Atherton City Council
October 19, 2022

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones. 3 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year building lifetime.

2.3 Energy Design Rating
The 2019 Title 24 Code introduced California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code for single family buildings. This EDR was based on the hourly TDV energy use from 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. While the Reference Building is used to set the scale for the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the Title 24 prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance.

In the 2022 Title 24 Code a second new EDR metric was introduced based on hourly source energy. The two EDR metrics are described below:
• EDR1 is calculated based on source energy.
• EDR2 is calculated based on TDV energy.

Furthermore, EDR2 is composed of two components for compliance purposes. The Efficiency EDR2 which represents the energy efficiency features of a home. The PV/Flexibility EDR2 includes the effects of PV and battery storage systems. Total EDR2 combines both the Efficiency and PV/Flexibility impacts. While the Efficiency EDR2 does not include the full impact of a battery system, it can include a self-utilization credit for batteries if certain conditions are met.

For a new, single family building to comply with the 2022 Title 24 Code, three criteria are required:

1. The Proposed EDR1 must be equal to or less than the EDR1 of the Standard Design, and

2. The Proposed Efficiency EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR2 of the Standard Design, and

3. The Proposed Total EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Total EDR2 of the Standard Design.

This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR2 before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR2. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity necessary to achieve the required Total EDR2.

However, it may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures.

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. Referencing the margin results in similar requirements across a variety of designs. This approach aligns with how compliance is reported for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 Code. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 5.

Equation 5
𝐸𝐸 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸 − 𝑃𝑃 𝐸𝐸
3 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (Southern California).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
8 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis drawing from previous 2019 Reach Code research where necessary.

3.1 Prior Reach Code Research
In 2019, the Reach Codes Team analyzed the cost-effectiveness of residential single family new construction projects for mixed-fuel and all-electric packages (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019). Using this analysis, several cities and counties in California adopted local energy code amendments encouraging or requiring that low-rise residential new construction be all-electric. As there were few changes to the single family requirements, this analysis for the 2022 code cycle leveraged the work completed for the 2019 reports. Initial efficiency packages were based on the final packages from the 2019 research and were revised to reflect measure specifications and costs based on new data.

3.2 Prototype Characteristics
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. For the 2022 code cycle the Energy Commission used two single family prototypes, both of which were used in this analysis. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018).

Additionally, a detached new construction ADU prototype was developed to reflect recent trends in California construction related to the high cost of housing (TRC, 2021). ADUs are additional dwelling units typically built on the property of an existing single-family parcel. ADUs are defined as new construction in the energy code when they are ground-up developments, do not convert an existing space to livable space, and are not attached to the primary dwelling. The evaluated prototype is not representative of an attached ADU constructed as an addition to an existing home.

The Reach Codes Team leveraged prior research to define the detached ADU baseline and measure packages. The house size and number of bedrooms were based on data from a survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, 2021). The survey found that the average square footage for new ADUs statewide is 615 square feet and that the majority (61 percent) of new ADUs have one bedroom.

Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.

Table 2: Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story ADU
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 625 ft2
Num. of Stories 1 2 1
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 20%
The Energy Commission’s protocol for the two 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. This study assumed 50 percent single-story and 50 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,400-square foot (ft2) house. 4 ADU results are presented separately. 42,400 ft2 = (50% x 2,100 ft2) + (50% x 2,700 ft2)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2022 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2022 Standards (California Energy Commission, 2021a) 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 (California Energy Commission, 2022), 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 2022 Standards.) • Ductwork located in the attic.

Table 3 describes additional characteristics as they were applied to the base case energy model in this analysis. In a shift from the 2019 Standards, the 2022 Standards define a prescriptive fuel source for space heating and water heating establishing a heat pump baseline. In each climate zone one heat pump is prescriptively required. In most climate zones the prescriptive base case includes a heat pump water heater and a natural gas furnace for space heating. In Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 this is reversed, where the base case has a heat pump space heater and natural gas tankless water heater.

Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes
Characteristic Single Family ADU
Space
Heating/Cooling1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Natural gas furnace, split
AC 80 AFUE, 14 SEER, 11.7 EER
CZs 3-4,13-14: Split heat pump – 8.2 HSPF,
14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Same as single family
Water Heater1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Heat pump water heater
(HPWH) UEF = 2.0 located in the garage
CZs 3-4,13-14: Natural gas tankless –
UEF = 0.81
Same equipment type as SF
except HPWH is located inside
the conditioned space with the
supply air ducted from outside3
Hot Water
Distribution
Code minimum, all hot water lines insulated
CZs 1,16: Basic compact distribution credit Same as single family Drain Water Heat
Recovery Efficiency CZ 16: 65%, equal flow to shower & water heater Same as single family Cooking Natural Gas Same as single family
Clothes Drying Natural Gas Same as single family
PV System
Sized to offset 100% of electricity use for space
cooling, ventilation, lighting, appliance, & other
miscellaneous electric loads. Size differs by
climate zone ranging from 2.64 kW to 5.33 kW,
see Table 4.

PV is not required when the PV
system size required based on the
prescriptive calculations is less
than 1.8 kW, as is the case in
Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and

16. In the other climate zones the
PV size ranges from 1.74 kW to

2.56 kW, see Table 4.
4 1 Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2 AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency. SEER = seasonal energy efficiency ratio. EER = energy efficiency ratio.

HSPF = heating seasonal performance factor. UEF = uniform energy factor. 3 This version of CBECC-Res used in this analysis did not have the capability to directly model ducted HPWHs even though this configuration is called out as the Standard Design in the 2022 ACM (California Energy Commission, 2022). This was modeled by indicating that the tank is located within the conditioned space with the compressor unit located outside. 4 Exception 2 to Section 150.1(c)14 states that “no PV system is required when the minimum PV system size specified by section 150.1(c)14 is less than 1.8 kWdc.” In this analysis this exception is applied based on the sizes calculated per Equation150.1-C of Section 150.1(c)14. The performance software sizes the PV system based on the estimated energy use, which differs slightly from the prescriptive sizing. As a result, the baseline PV capacity from the performance software for Climate Zone 10 is less than 1.8 kWdc. Page 119 of 256
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages.

Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
Base Package
Single
Family ADU
CZ01 3.54 0
CZ02 2.99 0
CZ03 2.81 0
CZ04 2.90 0
CZ05 2.62 0
CZ06 2.64 0
CZ07 2.84 0
CZ08 3.13 0
CZ09 2.97 0
CZ10 3.19 1.74
CZ11 3.91 2.07
CZ12 3.12 0
CZ13 4.08 2.11
CZ14 3.16 0
CZ15 5.33 2.56
CZ16 2.90 0

3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs
Measures evaluated in this study fall into two categories: those associated with general efficiency, onsite generation, and demand flexibility and those associated with building electrification. The Reach Codes Team selected measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative consumer acceptance of many measures.

The following sections describe the details and incremental cost assumptions for each of the measures. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case. 5 Replacement costs are applied for roofs, mechanical equipment, PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. Maintenance costs are estimated for PV systems, but not any other measures.

Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. All costs are provided as present value in 2023 (2023 PV$).

The Reach Codes Team obtained measure costs from distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Contractor markups are incorporated. These are the Reach Codes Team best estimate of average costs statewide. However, it's recognized that local costs may differ, and that inflation and supply chain issues may also impact costs.

3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries
Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency, PV, and battery measures evaluated under this analysis and applied in at least one of the packages presented in this report. Table 5 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for each of these measures.
5 All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs. See Section 2.1.2 for details.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 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 percent to 3 ACH50. HERS rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).

Lower U-Factor Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates.

Higher SHGC Fenestration: Increase solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.50 in climate zones where heating loads dominate. The baseline solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) applied in the Standard Design is 0.35 in Climate Zones 1, 3, 5, and 16.

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. The 2022 Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15.

Increased Ceiling Insulation: Increase ceiling level insulation in a vented attic to R-49 or R-60 insulation.

Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. This measure doesn’t apply to Climate Zone 16 where slab insulation is required prescriptively.

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. 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 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).

Buried Radial Duct Design: Bury all ductwork in ceiling insulation by laying the ducts across the ceiling joists or inbetween ceiling joists directly on the ceiling drywall. Duct design is based on a radial design where individual ducts are run to each supply register. This allows for smaller diameter ducts, reducing duct losses and more easily meeting fully or deeply buried conditions. 7 Duct burial and duct system design must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.5 and RA3.1.4.1.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This applies to the single family prototypes only.

R-8 Duct Insulation: Increase duct insulation to R-8 in the climate zones where R-6 insulation is prescriptive.

