 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,685 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $10,256 $10,262 1.2 1.2 $1,900 $1,906 Mixed Fuel + 110kW 171,790 0 33.3 n/a $204,087 $316,293 $376,300 1.5 1.8 $112,206 $172,213 Mixed Fuel + 110kW + 50kWh 170,542 0 35.1 n/a $231,987 $320,349 $398,363 1.4 1.7 $88,363 $166,376 All-Electric + 3kW -17,101 2,448 8.4 n/a -$21,898 $19,523 $5,779 >1 >1 $41,421 $27,677 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh -17,101 2,448 8.4 n/a -$19,108 $19,523 $5,779 >1 >1 $38,631 $24,887 All-Electric + 110kW 150,004 2,448 40.8 n/a $176,623 $332,213 $371,817 1.9 2.1 $155,591 $195,194 All-Electric + 110kW + 50kWh 148,793 2,448 42.9 n/a $204,523 $335,043 $394,099 1.6 1.9 $130,520 $189,577 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study 105 2019-07-25 Figure 81. Healdsburg Utility Rates Analysis – Small Hotel, All Packages Cost Effectiveness Summary Prototype Package Elec Savings (kWh) Gas Savings (therms) GHG savings (tons) Comp- liance Margin (%) Incremental Package Cost Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings $-TDV Savings B/C Ratio (On- bill) B/C Ratio (TDV) NPV (On- bill) NPV (TDV) Small Hotel Mixed Fuel + EE 3,802 976 3.9 7% $20,971 $22,829 $29,353 1.1 1.4 $1,857 $8,381 Mixed Fuel + EE + PVB 130,144 976 31.1 7% $205,967 $254,577 $336,575 1.2 1.6 $48,610 $130,608 Mixed Fuel + HE 981 402 2.7 3% $23,092 $12,291 $11,808 0.5 0.5 -$10,801 -$11,284 All-Electric - 118,739 12,677 40.0 -12% -$1,297,757 -$24,318 -$51,620 53.4 25.1 $1,273,439 $1,246,137 All-Electric + EE -88,410 12,677 45.9 5% -$1,265,064 $45,918 $20,860 >1 >1 $1,310,982 $1,285,924 All-Electric + EE + PVB 38,115 12,677 73.5 5% -$1,080,068 $296,233 $317,296 >1 >1 $1,376,301 $1,397,365 All-Electric + HE - 118,284 12,677 41.2 -11% -$1,283,243 -$83,994 -$44,505 15.3 28.8 $1,199,249 $1,238,738 Mixed Fuel + 3kW 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $5,566 $8,927 $10,332 1.6 1.9 $3,361 $4,766 Mixed Fuel + 3kW + 5kWh 4,785 0 0.9 n/a $8,356 $8,927 $10,332 1.1 1.2 $571 $1,976 Mixed Fuel + 80kW 127,592 0 25.0 n/a $148,427 $229,794 $275,130 1.5 1.9 $81,367 $126,703 Mixed Fuel + 80kW + 50kWh 126,332 0 28.1 n/a $176,327 $236,570 $296,058 1.3 1.7 $60,243 $119,731 All-Electric + 3kW - 113,954 12,677 40.9 n/a -$1,292,191 -$14,447 -$41,288 89.4 31.3 $1,277,744 $1,250,902 All-Electric + 3kW + 5kWh - 113,954 12,677 40.9 n/a -$1,289,401 -$14,447 -$41,288 89.3 31.2 $1,274,954 $1,248,112 All-Electric + 80kW 8,853 12,677 65.0 n/a -$1,149,330 $222,070 $223,510 >1 >1 $1,371,400 $1,372,840 All-Electric + 80kW + 50kWh 7,849 12,677 67.4 n/a -$1,121,430 $223,812 $239,632 >1 >1 $1,345,241 $1,361,062 Bay Area Ordinance Exceptions Chart Attachment 4 All ordinance contain requirements for the following end-uses: Space heating, water heating, clothes drying, pools/spas Exceptions Noted Below in Orange wiith "o" A Gray Cell indicates that the building type did not fall under an all-electric requirement, but has electric-preferred elements where noted Last Updated Sept 22, 2020 Berkeley Brisbane Burlingame Campbell Cupertino Hayward Healdsburg Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Menlo Park Morgan Hill Mountain View Pacifica Palo Alto Redwood City Richmond San Jose San Mateo County Santa Rosa Santa Cruz Saratoga Windsor Cooking O O O O O O O O O Clothes Drying, Pools, Spas O O O Fireplaces O O O O O O O O O ADUs O O attached only O O O attached only attached only O O attached only Cooking elec prefered O elec prefered O elec prefered O Fireplaces elec prefered O elec prefered O elec prefered O Cooking With BO approval O O elec prefered O With BO approval With BO approval With BO approval elec prefered O With Planning Dept approval elec prefered O O Factories O elec prefered O elec prefered O elec prefered Hazardous O elec prefered O elec prefered O elec prefered Laboratory/Science Buildings O O elec prefered With 3rd party verification O elec prefered O With 3rd party verification elec prefered O Public agency owned and operated Emergency Centers "Essential facilities" as defined in CBC elec prefered O With 3rd party verification O elec prefered O elec prefered O With 3rd party verification OSHPD 1 and 3 Hospitals O 100% Affordable housing O Cost considerations/financial hardship O O O Projects that have received entitlement O O O Not physically/code feasible O O O O O O O O Public interest exemption O O O Link https://www.cit http://brisbaneca.o https://burlingameca https://www.ci.camhttps://cupertino.legistar.c https://hayward.legi http://healdsburgca.https://losaltoshi http://www.buildingd https://www.menlopark.org/http://morganhillca.iq https://mountainview https://pacificac https://www.cityohttps://meetinhttps://www.ci.rich https://records.sanj https://sanmateocounty.legistar.com/http://scsire.city ofsantacruz.com /sirepub/cache/ 2/nlnb02qromqt ccfeqx1y4abd/4 9629360819202 0084018649.PD F https://legistarweb- production.s3.amazon aws.com/uploads/att achment/pdf/483036 /Attachment_B_Ordin ance.pdf Other All-Electric or Limited Gas Ordinances Exceptions Low-Rise Residential High-Rise Residential Non- Residential Page 1 of 12 2019 Building Electrification & EV Infrastructure Reach Code Initiative Frequently Asked Questions Updated: December 17, 2019 1 Benefits of Electrification ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Municipal Staff, Public Process, Affordable Housing ............................................................................ 