Ductless Mini-Split Heat Pump: In the ADU prototype replace the ducted split system with a ductless mini-split heat pump with three indoor heads. The system is evaluated as meeting the criteria for the variable capacity heat pump (VCHP) credit, introduced in the 2019 code cycle, which must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.4.4.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This credit requires verification of refrigerant charge, that all equipment is entirely within conditioned space, that airflow is directly supplied to all habitable space and that wall mounted thermostats serve any zones greater than 150 square feet.

Compact Hot Water Distribution: 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 2022 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit.

Solar PV: Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2022 residential code unless an exception is met. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would 6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 7 The duct systems in the Central Valley Research Homes Project Final Project Report are illustrative of this approach (Proctor, Wilcox, & Chitwood, 2018).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 violate net energy metering (NEM) rules. 8 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions.

The Reach Codes Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below.

The first option, “Standard Design PV”, was applied in the base case simulations and packages where the PV system size was not changed from the minimum system size required. For the PV packages, the second option was used with a scaling of 100 percent. The Reach Codes Team evaluated an all-electric single family and ADU home with a PV system sized to offset 100 and 90 percent of the total calculated electricity use. Sizing to 100 percent proved to be more cost-effective based on customer utility bills in most cases. As a result, the PV packages were sized to offset 100 percent of electricity use.
• Standard Design PV – the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case9 • Specify PV System Scaling – a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case
One exception to the PV requirement is when the minimum PV system size required is less than 1.8 kWh. This exception applies to the ADU models in Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and 16. For these cases no PV system is required by code and no PV system was modeled in the base case simulations.

Battery Energy Storage: A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Advanced Demand Response Control” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Advanced Demand Response Control” option assumes the battery system will charge or discharge depending on the needs of the grid. To qualify for the Advanced Demand Response Control the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA13.3.3.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). 8 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
9 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Non-Preempted Measures
Reduced
Infiltration

3.0 vs 5.0
ACH50 $591 $362 $0.115/ft2 based on NREL’s BEopt cost database plus $250 HERS rater verification.

Window U-factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,280 $285 $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 Based on feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017).

Cool Roof

0.25 vs 0.20
aged solar
reflectance
$219 $53
$0.07per ft2 of roof area first incremental cost for asphalt shingle product based on the 2022 Nonresidential High Performance Envelope CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a).

Total costs assume present value of replacement at year 20 and residual cost for remaining product life at end of 30-year analysis period. Higher reflectance values for lower cost are achievable for tile roof products
Attic Insulation
R-49 vs R-30 $872 n/a
Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).

R-60 vs R-30 $1,420 n/a
R-60 vs R-38 $1,096 n/a
Slab Edge
Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $651 $449 $4 per linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth.

Low Pressure
Drop Ducts

0.35 vs 0.45
W/cfm $99 $49
Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour for the ADU. Labor rate of $88 per hour is from 2022 RS Means for sheet metal workers and includes a weighted average City Cost Index for labor for California.

Buried Ducts Buried, radial
design $281 n/a
No cost for laying ducts on attic floor versus suspending, in some cases there will be cost savings. Neutral cost for radiant design versus trunk and branch design. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is included.

Duct Insulation R-8 vs R-6 $201 n/a Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Ductless MiniSplit Heat Pump
Ductless system
meeting the
VCHP credit vs.
ducted split heat
pump
n/a $1,571
Costs were developed based on data from E3’s 2019 report Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and the 2022 AllElectric Multifamily CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c). Equipment costs are from the CASE Report for the 10-story multifamily prototype assuming similar sized equipment between the multifamily dwelling unit and the ADU. Thermostat, wiring, electrical, and ducting costs are from the E3 study. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is also included.

Where this measure is applied to the mixed fuel home with a gas furnace, this cost is in addition to the cost difference for a heat pump versus a gas furnace/split AC reported in Section 3.3.2.

Compact Hot
Water
Distribution
Basic credit –
homes with gas
tankless
$196 $0
For single family homes with a gas tankless water heater (mixed fuel homes in Climate Zones 3,4,13,14) assumes adding 20-feet venting at $14.69 per linear foot to locate water heater on interior garage wall, less 20-feet savings for PEX and pipe insulation at $5.98 per linear foot. Costs from online retailers. For single family homes with a HPWH there is an incremental cost savings from less pipe being required. For the ADU it is assumed the credit can be met without any changes to design and there is no cost impact.

Basic credit –
homes with
HPWH
$-134 $0
PV + Battery
PV System
First Cost $3.21/W $3.21/W
First costs from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2021 costs (Barbose, Darghouth, O'Shaughnessy, & Forrester, 2021) and represent median costs in California in 2020 of $3.90/WDC for residential systems. The first cost was reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2 Costs are presented as the average of 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).

System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assume $0.02/WDC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).

Inverter
replacement $0.14/W $0.14/W
Maintenance $0.31/W $0.31/W

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
15 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Battery
First cost $617/kWh $617/kWh
Costs are based on research conducted for the 2021 Batteries in Single Family Homes reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021a). $1,000/kWh first cost in 2020 based on Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) residential participant cost data. To estimate the first cost in future years this was reduced by 7% annually based on SDG&E’s Behind-theMeter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020). The first cost is reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2 Costs are presented as the average of 2023, 2024, and 2025. No SGIP incentives are included.

Replacement cost at year 10 and 20 was calculated based on the 2023 cost reduced by 7% annually over the next 10 years for a future value cost of $389 (present value of $290 in year 10 and $216 in year 20).

Replacement
cost $505/kWh $505/kWh
1 All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs. See Section 2.1.2 for details.

Interest costs were not included for calculating TDV cost-effectiveness. 2As part of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022 the Section 25D Investment Tax Credit was extended and raised to 30% through 2032 with a step-down beginning in 2033. https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/Inflation%20Reduction%20Act%20Summary%20PDF%20FINAL.pdf

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
16 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

3.3.2 All-Electric
This analysis compared a code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses natural gas for three appliances (cooking, clothes drying and either space heating or water heating), with a code compliant all-electric prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and natural gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing natural gas to the building were included.

To estimate costs the Reach Codes Team leveraged costs from the 2019 reach code cost-effectiveness studies for residential new construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and detached accessory dwelling units (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b), 2022 RS Means, PG&E data, published utility schedules and rules, and online research.

Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure to a single family building are presented in Table 6 through Table 11.

These costs are applied as cost savings for an all-electric home when compared to a mixed fuel home. This is the component with the highest degree of variability for all-electric homes. These costs are project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest natural 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 CA IOU costs for single family homes presented are based primarily on cost data provided by PG&E.

Table 6 presents assumed gas main distribution line extension costs within gas CA IOU territory. Total distribution line extension costs are based on cost data provided by PG&E for new greenfield development. Total costs are reduced to account for deductions per the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules. 10 These rules categorize distribution line extensions as “refundable” costs, which are offset or subsidized by all other ratepayers. Refundable costs are first subsidized by appliance allowances, which are defined in Table 7. If there are additional costs in excess of the allowances, the developer has the option to either be refunded for the remaining amount over ten years or receive a 50 percent discount at time of application. The latter discount option is assumed in this analysis and is more commonly used by developers (California Public Utilities Commission, 2022). Two scenarios are presented in Table 6 since the appliance allowances differ by type of appliance. One is for the base case home with a prescriptive heat pump space heater which assumes a gas water heater, gas cooking, and gas clothes dryer (Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14). The second is for the base case home with a prescriptive heat pump water heater which assumes a gas furnace, gas cooking, and gas clothes dryer. and a natural gas furnace for space heating (Climate Zones 1, 2, 5 through 12, 15, and 16).

The costs less the deductions were applied under the On-Bill cost-effectiveness methodology. The total costs before the deductions were applied under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology to better reflect the full cost of gas main extensions since the deductions are subsidized by ratepayers and recovered via revenue from customers. This follows the analysis approach in the 2019 reach code study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and was based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Codes 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.

The CPUC issued a Proposed Decision in August 2022 that recommends eliminating the subsidies effective July 1, 2023. At the time of publishing this report there had been no ruling on this decision and therefore this analysis assumes the existing rules will remain in place through the 2022 code cycle. A sensitivity analysis of how the results would change if the Proposed Decision were adopted is included in the results of this report. 10 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/GAS_RULES_15.pdf.

SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf.

SDG&E Rule 15: https://tariff.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
17 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 6. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Main Distribution Line Extension Costs Total
Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions1
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Gas Water Heater Base $1,020 $0 $13 $0
Gas Space Heater Base $0 $0 $0
1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.

Table 7. Residential IOU Gas Line Extension Appliance Allowances Appliance PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Water Heating $1,391 $682 $1,138
Space Heating $987 $818 $987
Oven/Range $84 $152 $201
Dryer Stub $24 $160 $289
Total - Gas Water Heater Base $1,499 $994 $1,628
Total – Gas Space Heater Base $1,095 $1,130 $1,477
Table 8 presents costs for the extension of service lines from a main distribution line to the home within gas CA IOU territory. These costs are based on data provided by PG&E excluding trenching. Costs are presented separately for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area as well as an infill development. The service extension is typically more costly in an infill scenario due to the disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures. For this analysis an average of the new subdivision and infill development costs was used, representing 80 percent of the new subdivision and 20 percent infill.

Table 8. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Service Line Extension Costs New
Subdivision
Infill
Development
Average
(80% New, 20% Infill)
$1,300 $6,750 $2,390
Table 9 presents other relative costs within gas CA IOU territory including gas meter installation and IOU plan review.

These costs are based on data provided by PG&E.

Table 9. Single Family IOU Other Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Meter $300
Plan Review $850
Table 10 presents total costs including distribution and service line extensions, meter installation and plan review for the three gas CA IOUs for the two base case scenarios. Costs are based on the average service line extension costs from Table 8. For the single family analysis, based on the Reach Codes Team's conversations with the industry 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 homes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
18 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 10. Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs1 Total Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions2
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Total - Gas Water Heater Base $4,560 $3,540 $3,553 $3,540 Total - Gas Space Heater Base $3,540 $3,540 $3,540
1Based on average service line extension costs from Table 8. 1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.

CPAU provides gas service to its customers and therefore separate costs were evaluated based on CPAU gas service connection fees. 11 Table 11 presents the breakdown of gas infrastructure costs used in this analysis for CPAU. There is no main distribution line component since Palo Alto has little greenfield space remaining and most of the development is infill.

Table 11. Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Service Extension $5,892
Meter $1,012
Plan Review Costs $924
Total $7,828
Table 12 presents incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure for the detached ADU. These costs are directly from the 2019 detached ADU reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b) and were obtained from interviews and RS Means. For the ADU scenario it’s assumed that natural gas already exists on the lot and is being extended to the location of the ADU typically at the back of the lot. There are incremental cost savings for an all-electric ADU from not extending the natural gas service; however, there is also a small incremental cost for upgrading the electric service to accommodate the additional electrical load. The Reach Codes Team found that a new detached ADU would require that the building owner upgrade the service connection to the lot in both the mixed-fuel ADU design and the all-electric design. The most common size for this upgrade is to upsize the existing panel to 225A, which would not represent an incremental cost from the mixed-fuel project to the all-electric project. Feeder wiring to the ADU and the ADU subpanel will need to be slightly upgraded for the all-electric design. 11 CPAU Schedule G-5 effective 09-01-2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/utilitiesengineering/general-specifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
19 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 12. ADU Utility Infrastructure Costs
Mixed Fuel Measure Mixed Fuel
Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric Cost
All-Electric
Incremental Cost
Site natural gas service
extension $1,998 No site natural gas service $0 ($1,998) Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500
Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500 $0
100A feeder to ADU with
breaker $933
125A feeder to ADU with
breaker $1,206 $273
100A ADU subpanel $733 125A ADU subpanel $946 $213
Totals $7,164 $5,652 ($1,512)
Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 13. The lifetime for the heat pump, furnace, and air conditioner are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). In DEER, heat pump and air conditioner measures are assigned an effective useful lifetime (EUL) of 15 years and a furnace an EUL of 20 years. The heating and cooling system components are typically replaced at the same time when one reaches the end of its life and the other is near it. Therefore, it is assumed that both the furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time at year 17.5, halfway between 15 and 20 years. For HVAC system costing, air-conditioning is included in all cases in both the base case and proposed models. Present value replacement costs are included in the total lifetime incremental costs.

Table 13: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 17.5
Air Conditioner 17.5
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Appliance incremental costs are shown in Table 14 and Table 15. Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment over the 30-year evaluation period. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. All costs are provided as present value in 2023 (2023 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for.

The Reach Codes Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is similar to that for natural gas appliances. Cost differences include equipment cost and installation, costs for natural gas piping from the meter to the appliance, and costs for electrical wiring to service the appliances.

Space Heater: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on material costs from the AC Wholesalers website and labor costs from 2022 RS Means. In most cases the Reach Codes Team found that the material costs were slightly higher for the heat pump, but the labor costs were slightly higher for the gas furnace/AC installation. Costs were calculated for capacities ranging from a 2-ton to a 5-ton and the incremental costs used in this study were based on a weighted average of the expected nominal capacities from CBECC-Res autosizing results for the 2,100 square foot prototype. Incremental replacement costs for the heat pump are based on a 17.5-year lifetime for the gas furnace and air conditioner and a 15-year lifetime for the heat pump. Residual value of the gas furnace/AC at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment. Page 129 of 256 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
20 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Water Heater: Various cost sources were reviewed and the Reach Codes Team determined that installed first costs for a garage installed tankless gas water heater and HPWH are very similar and no incremental cost was applied for the equipment and installation (see below for details on costs for gas piping and electrical wiring). This accounts for slightly higher equipment costs for the HPWH but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the combustion gas venting.

Incremental replacement costs account for a 15-year HPWH lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas tankless water heater. Residual value of the gas tankless at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment. For the ADU analysis the water heater is evaluated within the conditioned space with the supply air ducted from the outside. An HVAC contractor provided a cost estimate for supply air ducting through the wall in an ADU where the water heater is in an interior room adjacent to an exterior wall. The estimated total cost for this was $652.

A high efficiency HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 12 Tier 3 rating was also evaluated. HPWHs certified to meet NEEA Tier 3 or Tier 4 are the dominant product on the market today. According to NEEA all major HPWH manufacturers are represented in NEEA’s qualified product list 13 and there are only 11 listed products certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2. 14 While the Reach Codes Team evaluated a HPWH that just meets the federal minimum efficiency standards of close to 2.0 UEF to satisfy federal preemption requirements, the Reach Codes Team is not aware of any 2.0 UEF products that are available. The Reach Codes Team was unable to find any of the Tier 1 or Tier2 HPWHs for sale online and was unable to find any products for sale online that were not NEEA Tier 3 or Tier 4 certified. As a result, no incremental cost is assumed for a NEEA Tier 3 product versus a federal minimum efficiency product.

Clothes Dryer and Range: After review of various sources, the Reach Codes Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance equipment for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar.

Electric Service Upgrade: The 2022 Title 24 Code requires electric readiness for gas appliances; as a result, the incremental costs to provide electrical service for electric appliances are minimal. The incremental costs accounted for in this study are calculated as the cost to install 220V service for the electric appliances less the cost for the electric ready requirements and for installing 110V service for the comparable gas appliance. Incremental costs are applied for the space heater, water heater, and cooking range. Based on builder surveys, it’s assumed that in a typical mixed fuel home both electric and gas service are provided to the dryer location and therefore no incremental costs for the dryer were applied. Costs assume 50A service for the range and 30A service for the space heater and water heater. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses.

In-House Natural Gas Infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a natural gas line from the meter to the appliance location was estimated at $580 per appliance. These costs were based on material costs from Home Depot and labor costs from 2022 RS Means. The material costs were about 1/3 higher in RS Means than Home Depot, so the Reach Codes Team used the lower costs from Home Depot. The Reach Codes Team conducted a pipe sizing analysis for the two single family and one ADU prototype homes to estimate the length and diameter of gas piping required assuming the home included a gas furnace, gas tankless water heater, gas range, and gas dryer. Total estimated costs were very similar for each of the three prototypes and an average cost per appliance of $580 was determined. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses. 12 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 products comply with ENERGY STAR and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating.
13 https://neea.org/success-stories/heat-pump-water-heaters 14 https://neea.org/img/documents/residential-unitary-HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
21 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 14. Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs Measure
Incremental Cost (2023 PV$)
First Cost Replacement
Cost
Total Lifetime
Financed
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC
Equipment & Installation ($151) $703 $533
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($688) $703 ($69)
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless
Equipment & Installation $0 $652 $652
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($537) $652 $49
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH vs Federal Minimum HPWH
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $0 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($480) $0 ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($580) $0 ($651)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
22 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 15. ADU All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs
Measure
Incremental Cost (2023 PV$)
First Cost Replacement
Cost
Total Lifetime
Financed
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC
Equipment & Installation ($151) $703 $533
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($688) $703 ($69)
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless
Equipment & Installation $652 $652 $1,384
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total $115 $652 $781
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH vs Federal Minimum HPWH
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $0 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($480) $0 ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($580) $0 ($651)

3.4 Measure Packages
The Reach Codes Team evaluated three packages for mixed fuel homes and five packages for all-electric homes for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.

1. All-Electric Code Minimum: This package meets all the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code. In some instances, the prescriptive minimum package did not comply with code and efficiency measures were added to meet minimum compliance requirements. The added efficiency measures can be found in Table 45 and Table 46.

2. Efficiency Only: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope and water heating or duct distribution efficiency measures.

3. Efficiency + NEEA (Preempted): This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only and shows an alternative design that applies water heating equipment that is more efficient than federal standards meeting the NEEA Tier 3 rating. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice.