2 3 Resilience, Grid Readiness, and PG&E .................................................................................................. 3 4 Cost Effectiveness Studies .................................................................................................................... 4 5 Building Technologies ........................................................................................................................... 6 6 Electric Vehicles, Charging & Parking .................................................................................................... 8 7 Model Code Ordinance ......................................................................................................................... 9 1 Benefits of Electrification 1.What are the safety and health benefits of building electrification? Research indicates that natural gas is a major fire risk in the event of earthquake. The link between earthquakes and natural gas triggered fires is documented in the State’s 2002 study: https://ssc.ca.gov/forms_pubs/cssc_2002-03_natural_gas_safety.pdf Natural gas use in the home is linked with asthma and other health risks: EPA identifies indoor air quality as a significant health risk and gas appliances are listed as a point of concern: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/inside-story-guide- indoor-air-quality 2019 meta research links gas stoves and asthmhttps://heetma.org/gas-cooking-and- asthma/ 2008 Johns Hopkins study linking gas stoves and asthma https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081013131530.htm Lawrence Berkeley Labs, California Energy Commission and others have also produced similar studies Carbon monoxide from fuel use has been long deemed a risk. Enough that CO sensors are required in homes that burn fossil fuels: https://www.creia.org/california-carbon- monoxide-law-takes-effect 2.What are the benefits of electric vehicles? Drivers of electric vehicles identify EVs as more fun to drive in general because they are quicker, smoother and quieter than gas cars. In addition, EV drivers typically save $1,000 to $1,500 per year in reduced “fuel” and maintenance costs. And of course, they dramatically reduce pollution. Attachment 5 Page 2 of 12 2 Municipal Staff, Public Process, Affordable Housing 3. What is the impact to staff? Do Reach Codes add additional staffing burden as presented or if all electric? A reach code for an all-electric requirement is very easy to permit and inspect. If exceptions are included (such as stoves), the level of effort is likely to be minor. For electric vehicle charging, the level of effort is likely equivalent to State code. The code model for “all-electric preferred” which has a mixed-fuel track does have some additional complexity for permitting and inspection of mixed-fuel homes. 4. Uniformity Uniformity across jurisdictions is desirable and PCE, SVCE and regional partners are encouraging consistency. However, all-electric is simple and inaction locks in future cost (retrofits, rates) and risk (fire). Some variation across municipal codes is not unusual. 5. What kind of public process was held to develop the model codes? Over 10 events were held with the full spectrum of stakeholders (city employees, building officials and developers, public and advocates) with over 350 attendees in total (non-unique). In addition, many dedicated meetings have been held with building officials, developers and affordable housing organizations. 6. What are the impacts to affordable housing projects? Have we spoken with any of those developers? In most cases, all-electric buildings cost less to build. To assist with ensuring optimal design and cost-effectiveness, PCE is planning training and technical assistance for new construction. However, electric vehicle charging reach codes would require more EV charging which would cost more than State code levels. To address this issue, PCE and SVCE’s EV infrastructure incentive program to launch in 2020 will include an explicit element for new construction of affordable housing. The intention of those incentives is to address most or all of the cost of EV infrastructure in affordable housing. Multiple discussions have been held with affordable housing providers including a workshop held by the Housing Leadership Council in August and an in-depth meeting with MidPeninsula Housing senior staff in September. This was followed by multiple technical email exchanges. The two major points of concern related to lack of familiarity on the part of contractors (which will be addressed with training and technical support) and the cost of EV charging (which will be addressed with incentives). MidPen has already received recognition from Silicon Valley Clean Energy for its 66 unit all-electric affordable housing project in Sunnyvale, Edwina Benner Plaza: https://www.svcleanenergy.org/edwina-benner-plaza/ Page 3 of 12 3 Resilience, Grid Readiness, and PG&E 7. Doesn’t having gas appliances offer more resilience? Natural gas appliances in general do not support resilience as most modern gas equipment depends on electricity to operate. In emergencies gas is also shut-off. 8. Does the code disallow propane, diesel generators or natural gas pipe fed generators ? The proposed code does not disallow propane, diesel generators or natural gas pipe fed generators. The reach code focuses on space/water heating, cooking, and clothes drying. 