4. Efficiency + PV: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. Page 132 of 256
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
23 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

5. Efficiency + PV + Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, a battery system was added.

For mixed-fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the Efficiency Package in some climate zones to arrive at a cost effective solution.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
24 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 4 Results

4.1 2022 Metrics and Compliance
The Reach Codes Team evaluated the compliance impacts of a prescriptive all-electric home as well as a traditional mixed fuel home with four gas appliances (space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying). Compliance is relative to the 2022 prescriptive base case home with three gas appliances. The impacts for the single family home and the ADU are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The all-electric single family home prototype is code compliant with both EDR1 (source energy) and efficiency EDR2 (TDV energy) in all climate zones except Climate Zones 15 and 16. In addition to this climate zone, the all-electric ADU is also not compliant in Climate Zones 4 through 10 and 13 through 15. The four gas appliance single family home is presented in Figure 3. This case is not code compliant in any climate zone.

This analysis illustrates a couple of interesting points. One is that the new 2022 compliance metrics are important drivers encouraging electrification. The compliance penalties assessed the four gas appliance home scenarios are significant and will require deep efficiency measures to overcome. Another is that the 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage all-electric construction, providing a compliance benefit, at least in larger homes, that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off and still comply when using the performance method.

Figure 1: Single Family All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts -5
0 5
10 15
20 25
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
25 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Figure 2: ADU All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts
Figure 3: Single Family Four Gas Appliance Home Compliance Impacts -6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
Mixed Fuel Prescrip�ve, 4 Gas Appliances
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results
Table 16 shows results for the single family all-electric code minimum case compared to the 2022 baseline. This package reflects the prescriptive minimum requirements except in Climate Zones 15 and 16, where efficiency measures were added to meet minimum code compliance. Utility cost savings are negative, indicating an increase in utility costs for the all-electric building, in all cases except in CPAU and SMUD territories. In all cases the incremental cost is negative, which reflects a cost savings for the all-electric building due to eliminating the gas infrastructure costs. The package is cost effective based on TDV in all cases; however, it’s only cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 4 in CPAU territory, 6, 8, 9, 12 in SMUD territory, and 15.

Table 17 shows the all-electric code minimum case results for the ADU. This package reflects the prescriptive minimum requirements except in Climate Zones 4 through 10 and 13 through 16, where efficiency measures were added to meet minimum code compliance. The conclusions related to cost-effectiveness are similar for the ADU as for the single family analysis.

A summary of measures included in each package is provided in Appendix 7.3 Summary of Measures by Package. The efficiency measures added to the allelectric package to meet minimum code requirements are described in Table 45 and Table 46.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 16. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 8.3 -4,628 400 1.5 ($721) ($10,848) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,614) >1 $5,566 CZ02 PGE 5.7 -3,170 247 0.8 ($581) ($10,060) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($4,826) >1 $5,390 CZ03 PGE 4.7 -2,413 171 0.7 ($510) ($9,954) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.5 ($4,838) 63.5 $4,414 CZ04 PGE 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 ($455) ($8,756) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.6 ($3,641) >1 $4,929 CZ04 CPAU 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 $21 $3,274 ($9,424) ($9,931) >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 CZ05 PGE 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($452) ($8,930) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,696) 2.5 $2,776 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($455) ($9,027) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,793) 2.5 $2,776 CZ06 SCE/SCG 2.5 -1,481 84 0.3 ($269) ($5,120) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $115 3.2 $3,142 CZ07 SDGE 2.3 -1,328 69 0.2 ($456) ($10,904) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,670) 3.1 $3,081 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -1,331 67 0.2 ($249) ($4,864) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.1 $371 2.8 $2,951 CZ09 SCE 1.2 -1,513 85 0.3 ($269) ($5,109) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $126 3.3 $3,179 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($307) ($5,720) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.9 ($486) 3.5 $3,285 CZ10 SDGE 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($657) ($15,474) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.3 ($10,239) 3.5 $3,285 CZ11 PGE 3.5 -2,934 227 0.7 ($444) ($7,106) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,872) >1 $5,135 CZ12 PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 ($437) ($7,213) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,979) >1 $5,002 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 $58 $4,526 ($5,288) ($5,234) >1 $9,761 >1 $5,002 CZ13 PGE 2.1 -2,099 154 0.6 ($383) ($7,136) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,021) >1 $4,904 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($411) ($7,590) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,475) >1 $4,493 CZ14 SDGE 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($914) ($21,350) ($5,149) ($5,130) 0.2 ($16,219) >1 $4,506 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.6 -944 53 0.2 ($165) ($3,084) ($5,407) ($5,369) 1.7 $2,285 10.3 $4,247 CZ16 PG&E 6.0 -4,314 404 1.5 ($545) ($6,642) ($3,257) ($2,954) 0.4 ($3,687) >1 $3,139

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 17. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.0 -1,832 114 0.4 ($346) ($6,791) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($3,834) 1.2 $489 CZ02 PGE 0.4 -1,380 75 0.2 ($353) ($7,539) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,582) 1.2 $403 CZ03 PGE 0.0 -1,665 123 0.5 ($384) ($7,667) ($2,457) ($2,106) 0.3 ($5,560) 2.0 $888 CZ04 PGE 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 ($351) ($6,970) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,013) 15.9 $2,395 CZ04 CPAU 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 $42 $3,285 ($3,260) ($2,957) >1 $6,242 15.9 $2,395 CZ05 PGE 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($268) ($5,966) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,009) 1.2 $460 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($226) ($4,656) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.6 ($1,699) 1.2 $460 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.2 -909 38 0.1 ($215) ($4,435) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.7 ($1,478) 1.4 $666 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 -879 37 0.1 ($384) ($9,528) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.3 ($6,571) 1.4 $771 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -864 36 0.1 ($212) ($4,397) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.7 ($1,489) 1.5 $876 CZ09 SCE 0.6 -901 38 0.1 ($190) ($3,861) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($953) 1.6 $896 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($184) ($3,663) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($755) 1.7 $1,055 CZ10 SDGE 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($404) ($9,951) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,043) 1.7 $1,055 CZ11 PGE 0.2 -1,322 71 0.2 ($297) ($6,281) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,324) 1.5 $843 CZ12 PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($298) ($6,354) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,397) 1.4 $716 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($75) ($1,053) ($3,260) ($2,957) 2.8 $1,904 1.4 $716 CZ13 PGE 0.1 -1,594 112 0.4 ($296) ($5,748) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($2,791) 11.3 $2,330 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($282) ($5,107) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.6 ($2,199) 12.6 $2,313 CZ14 SDGE 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($455) ($10,294) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,386) 12.6 $2,313 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.3 -783 36 0.1 ($146) ($2,872) ($3,216) ($2,908) 1.0 $35 2.3 $1,408 CZ16 PG&E 0.1 -1,807 122 0.4 ($348) ($6,698) ($2,640) ($2,261) 0.3 ($4,437) 1.0 $22

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

4.3 All-Electric Plus Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results Table 18 and Table 19 compare cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. In all cases the packages are cost effective based on TDV. On-Bill cost effectiveness generally improves with the addition of efficiency measures, improves significantly with an upsized PV system, and then declines again once batteries are added.

Table 18. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All Electric Efficiency All Electric Efficiency + NEEA All Electric Efficiency + PV All Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.7 ($1,256) >1 $8,122 4.0 $2,407 >1 $10,497 2.8 $22,471 1.9 $9,517 1.5 $11,220 1.4 $9,062 CZ02 PGE 0.6 ($1,957) >1 $7,579 1.1 $236 >1 $8,957 3.5 $16,261 2.9 $10,678 1.3 $4,955 1.9 $13,716 CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($3,826) >1 $4,674 0.6 ($1,851) >1 $6,023 3.5 $10,584 2.9 $7,145 0.96 ($685) 1.6 $9,058 CZ04 PGE 0.5 ($3,085) >1 $5,328 0.7 ($1,599) >1 $6,220 3.7 $9,560 3.7 $8,348 0.9 ($1,607) 1.8 $10,519 CZ04 CPAU >1 $12,524 >1 $9,616 >1 $13,328 >1 $10,508 >1 $13,692 >1 $12,636 1.4 $3,815 2.6 $14,807 CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($2,601) 12.6 $3,140 1.1 $363 >1 $5,239 4.9 $11,566 3.3 $6,058 1.0 $583 1.6 $7,976 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($2,698) 12.6 $3,140 1.1 $266 >1 $5,239 4.8 $11,469 3.3 $6,058 1.0 $486 1.6 $7,976 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($500) 21.3 $2,785 1.2 $554 >1 $3,582 5.3 $6,705 4.9 $5,331 0.96 ($530) 1.6 $7,663 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 ($5,221) 6.1 $2,929 0.5 ($3,795) >1 $3,706 13.2 $11,129 7.2 $4,840 0.97 ($355) 1.5 $6,158 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.0 $129 8.8 $3,006 1.4 $1,028 >1 $3,618 10.2 $6,404 10.7 $5,797 0.99 ($82) 1.8 $8,401 CZ09 SCE 0.996 ($14) 102.1 $3,357 1.3 $959 >1 $4,073 8.5 $7,052 8.7 $6,238 1.1 $626 1.9 $10,710 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($403) >1 $3,475 1.2 $668 >1 $4,260 5.5 $7,389 5.5 $6,432 1.1 $1,597 1.7 $7,804 CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($9,171) >1 $3,475 0.3 ($7,637) >1 $4,260 8.4 $12,063 5.5 $6,432 1.0 $514 1.7 $7,804 CZ11 PGE 1.1 $356 >1 $6,751 2.9 $1,988 >1 $7,863 3.9 $15,570 3.1 $9,509 1.3 $4,736 1.8 $12,035 CZ12 PGE 0.8 ($923) >1 $5,727 1.4 $840 >1 $6,925 3.8 $14,386 2.9 $8,684 1.2 $3,221 1.8 $11,629 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $8,792 >1 $5,727 >1 $9,445 >1 $6,925 3.2 $11,636 2.9 $8,684 1.1 $1,351 1.8 $11,629 CZ13 PGE 1.0 ($134) >1 $6,391 1.7 $1,204 >1 $7,315 4.5 $12,333 3.9 $8,944 1.1 $1,808 1.9 $12,609 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.96 ($226) >1 $6,168 2.6 $1,429 >1 $7,337 3.5 $11,205 3.8 $10,769 1.4 $6,530 1.9 $13,315 CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($12,027) >1 $6,181 0.2 ($8,562) >1 $7,350 4.2 $14,424 3.8 $10,782 1.2 $2,882 1.9 $13,328 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3.2 $2,088 >1 $4,185 10.7 $2,739 >1 $4,639 >1 $5,871 >1 $5,572 1.2 $2,471 1.7 $7,367 CZ16 PG&E 0.3 ($2,843) >1 $3,675 0.5 ($1,291) >1 $4,277 3.1 $22,017 1.9 $8,576 1.5 $10,722 1.6 $11,922

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 19. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All Electric Efficiency Only All Electric Efficiency + NEEA All Electric Efficiency + PV All Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.3 ($2,010) >1 $1,155 2.5 $610 >1 $3,162 2.2 $16,861 1.2 $2,976 1.2 $5,286 1.0 $168 CZ02 PGE 0.2 ($4,208) 3.3 $481 0.3 ($2,696) >1 $1,403 2.5 $15,218 1.5 $4,707 1.2 $3,791 1.3 $6,522 CZ03 PGE 0.1 ($6,115) 14.1 $325 0.1 ($4,828) >1 $1,206 2.3 $12,653 1.5 $4,249 1.1 $1,285 1.2 $4,720 CZ04 PGE 0.0 ($5,883) 20.7 $992 0.0 ($4,940) 34.2 $1,672 2.3 $13,081 1.7 $6,179 1.1 $1,797 1.4 $6,977 CZ04 CPAU >1 $3,951 20.7 $992 >1 $4,509 34.2 $1,672 1.7 $6,738 1.7 $6,179 0.8 ($4,973) 1.4 $6,977 CZ05 PGE 0.3 ($4,141) 0.6 ($698) 0.3 ($2,912) 1.3 $222 2.9 $15,238 1.5 $3,921 1.2 $3,903 1.2 $3,473 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.3 ($2,831) 0.6 ($698) 0.5 ($1,602) 1.3 $222 3.1 $16,548 1.5 $3,921 1.3 $5,212 1.2 $3,473 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,272) 0.996 ($5) 0.5 ($1,672) 1.7 $444 2.6 $11,941 1.8 $5,275 1.1 $2,134 1.3 $5,984 CZ07 SDGE 0.2 ($6,766) 1.0 $4 0.2 ($5,978) 1.7 $435 3.8 $22,595 1.6 $4,364 1.6 $11,005 1.2 $3,943 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,380) 0.98 ($23) 0.4 ($1,832) 1.4 $334 2.5 $12,446 1.9 $6,579 1.2 $2,991 1.4 $7,829 CZ09 SCE 0.4 ($1,858) 1.1 $53 0.5 ($1,255) 1.5 $367 2.6 $12,699 1.9 $6,334 1.2 $3,232 1.5 $9,406 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.5 ($1,556) 1.4 $280 0.6 ($800) 4.9 $828 2.7 $3,430 2.1 $2,156 0.6 ($5,734) 1.2 $2,118 CZ10 SDGE 0.2 ($7,442) 1.4 $280 0.2 ($6,395) 4.9 $828 3.1 $4,264 2.1 $2,156 0.5 ($7,385) 1.2 $2,118 CZ11 PGE 0.3 ($2,749) >1 $1,115 0.4 ($1,634) >1 $1,901 2.1 $3,811 1.8 $2,577 0.5 ($7,415) 1.3 $4,046 CZ12 PGE 0.2 ($3,692) 3.1 $430 0.3 ($2,597) >1 $1,320 2.6 $16,095 1.6 $5,047 1.2 $4,800 1.3 $6,745 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 3.1 $645 3.1 $430 >1 $1,076 >1 $1,320 1.4 $4,399 1.6 $5,047 0.7 ($6,294) 1.3 $6,745 CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($3,425) 17.9 $1,657 0.0 ($2,455) 25.7 $2,419 1.7 $2,505 1.9 $3,158 0.4 ($8,653) 1.4 $5,829 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($3,402) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($2,270) 6.0 $2,097 2.4 $13,741 2.0 $8,807 1.2 $5,041 1.5 $10,045 CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($7,519) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($5,884) 6.0 $2,097 3.8 $28,555 2.0 $8,807 1.8 $16,912 1.5 $10,045 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.0 ($47) >1 $1,212 1.3 $204 >1 $1,264 3.5 $3,155 2.9 $2,387 0.6 ($5,030) 1.3 $3,480 CZ16 PG&E 0.3 ($3,414) 9.9 $748 0.3 ($2,658) >1 $1,580 2.8 $19,246 1.7 $6,200 1.4 $7,856 1.4 $7,321

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

4.4 Mixed Fuel Results
Table 20 and Table 21 show results for the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package compared to the 2022 baseline for Single Family and ADU, respectively. This package is cost-effective based on TDV everywhere for the single family prototype. It’s TDV cost-effective in most cases for the ADU with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 10. The package is cost-effective On-Bill for the single family home only in Climate Zone 1. For the ADU the package is costeffective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12 in PG&E territory, 14, and 16. For the climate zones where there is no PV requirement in the base package, the addition of a new PV system substantially reduced utility costs and the high cost-effectiveness of the PV measure helped to offset the high cost of the battery system.

Table 20. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 30.0 1,577 118 1.1 $710 $18,829 $9,845 $17,192 1.1 $1,636 1.4 $5,664 CZ02 PGE 13.5 1,264 35 0.7 $419 $10,499 $8,951 $15,899 0.7 ($5,400) 1.4 $6,396 CZ03 PGE 11.2 1,073 7 0.6 $295 $7,072 $7,718 $14,333 0.5 ($7,261) 1.2 $2,956 CZ04 PGE 8.4 912 6 0.5 $244 $5,862 $8,056 $14,763 0.4 ($8,902) 1.2 $3,219 CZ04 CPAU 8.4 912 6 0.5 $159 $3,839 $8,056 $14,763 0.3 ($10,925) 1.2 $3,219 CZ05 PGE 16.8 1,186 43 0.8 $416 $10,571 $8,517 $15,361 0.7 ($4,790) 1.3 $4,171 CZ05 PGE/SCG 16.8 1,186 43 0.8 $394 $9,850 $8,517 $15,361 0.6 ($5,512) 1.3 $4,171 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9.2 894 6 0.5 $370 $8,721 $8,097 $14,780 0.6 ($6,059) 1.2 $3,134 CZ07 SDGE 8.3 841 4 0.5 $358 $9,129 $8,029 $14,709 0.6 ($5,579) 1.1 $1,612 CZ08 SCE/SCG 9.5 783 2 0.5 $381 $8,924 $7,494 $14,074 0.6 ($5,150) 1.3 $3,991 CZ09 SCE 8.6 839 3 0.5 $390 $9,148 $7,509 $14,094 0.6 ($4,946) 1.5 $5,914 CZ10 SCE/SCG 8.3 854 2 0.5 $416 $9,733 $7,139 $13,724 0.7 ($3,990) 1.2 $2,863 CZ10 SDGE 8.3 854 2 0.5 $314 $7,983 $7,139 $13,724 0.6 ($5,741) 1.2 $2,863 CZ11 PGE 11.0 1,034 27 0.7 $398 $9,903 $8,478 $15,286 0.6 ($5,383) 1.4 $5,505 CZ12 PGE 11.0 1,107 23 0.6 $364 $9,006 $8,733 $15,626 0.6 ($6,620) 1.4 $5,074 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.0 1,107 23 0.6 $252 $6,354 $8,733 $15,626 0.4 ($9,272) 1.4 $5,074 CZ13 PGE 9.6 1,168 5 0.6 $407 $9,736 $8,713 $15,536 0.6 ($5,801) 1.4 $5,562 CZ14 SCE/SCG 11.2 1,737 6 0.7 $663 $15,570 $9,664 $16,695 0.9 ($1,125) 1.4 $5,435 CZ14 SDGE 11.2 1,737 6 0.7 $403 $10,291 $9,664 $16,695 0.6 ($6,404) 1.4 $5,435 CZ15 SCE/SCG 8.5 532 2 0.5 $486 $11,372 $7,170 $13,536 0.8 ($2,164) 1.3 $3,451 CZ16 PG&E 22.6 1,235 115 1.2 $571 $15,439 $10,780 $18,007 0.9 ($2,568) 1.5 $8,024