9. How reliable is the electric grid as compared to natural gas? The natural gas grid and electric grid both go down on occasion. In fact, during California's primary natural disaster events, wildfires and earthquakes, utilities are supposed to turn the gas off. If 100% reliability is a goal for your home or project, electrification with battery and solar backup via microgrid is the way to get there. 10. Is the electricity on the grid “clean”? PCE base service is 80% GHG free today and SVCE is 100% GHG free. 11. Will electrification require expensive transformers and distribution grid upgrades? Depending on the building size and the amount of EV charging some additional secondary transformers may be required. For all-electric buildings those costs are within the overall cost- effectiveness of electrification. EV charging does represent an added cost but those costs are small relative to overall construction costs and substantially less than retrofitting. Additional distribution grid transformers are rare and most or all of the costs are typically the responsibility of PG&E. If there are costs to the property, these are costs are usually more than offset from the savings of all-electric construction. The model code for EVs allows for significant use of Level 1 charging and load management to minimize service and transformer costs. 12. PG&E load calculations for EVs require concurrent calculation: The model EV code gives precedence to the National Electrical Code which allows for load management (NEC 625.42) reducing the actual load. PG&E has confirmed that they will use specific load design in their calculations (not a fixed calculation based on number of spaces): Per PG&E: We calculate loads based on the information provided by the applicant on the improvement plans, single line diagram and charger equipment specifications. Load balancing equipment can be considered and when it’s used, we’ll use the current limiting amperage to Page 4 of 12 determine the load for L1, L2 and L3 (DCFC). Please note, for non-residential installations the applicant will be required to provide the charger equipment specifications/cut sheets. 13. PG&E Deficit Billing: If a service upgrade is required, PG&E may be eligible for recouping certain costs if the costs are above an allowance based on past and forecasted use within 3 years. If utilization does not meet forecast, then certain costs may be recoverable. Because of the lag time between construction and when EVs will show up that could place a building in a “deficit billing” situation. There are several considerations: a. Designing for efficiency is very important b. Load management significantly reduces this risk c. PCE is actively offering vehicle incentives (including for low income used vehicles) and marketing and would be happy to partner with builders for custom marketing at its properties to encourage EV adoption d. If a deficit billing condition arises, the builder has 2 options: “lump sum” payments OR on-bill. On-bill may be attractive to amortize the costs and have beneficiaries of the installations cover the costs. e. PCE is also planning to engage the CPUC regarding service upgrade costs to bring them more in line with other parts of California (other utilities costs are lower) 14. PG&E timeframes for distribution grid actions is slow Turnaround times associated with PG&E and new construction are not expected to be materially different between all-electric or mixed fuel construction. Also upgrades to the distribution grid due to EV charging installations (more load than electric buildings), is rare at this point – about 3% according to our data from the CPUC. This may rise somewhat with reach codes and PG&E response times have clearly been adversely impacted by the bankruptcy. This is likely affecting both electrical and natural gas service response times. PG&E has committed to support electrification and is openly supporting all-electric reach codes due to concern about stranded natural gas assets and rising costs of maintaining the natural gas system. 4 Cost Effectiveness Studies 15. Are the state-wide cost-effectiveness studies based on IOU utility rates or PCE/SVCE's? Currently, the study is based on specific IOU utility rates. 16. For tenant/landlord situations, who is paying for the measures vs. who receives the benefits? It depends on the metering situation and rental agreement between tenant and landlord. 17. Are the models adjusted for upstream fugitive emissions? Do they account for Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements? Is there a consideration for hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s) in GHG emission saving analysis? Page 5 of 12 The GHG emission factors do account for future Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements. However, the GHG emissions factors do not reflect current emissions rates which may be ahead of the RPS requirements, do not include fugitive emissions, and do not include emissions associated with HFCs. 18. What geographical regions do the cost effectiveness results apply to? The statewide IOU study covers all geographical regions in California. This initiative focuses on San Mateo county (CEC climate zone 3) and Santa Clara county (CEC climate zone 4). The most up-to- date draft of cost effectiveness study can be found at: http://localenergycodes.com/content/2019- local-energy-ordinances/ 19. Does the PV sizing in analysis result in over production? For most scenarios, no. The residential code allows for a slight over generation for all-electric homes with battery storage. 20. Was there a sensitivity analysis performed on cost benefit? The studies were performed with a set of assumptions that the consultant teams assumed would be most realistic. Sensitivity analysis has not yet been performed. 21. Why are different compliance margins found to be cost effective between residential and nonresidential buildings? The variance in compliance margins depends on occupancy type of the building and location (climate zone). These two determinants impact the energy consumption of the building, the state building code requirements, and subsequently the extent that additional energy efficiency measures are cost effective. 22. Is it truly cheaper to build all-electric? How reliable is electric equipment compared to natural gas? The studies have found that for the major building end-uses all-electric appliances have a negligible impact on installation costs as compared to gas appliances. Building all-electric has substantial cost savings for avoided natural gas infrastructure. These studies posted on our website examine the upfront costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs of all-electric designs and support these conclusions: i. Residential Building Electrification in California ii. 2019 Residential New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study iii. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study 23. For the reach code path "Option 3: Electrically Heated Building", How will the maintenance cost of a residential house be over the house life expectancy? Will it be more expensive in utility bills without solar panel installations? Page 6 of 12 Generally speaking, yes an all-electric building operational cost improves dramatically with a) more efficient HVAC/DHW systems and b) more solar PV. Refer to the cost infographic on our website for detailed information on a single family home. 24. What are the baseline PV sizing requirements for low-rise residential buildings as per 2019 Title 24 code? The PV system offsets the electricity usage of a mixed-fuel home. An all-electric home is required to have a baseline PV system size equivalent to a similar mixed-fuel home. 5 Building Technologies 25. Don’t people prefer gas stoves? Yes, many people prefer gas stoves. However, most people are unfamiliar with induction stoves which offer superior speed, cool and safe surfaces while cooking, and better indoor air quality. For 2018 Consumer Reports’ top cooktops were electric and induction stoves were the top two. 26. Does all-electric heating use a lot of energy and can it work in our cool climate? All-electric heat pumps are highly efficient and effective in weather far colder than ours. DOE studies show heat pump space heaters as highly efficient at as little as 5 degrees Fahrenheit. California Energy Commissions cost effectiveness studies also show high efficiency. 27. Is equipment not available? Heat pumps and induction stoves have a long-established history and are widely adopted in other states. Also, numerous California institutions and agencies have committed to all-electric buildings which will aid scaling the know-how in California. Training is a need PCE and SVCE will be addressing. 28. Central water heating: Aren’t central heat pump water heaters are infeasible/unavailable? There are multiple design options for multi-family buildings including central heat-pump water heaters (HPWH) with larger tanks, central HPWH’s in parallel, distributed HPWHs within each unit, or distributed HPWHs serving multiple units. Central HPWH it is absolutely an option with dozens of case studies and several practitioners, particularly in affordable housing. The following guide provides case studies, design insights and products: https://peninsulareachcodes.