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Table 21. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 24.3 3,642 79 0.8 $1,211 $29,946 $15,209 $25,617 1.2 $4,329 0.9 ($1,365) CZ02 PGE 14.5 3,451 40 0.6 $1,028 $25,019 $12,944 $22,587 1.1 $2,431 1.2 $4,938 CZ03 PGE 12.1 2,750 2 0.4 $715 $16,948 $11,077 $19,325 0.9 ($2,377) 1.1 $1,349 CZ04 PGE 12.2 2,860 2 0.4 $759 $17,992 $11,523 $19,837 0.9 ($1,845) 1.1 $2,417 CZ04 CPAU 12.2 2,860 2 0.4 $316 $7,490 $11,523 $19,837 0.4 ($12,347) 1.1 $2,417 CZ05 PGE 7.8 3,293 14 0.5 $959 $22,944 $11,409 $20,621 1.1 $2,324 1.1 $1,409 CZ05 PGE/SCG 7.8 3,293 14 0.5 $952 $22,711 $11,409 $20,621 1.1 $2,090 1.1 $1,409 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9.8 3,292 3 0.5 $815 $19,093 $11,028 $20,110 0.9 ($1,017) 1.2 $3,650 CZ07 SDGE 9.1 3,306 1 0.5 $1,172 $29,683 $11,381 $20,583 1.4 $9,100 1.1 $1,603 CZ08 SCE/SCG 10.1 3,527 1 0.5 $887 $20,746 $11,594 $20,867 0.99 ($121) 1.3 $4,990 CZ09 SCE 8.9 3,512 3 0.5 $883 $20,676 $11,361 $20,556 1.0 $120 1.4 $6,682 CZ10 SCE/SCG 9.0 729 7 0.4 $244 $5,806 $7,005 $14,720 0.4 ($8,914) 0.96 ($473) CZ10 SDGE 9.0 729 7 0.4 $206 $5,312 $7,005 $14,720 0.4 ($9,408) 0.96 ($473) CZ11 PGE 13.1 870 36 0.5 $277 $7,182 $8,022 $15,995 0.4 ($8,813) 1.1 $2,192 CZ12 PGE 12.6 3,589 33 0.6 $1,063 $25,738 $12,806 $22,393 1.1 $3,345 1.2 $4,771 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 12.6 3,589 33 0.6 $591 $14,577 $12,806 $22,393 0.7 ($7,816) 1.2 $4,771 CZ13 PGE 12.8 359 1 0.4 $77 $1,846 $7,009 $13,789 0.1 ($11,943) 1.2 $2,069 CZ14 SCE/SCG 14.2 3,624 2 0.5 $909 $21,262 $12,054 $20,466 1.0 $795 1.2 $4,545 CZ14 SDGE 14.2 3,624 2 0.5 $1,292 $32,729 $12,054 $20,466 1.6 $12,263 1.2 $4,545 CZ15 SCE/SCG 11.2 546 0 0.4 $252 $5,891 $6,588 $14,077 0.4 ($8,186) 1.1 $964 CZ16 PG&E 16.2 3,652 87 0.8 $1,178 $29,323 $13,234 $23,007 1.3 $6,316 1.2 $4,937

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 22 and Table 23 compare cost-effectiveness results across all the mixed fuel packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. The single family Efficiency Only package and Efficiency + PV package are cost effective based on On-Bill and TDV under most scenarios. The trends are similar for the ADU except the Efficiency Only package is not cost effective in many climate zones.

Table 22. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 2.8 $3,619 2.7 $3,160 2.4 $8,979 1.6 $3,526 1.1 $1,636 1.4 $5,664 CZ02 PGE 2.0 $1,940 2.5 $2,664 2.2 $5,608 1.8 $3,565 0.7 ($5,400) 1.4 $6,396 CZ03 PGE 1.1 $226 0.97 ($56) 1.6 $2,688 1.2 $602 0.5 ($7,261) 1.2 $2,956 CZ04 PGE 0.8 ($379) 1.1 $107 1.4 $1,493 1.2 $862 0.4 ($8,902) 1.2 $3,219 CZ04 CPAU 0.5 ($1,159) 1.1 $107 0.8 ($910) 1.2 $862 0.3 ($10,925) 1.2 $3,219 CZ05 PGE 1.4 $516 1.3 $300 2.1 $4,449 1.4 $1,359 0.7 ($4,790) 1.3 $4,171 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.2 $303 1.3 $300 2.1 $4,235 1.4 $1,359 0.6 ($5,512) 1.3 $4,171 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($696) 0.9 ($180) 1.5 $1,950 1.2 $757 0.6 ($6,059) 1.2 $3,134 CZ07 SDGE 1.3 $395 0.97 ($36) 2.9 $5,981 1.3 $697 0.6 ($5,579) 1.1 $1,612 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.8 ($238) 1.1 $103 1.7 $2,013 1.4 $1,099 0.6 ($5,150) 1.3 $3,991 CZ09 SCE 0.9 ($148) 1.2 $250 1.8 $2,266 1.5 $1,229 0.6 ($4,946) 1.5 $5,914 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 $5 1.2 $263 1.7 $2,323 1.4 $1,140 0.7 ($3,990) 1.2 $2,863 CZ10 SDGE 1.6 $960 1.2 $263 2.6 $5,010 1.4 $1,140 0.6 ($5,741) 1.2 $2,863 CZ11 PGE 2.0 $2,242 2.1 $2,187 2.2 $5,142 1.8 $2,824 0.6 ($5,383) 1.4 $5,505 CZ12 PGE 1.4 $949 1.6 $1,207 1.9 $4,150 1.5 $2,039 0.6 ($6,620) 1.4 $5,074 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 1.1 $131 1.6 $1,207 1.2 $933 1.5 $2,039 0.4 ($9,272) 1.4 $5,074 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,236 1.5 $1,160 2.0 $4,442 1.5 $1,821 0.6 ($5,801) 1.4 $5,562 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $981 1.5 $1,290 1.9 $4,917 1.6 $2,877 0.9 ($1,125) 1.4 $5,435 CZ14 SDGE 2.3 $4,109 1.5 $1,290 1.9 $4,753 1.6 $2,877 0.6 ($6,404) 1.4 $5,435 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $1,534 1.7 $1,444 1.7 $1,653 1.7 $1,465 0.8 ($2,164) 1.3 $3,451 CZ16 PG&E 1.8 $3,124 2.2 $4,123 2.2 $8,324 1.9 $5,419 0.9 ($2,568) 1.5 $8,024