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/AZeroEmissionsAll- ElectricMultifamilyConstructionGuide_RedwoodEnergy.pdf 29. Can a heat pump water heater match the performance of a gas system? Yes, a heat pump water heater can equal the performance of a gas equivalent. For example, Rheem's 55 gallon unit can deliver 70 gallons of hot water in the first hour, enough for about four showers. For comparison, Rheem's gas equivalent delivers 79 gallons in the first hour. When Page 7 of 12 selecting any hot water heater, no matter the fuel, make sure it is the right size for your use type. A home with a big family or a vacation home might need a larger 80 gallon tank. 30. Will the heat pump water heater need to be supplemented by electric resistance? Heat pump water heaters are typically designed with hybrid heating capability, including a backup electric resistance coil. This enables the heat pump to work when its bitterly cold, and also helps the heat pump replenish its hot water supply more quickly. In most cases, particularly in mild California climates, the electric resistance coil is idle. 31. Can the central heat pump water heater distribute adequate water supply temperature to multiple units simultaneously? Yes, when designed appropriately. Many entities are supporting specific design guideline development, expected to be publicly available in early 2020. The Zero Emissions All-Electric Multifamily Construction Guide outlines demonstration projects and common implementation. 32. With the rapid change in technologies, how soon will these all-electric technologies become irrelevant? Most electrification technologies have been around for over a century. They will likely become slightly more efficient over time, but the current options available will be relevant for the life of the system. 33. How does the induction cooking compare to the current more favorable gas cooking? Induction cooking has more specific temperature control, is much safer, easier to clean, and can vary heat settings faster than gas. They are also more efficient, as demonstrated by this study on Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy Comparison. 34. How do the costs for electric space heating and water heating compare to that of natural gas- based options? The answer largely depends on the product chosen, climate, and occupant behavior. Generally, energy costs can be treated as similar. This is because while electricity is more expensive than gas per Btu, heat pumps are more efficient. Capital costs for new construction are lower because a building owner can avoid the high cost of a new gas meter. 35. Are natural gas systems more efficient than all-electric? In every case, all-electric systems operate more efficiently than natural gas systems. 36. What if the new building does not have air conditioner? Are there any other requirements to later convert from a gas heater to electric heat pump? Page 8 of 12 The latest model code includes requiring electrical capacity minimums for gas-based space heating. 6 Electric Vehicles, Charging & Parking 37. EV demand: EV demand is perceived to be low raising questions about whether the proposed EV infrastructure is needed. The model EV reach code is intended to ensure buildings built today will be ready for EV adoption to occur within the 40+ year life of the building – and incorporate that readiness at construction so as to avoid the very substantially greater costs of retrofits. For our region, EV sales will likely be the majority of vehicle sales in the next 5-6 years so the EV expansion will be well within the life of the buildings. Data supporting that projection includes that at the end of 2018 EV purchases in San Mateo County were approximately 18% of new vehicles sold and based on a PCE county-wide survey in January 2019 over 35% of residents report they are “very likely” to adopt an EV as their next vehicle. It is anticipated that at the end of 2019 sales will be above 20% in the County and in some nearby jurisdictions sales are well above 30%. Automakers are rapidly moving to address that increase in demand. Every major automaker has announced major expansions of EVs (ex: GM: 20 new electric vehicles by 2023; Volkswagen: 50 fully electric models by 2025; Ford: 40 electrified models by the end of 2022). Global purchases of vehicles are expected to be over 50% EV by 2040 but in California it will be much faster. 38. Can you explain different types of EV? PEV - Plug-in Electric Vehicle, which includes both PHEV and BEV as subsets PHEV - Plug-in Hybrid Electric vehicle, which includes a conventional combustion engine. BEV - Battery electric vehicle, which does not include a conventional combustion engine. 39. Why does the EV model code include use of low-power Level 1 charging? “Level 1” charging identifies charging on a standard 110/120 volt plug. This is lower power than Level 2 charging which is the equivalent of a dryer outlet (or DC Fast Charging which is very high- power charging such as a Tesla Supercharger or EVgo station). Most installed EV charging stations are Level 2 however, in practice, many – possibly even a majority of EV drivers charge at home using Level 1. Level 2 charging provides faster charging, important for longer range driving but Level 1 provides 30- 40 miles of charge overnight. This level of charging provides sufficient charging for both Plug-in Hybrids which make up 40% of market and it is also sufficient for average daily driving which is under 30 miles a day. It is also substantially less expensive to deploy and, especially at large scales, minimizes the number of transformers and size of service panels to support. Finally, Level 1 outlets provide a practical option for people who may wish to own electric bikes, scooters or motorcycles. 