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 23. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.6 $1,228 1.3 $616 2.1 $15,985 1.2 $2,051 1.2 $4,329 0.9 ($1,365) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($634) 1.1 $148 2.3 $13,934 1.4 $3,499 1.1 $2,431 1.2 $4,938 CZ03 PGE 0.6 ($666) 0.7 ($475) 2.2 $9,045 1.3 $1,856 0.9 ($2,377) 1.1 $1,349 CZ04 PGE 0.5 ($941) 0.7 ($515) 2.1 $9,487 1.4 $2,679 0.9 ($1,845) 1.1 $2,417 CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($1,507) 0.7 ($515) 0.99 ($115) 1.4 $2,679 0.4 ($12,347) 1.1 $2,417 CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($456) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,761 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,324 1.1 $1,409 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.5 ($689) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,528 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,090 1.1 $1,409 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($976) 0.6 ($638) 2.1 $9,282 1.5 $3,477 0.9 ($1,017) 1.2 $3,650 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 ($830) 0.5 ($717) 3.3 $20,716 1.3 $2,676 1.4 $9,100 1.1 $1,603 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($1,069) 0.4 ($819) 2.1 $10,035 1.5 $4,415 0.99 ($121) 1.3 $4,990 CZ09 SCE 0.3 ($1,024) 0.5 ($780) 2.1 $10,242 1.5 $4,195 1.0 $120 1.4 $6,682 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($1,004) 0.5 ($750) 1.4 $1,118 1.0 $71 0.4 ($8,914) 0.96 ($473) CZ10 SDGE 1.5 $721 0.5 ($750) 1.7 $2,230 1.0 $71 0.4 ($9,408) 0.96 ($473) CZ11 PGE 1.0 ($11) 1.2 $316 1.6 $2,473 1.3 $1,064 0.4 ($8,813) 1.1 $2,192 CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($761) 0.9 ($224) 2.4 $14,704 1.4 $3,458 1.1 $3,345 1.2 $4,771 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 1.0 ($70) 0.9 ($224) 1.3 $2,975 1.4 $3,458 0.7 ($7,816) 1.2 $4,771 CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($850) 1.1 $206 0.6 ($807) 1.1 $240 0.1 ($11,943) 1.2 $2,069 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.0 $20 1.0 $107 2.2 $10,862 1.6 $4,977 1.0 $795 1.2 $4,545 CZ14 SDGE 1.5 $1,310 1.0 $107 3.7 $23,840 1.6 $4,977 1.6 $12,263 1.2 $4,545 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.2 $411 1.1 $205 1.4 $916 1.2 $388 0.4 ($8,186) 1.1 $964 CZ16 PG&E 0.7 ($456) 1.0 $52 2.6 $17,779 1.4 $4,505 1.3 $6,316 1.2 $4,937

4.5 CARE Rate Comparison
Table 24 and Table 25 present a comparison of On-Bill cost-effectiveness results for CARE tariffs relative to standard tariffs. The all-electric code minimum package for the single family and ADU prototypes is shown in Table 24. Applying the CARE rates lowers both electric and gas utility bills for the consumer and the net impact is lower overall bills for an all-electric home and improved cost-effectiveness relative to the standard tariffs. The opposite trend occurs for the mixed fuel packages shown in Table 25 where the CARE rate lowers utility cost savings and the benefit-to-cost ratios decline.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 24. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) 0.8 ($997) 0.4 ($3,834) 0.7 ($1,505) CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) 0.8 ($1,281) 0.4 ($4,582) 0.6 ($2,146) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 0.8 ($924) 0.3 ($5,560) 0.4 ($2,733) CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) 0.96 ($215) 0.4 ($4,013) 0.7 ($1,465) CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $9,931 >1 $6,242 >1 $2,957
CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 0.9 ($647) 0.5 ($3,009) 0.7 ($1,158) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 1.1 $444 0.6 ($1,699) 1.1 $243 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 1.6 $1,984 0.7 ($1,478) 0.97 ($98) CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 0.8 ($1,636) 0.3 ($6,571) 0.5 ($3,441) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 1.7 $2,073 0.7 ($1,489) 0.95 ($139) CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 1.6 $2,001 0.8 ($953) 1.1 $261
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 1.5 $1,703 0.8 ($755) 1.2 $433
CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 0.5 ($4,330) 0.3 ($7,043) 0.4 ($3,645) CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) 1.1 $568 0.5 ($3,324) 0.7 ($1,344) CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) 1.1 $457 0.5 ($3,397) 0.7 ($1,395) CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $12,640 2.8 $1,904 >1 $4,281 CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) 1.2 $783 0.5 ($2,791) 0.7 ($991)
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) 1.1 $505 0.6 ($2,199) 0.9 ($222) CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) 0.4 ($7,861) 0.3 ($7,386) 0.5 ($3,249) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 2.6 $3,330 1.0 $35 1.5 $927
CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) 0.8 ($825) 0.3 ($4,437) 0.5 ($2,157)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 25. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency+ PV+ Battery Package Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.1 $1,636 0.7 ($4,574) 1.2 $4,329 0.7 ($6,549) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($5,400) 0.4 ($8,958) 1.1 $2,431 0.7 ($6,728) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($7,261) 0.3 ($9,524) 0.9 ($2,377) 0.6 ($8,471) CZ04 PGE 0.4 ($8,902) 0.3 ($10,706) 0.9 ($1,845) 0.6 ($8,329) CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($10,925) 0.0 ($14,763) 0.4 ($12,347) 0.0 ($19,837) CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($4,790) 0.5 ($8,377) 1.1 $2,324 0.7 ($6,030) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($5,512) 0.4 ($8,540) 1.1 $2,090 0.7 ($6,067) CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($6,059) 0.3 ($9,638) 0.9 ($1,017) 0.6 ($8,203) CZ07 SDGE 0.6 ($5,579) 0.5 ($7,676) 1.4 $9,100 0.96 ($836) CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($5,150) 0.4 ($8,775) 0.99 ($121) 0.6 ($7,852) CZ09 SCE 0.6 ($4,946) 0.4 ($8,642) 1.0 $120 0.6 ($7,580) CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($3,990) 0.4 ($7,862) 0.4 ($8,914) 0.2 ($11,587) CZ10 SDGE 0.6 ($5,741) 0.5 ($7,396) 0.4 ($9,408) 0.3 ($10,388) CZ11 PGE 0.6 ($5,383) 0.4 ($8,671) 0.4 ($8,813) 0.3 ($11,145) CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($6,620) 0.4 ($9,617) 1.1 $3,345 0.7 ($6,094) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.4 ($9,272) 0.1 ($14,636) 0.7 ($7,816) 0.1 ($20,989) CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($5,801) 0.4 ($9,016) 0.1 ($11,943) 0.1 ($12,502) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($1,125) 0.6 ($6,889) 1.0 $795 0.7 ($7,099) CZ14 SDGE 0.6 ($6,404) 0.5 ($8,940) 1.6 $12,263 1.1 $1,271 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.8 ($2,164) 0.5 ($6,384) 0.4 ($8,186) 0.2 ($10,846) CZ16 PG&E 0.9 ($2,568) 0.6 ($7,747) 1.3 $6,316 0.8 ($4,356)

4.6 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity
Table 26 compares cost effectiveness results for the three natural gas service line extension cost scenarios presented in Table 8. The average cost scenario reflects the costs applied in the results presented in the prior sections (Table 16). The gas infrastructure cost savings are lower for the new subdivision case and higher for the infill development case. For the latter, the all-electric home is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones except Climate Zones 1, 2, 10 in SDG&E territory, and 14 in SDG&E territory. Table 27 presents the impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness if the subsidies currently allowed under the utility gas main extension rules were removed per a recent CPUC Proposed Decision (see discussion in Section 3.3.2). If the subsidies were removed On-Bill cost-effectiveness improves but only enough to change the outcome in one case, Climate Zones 10 in SoCalGas territory.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 26. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs:

All-Electric Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Average New Subdivision Infill Development
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) >1 $5,566 0.4 ($6,838) >1 $4,476 0.9 ($718) >1 $9,926 CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) >1 $5,390 0.4 ($6,050) >1 $4,300 1.0 $70 >1 $9,750 CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 63.5 $4,414 0.4 ($6,062) 48.1 $3,324 1.0 $57 125.3 $8,774 CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) >1 $4,929 0.4 ($4,865) >1 $3,839 1.1 $1,255 >1 $9,289 CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 2.5 $2,776 0.4 ($4,920) 1.9 $1,686 1.1 $1,200 4.9 $7,136 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 2.5 $2,776 0.4 ($5,017) 1.9 $1,686 1.1 $1,103 4.9 $7,136 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 3.2 $3,142 0.8 ($1,109) 2.4 $2,052 2.0 $5,011 6.2 $7,502 CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 3.1 $3,081 0.4 ($6,894) 2.3 $1,991 0.9 ($774) 6.0 $7,441 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 2.8 $2,951 0.8 ($853) 2.1 $1,861 2.1 $5,266 5.5 $7,311 CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 3.3 $3,179 0.8 ($1,098) 2.5 $2,089 2.0 $5,022 6.4 $7,539 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 3.5 $3,285 0.7 ($1,710) 2.7 $2,195 1.8 $4,410 6.9 $7,645 CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 3.5 $3,285 0.3 ($11,463) 2.7 $2,195 0.7 ($5,344) 6.9 $7,645 CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) >1 $5,135 0.6 ($3,096) >1 $4,045 1.4 $3,024 >1 $9,495 CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) >1 $5,002 0.6 ($3,203) >1 $3,912 1.4 $2,917 >1 $9,362 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $5,002 >1 $8,537 >1 $3,912 >1 $14,656 >1 $9,362 CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) >1 $4,904 0.5 ($3,245) >1 $3,814 1.4 $2,875 >1 $9,264 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) >1 $4,493 0.5 ($3,699) >1 $3,403 1.3 $2,421 >1 $8,853 CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) >1 $4,506 0.2 ($17,443) >1 $3,416 0.5 ($11,323) >1 $8,866 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 10.3 $4,247 1.3 $1,061 7.9 $3,157 3.3 $7,181 19.8 $8,607 CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) >1 $3,139 0.3 ($4,911) >1 $2,049 1.2 $1,208 >1 $7,499