40. How are the electric vehicle charging spaces shared between tenants in multifamily buildings? Page 9 of 12 The model codes require that each parking space in a multifamily building be provided with EV infrastructure, even parking spaces that are unassigned to specific dwelling units. 41. What are the typical costs of EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment)? Residential chargers - $400-$1200 per outlet Nonresidential chargers - $1000-$5000 per outlet 42. Will a very aggressive deployment of EV readiness may put a sudden load to the electric grid? Significant effort is going into planning at the infrastructure level, and smart charging capability at the EV charging station to ensure this is not an issue. Utilities are planning and preparing for increased levels of EV deployment. 43. Do EV charging stations also count as parking spaces? If not, are cities required to separately meet minimum parking space requirements as well as minimum number of EV charging stations? This initiative’s intent is that an EV charging station would replace a parking space, i.e., the total number of parking spaces would remain the same even with EV reach code requirements. Our understanding is that the municipalities interpret whether an EV charging station is equivalent to a parking space. Local ordinance adoption processes should ensure that local planning and zoning interpretations do not inadvertently result in an increase in the total number of parking spaces required as a result of EV reach code adoption. 44. Parking Stall Size: Will Requiring EV spaces make projects unviable? 9’ x 18’ is common in CA muni codes and so are larger spaces (10’x20’). As an example, Burlingame space size requirements appear to be 9’ x 20’ (same width, and longer than CalGreen @ 9’ x 18’) with an allowance for 8.5’ x 18’ in special circumstances. However, Burlingame has zones allowing for 8.5’ x17’. https://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_70-25_70_020 To maximize flexibility the November 2019 update to the EV model code removed reference to space sizes to leave space sizing up to the local jurisdiction. 7 Model Code Ordinance Note: responses below related to mixed-fuel buildings apply to the PCE/SVCE all-electric “preferred” model building code. However, the project is also supporting many municipalities opting for the “Menlo Park model” which is all-electric “required with limited exceptions” 45. Do the local governments work with public utilities on developing the ordinance? Local governments must receive approval from the California Energy Commission before adopting local building energy ordinances. (All other ordinance types must be submitted to the Building Page 10 of 12 Standards Commission). This initiative supports local governments in developing ordinances that are ready for CEC application and promote regional consistency. 46. How will the code be implemented against current standard practices? The Statewide Utility study researched design approaches that are market ready as well as cost effective. The model codes as part of this initiative will support a flexible design approach with multiple compliance pathways. 47. Can we directly adopt the San Francisco EV ordinance? Yes, cities can adopt EV ordinances they feel are best for their community, subject to the constraints of their own local ordinance development process. This initiative is building upon and enhancing other EV ordinances to recommend model codes. 48. How do we apply the cost effectiveness study to develop a prescriptive approach for model ordinance? The cost effectiveness studies determined the maximum performance level that can be achieved cost effectively through a certain set of measures. The intent was to identify a market ready performance threshold, while allowing for it to be achieved in a variety of ways. Local jurisdictions can choose to allow for an alternative prescriptive compliance path that requires this set of measures. 49. Can reach codes promote better air quality in addition to energy efficiency? Indoor air quality impacts are not explicitly studied, though many studies have shown that avoiding indoor natural gas combustion can result in better air quality, such as: - Results of the California Healthy Homes Indoor Air Quality Study of 2011-2013: Impact of Natural Gas Appliances on Air Pollutant Concentrations. By Nasim A. Mullen, Jina Li, Marion L. Russell, Michael Spears, Brennan D. Less, Brett C. Singer - Energy Research and Development Division FINAL PROJECT REPORT Air Quality Implications of - an Energy Scenario for California Using High Levels of Electrification. By EPRI, prepared for California Energy Commission - A Longitudinal Study of Indoor Nitrogen Dioxide Levels and Respiratory Symptoms in Inner-City Children with Asthma. By Nadia N. Hansel et al. 50. Are retrofits being considered in the electrification reach code? Retrofits are not considered for the current scope of this initiative, except for electric-ready measures. 51. How will the ADU’s be addressed? Page 11 of 12 Inclusion of ADUs is at the discretion of cities. Some are including ADUs in all-electric requirements, some are not. 52. How will mixed-use buildings comply? The compliance margin percentage will be calculated as a weighted-average of the individual building results. 53. How will high-rise multifamily buildings comply? Cost effectiveness results for high-rise multi-family building will be available in late 2019. It's likely that a compliance pathway will be available for all-electric, and a model code can be applied. In the meantime, current cost effectiveness studies have demonstrated compliance pathways for low-rise multifamily and hotel buildings, both of which are similar to high-rise multifamily buildings. 54. What building types are covered under the reach code? Cost effectiveness studies were performed on single family, low-rise multifamily, hotel, office, and retail prototypes. At a minimum, most buildings falling under these size ranges comply with the reach code buildings. This initiative’s model code applies the cost effectiveness findings to an expanded set of building types. 55. How do the proposed model reach codes affect the implementation/plan-check process? (applies only to the “electric preferred” model code. The “electric required” Menlo Park model is substantially simpler) For Performance Path - Plan check would utilize the usual compliance outputs (the CF1R report for residential, or PRF-01 for nonresidential) to review the fuel type: “Natural gas” or “All-electric,” and the characteristics of the water heating and HVAC systems and whether they are gas or all- electric. Based on this information, plan check will know what compliance margins the Proposed Design will need to show compared to the 2019 code compliant Standard Design, and verify that those compliance margins are achieved. For Prescriptive Path – Plan check would need to review the plumbing drawings for the locations of natural gas piping, and which appliances are served by a natural gas pipe (if any). Plan check will then cross-reference the energy efficiency characteristics of the home as compared to the standard prescriptive requirements in Title 24 Part 6 as part of usual procedures. However, if there is natural gas piping, there will be short list of additional efficiency measures that plan check must review in addition to those required with Part 6. Mandatory – Plan check will review the electrical drawings to ensure that adequate electrical capacity is supplied to space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying end-uses. 56. Can you please advise the Energy Design Rating (EDR) equivalent to compliance margin requirement? Page 12 of 12 The proposed reach code language refers to EDR reductions from the 2019 code compliant baseline design. It is challenging to develop an exact relationship between an EDR reduction and a compliance margin because EDR includes whole-building energy use, while a compliance margin includes only a limited set of end-uses (not including solar PV or battery, for example). The full range of compliance margins and associated EDRs are available in the residential cost effectiveness study, but as an example an efficiency-only EDR reduction of 1 is approximately equivalent to a 5% compliance margin. 57. Please clarify the exclusion for “heavy industry and process loads” from the nonresidential portion i.e. does the nonresidential category cover warehouse or any other industrial uses? The energy code only lightly regulates industrial processes. The reach code doesn’t cover any research into how these industrial processes could be made more efficient. Common building systems (e.g., envelope, HVAC, etc..) that must already comply with Title 24 must comply at a reach level, and the industrial processes (which are NOT part of the compliance margin) are not affected. 58. Does 2019 Title 24 Part 6 require residential buildings to be all-electric? Will the reach code? Neither will make all-electric construction a mandatory requirement. All-electric construction will be one of the compliance pathways. 59. Can a reach code still require PV? Yes, cost effectiveness justification is provided for both Residential and Non-Residential buildings. We are including this in the model code. 60. Do the model codes prohibit co-generation or other types district thermal systems? The intent of the model codes is to apply to new construction appliances serving specific building end-uses including space and water heating, cooking, and laundry. Cogeneration represents an energy generation technology and is not an appliance serving one of the end-uses covered by the PCE/SVCE model codes. The model codes would apply to new construction buildings that connect to the existing district thermal (a.k.a central plant) system and install on-site “booster” appliances to provide supplemental space or water heating (for example), but would not apply for new buildings that only use a heat exchanger and pumps to connect to a district thermal system and do not use any booster systems. Existing district thermal systems are not impacted by the reach code.