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 27. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness On-Bill Impact of CPUC Proposed Decision on Gas Line Extension Allowances:

All-Electric Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
No Allowances
With Allowance No Allowances
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) 0.6 ($4,469)
CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) 0.6 ($3,681)
CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 0.6 ($3,693)
CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) 0.7 ($2,495)
CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $13,205
CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 0.7 ($2,551)
CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 0.7 ($2,647)
CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 1.2 $1,260
CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 0.6 ($4,524)
CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 1.3 $1,516
CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 1.2 $1,271
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 1.1 $660
CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 0.4 ($9,094)
CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) 0.9 ($726)
CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) 0.9 ($834)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $10,906
CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) 0.9 ($875)
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) 0.8 ($1,329)
CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) 0.3 ($15,088)
CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 2.1 $3,430
CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) 0.6 ($2,542)

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Table 28 and Table 29 present greenhouse gas reductions for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. Savings represent average annual savings over the 30-year lifetime of the analysis. Greenhouse gas reductions are greatest for the all-electric Efficiency + PV + Battery package in all cases. For the single family homes, the all-electric code minimum case reduces greenhouse gas emissions as much or greater than the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package in Climate Zones 1 through 4, 11, 12, 13, and 16. The trend differs for the ADU where the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package results in more greenhouse gas savings than the all-electric code minimum in all climate zones except Climate Zones 3, 4, and 13.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 28: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) Climate
Zone
Single Family All-Electric Single Family Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.4 0.5 1.1
CZ02 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.7
CZ03 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ04 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ05 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.8
CZ06 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ07 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ08 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ09 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ10 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ11 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ12 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.6
CZ13 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ14 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ16 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 0.7 0.8 1.2

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 29 ADU Greenhouse Gas Savings (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
ADU All-Electric ADU Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.8
CZ02 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6
CZ03 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ07 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ10 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5
CZ12 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6
CZ13 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ14 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.5
CZ15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4
CZ16 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team identified packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated 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.

Table 30 (all-electric) and Table 31 (mixed fuel) summarize results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency EDR2 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 Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies. All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • 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 depict a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

Following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis. • All-electric packages have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost effective based on TDV in all cases. In many cases all-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in utility costs and is not cost-effective On-Bill. Some exceptions include the SMUD and CPAU territories where lower electricity rates relative to gas rates result in lower overall utility bills. • The 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage allelectric construction, providing an incentive that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off. This compliance benefit for all-electric homes highlights a unique opportunity for jurisdictions to incorporate efficiency into all-electric reach codes. Efficiency and electrification have symbiotic benefits and are both critical for decarbonization of buildings. As demand on the electric grid is increased through electrification, efficiency can reduce the negative impacts of additional electricity demand on the grid, reducing the need for increased generation and storage capacity, as well as the need to upgrade upstream transmission and distribution equipment. The Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions adopting an all-electric reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR2 margins consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 30. • The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype and code compliance can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units. As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend an additional efficiency requirement for all-electric ADU ordinances. • Electrification combined with increased PV capacity results in utility cost savings and was found to be On-Bill cost effective in all cases. These results were based on today’s net energy metering rules and do not account for future changes to utility agreements, which are expected to decrease the value of PV to the consumer. • For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings the mixed fuel efficiency, PV, and battery package was found to be cost effective based on TDV in all cases. Cost effectiveness was marginal because of the high cost of the battery system. EDR2 margins ranged from 7 to 30 for the costeffective packages as is shown in Table 31. • Applying the CARE rates has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, jurisdictions that only want to require all-electric construction may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring review and approval by the BSC but not the Energy Commission. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission.

Table 30. Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Code Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/B Code Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/B
CZ01 PGE 8.3 18.8 18.8 29.6 0.0 15.1 15.1 24.6
CZ02 PGE 5.7 13.5 13.5 19.1 0.4 9.5 9.5 14.6
CZ03 PGE 4.7 10.5 10.5 15.8 0.0 5.7 5.7 10.5
CZ04 PGE 3.7 8.6 8.6 13.5 0.2 6.3 6.3 10.8
CZ04 CPAU 3.7 8.6 8.6 13.5 0.2 6.3 6.3 10.8
CZ05 PGE 1.1 6.1 6.1 14.3 0.4 2.4 2.4 7.9
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 6.1 6.1 14.3 0.4 2.4 2.4 7.9
CZ06 SCE/SCG 2.5 7.8 7.8 11.6 0.2 6.2 6.2 9.8
CZ07 SDGE 2.3 7.0 7.0 9.9 0.4 6.3 6.3 9.1
CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 4.0 4.0 10.4 0.6 3.6 3.6 10.0
CZ09 SCE 1.2 4.6 4.6 9.9 0.6 3.7 3.7 8.8
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.1 4.6 4.6 10.1 0.4 3.8 3.8 9.1
CZ10 SDGE 1.1 4.6 4.6 10.1 0.4 3.8 3.8 9.1
CZ11 PGE 3.5 8.4 8.4 14.1 0.2 7.7 7.7 13.2
CZ12 PGE 4.0 8.5 8.5 14.7 0.3 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.0 8.5 8.5 14.7 0.3 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ13 PGE 2.1 6.8 6.8 12.0 0.1 6.8 6.8 11.9
CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.6 7.9 7.9 13.2 0.4 7.3 7.3 12.4
CZ14 SDGE 1.6 7.9 7.9 13.2 0.4 7.3 7.3 12.4
CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.6 4.2 4.2 8.6 1.3 6.5 6.5 11.1
CZ16 PG&E 6.0 9.7 9.7 18.1 0.1 8.8 8.8 16.4

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 31. Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
EE EE+PV EE+PV/B EE EE+PV EE+PV/B
CZ01 PGE 12.0 12.0 30.0 14.9 14.9 24.3
CZ02 PGE 8.8 8.8 13.5 9.4 9.4 14.5
CZ03 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.2 6.3 6.3 12.1
CZ04 PGE 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ04 CPAU 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ05 PGE 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ05 PGE/SCG 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ06 SCE/SCG 6.1 6.1 9.2 6.1 6.1 9.8
CZ07 SDGE 5.5 5.5 8.3 6.3 6.3 9.1
CZ08 SCE/SCG 3.5 3.5 9.5 3.6 3.6 10.1
CZ09 SCE 3.6 3.6 8.6 3.7 3.7 8.9
CZ10 SCE/SCG 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ10 SDGE 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ11 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.0 7.5 7.5 13.1
CZ12 PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ13 PGE 4.7 4.7 9.6 7.2 7.2 12.8
CZ14 SCE/SCG 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ14 SDGE 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ15 SCE/SCG 4.3 4.3 8.5 6.6 6.6 11.2
CZ16 PG&E 14.9 14.9 22.6 8.7 8.7 16.2

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 6 References
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Forrester, S. (2021, October). Tracking the Sun. Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2021 Edition. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun
California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2018). 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2018/2019-alternativecalculation-method-approval-manual-2019-building-energy California Energy Commission. (2021a). Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to 2022 Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6.

Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21- BSTD-01
California Energy Commission. (2022, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-single-family-residentialalternative-calculation-method-reference-manual California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 California Public Utilities Commission. (2022). Proposed Decision of Commissioner Rechtschaffen: PHASE III DECISION

ELIMINATING GAS LINE EXTENSION ALLOWANCES, TEN-YEAR REFUNDABLE PAYMENT OPTION, AND FIFTY PERCENT DISCOUNT PAYMENT OPTION UNDER GAS LINE EXTENSION RULES.

E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197
Energy & Environmental Economics. (2019). Residential Building Electrification in California. Retrieved from https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Energy + Environmental Economics. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards: 2022 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) and Source Energy Metric Data Sources and Inputs.

E-Source companies. (2020). Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric.

Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/behind-meter-battery-market-study?dl=1582149166 Horii, B., Cutter, E., Kapur, N., Arent, J., & Conotyannis, D. (2014). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Proctor, J., Wilcox, B., & Chitwood, R. (2018). Central Valley Research Homes Project. California Energy Commission.

Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342135376_Central_Valley_Research_Homes_Project_-- _Final_CEC_Report Page 154 of 256
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Statewide CASE Team. (2017). Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2019 California Energy Code. Retrieved from http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/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. Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savingspotential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. (2020a). Nonresidential High Performance Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Energy Solutions. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASEReport.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020b). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-andAlterations_Final_-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.

Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2019, August). 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.

Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021a). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Batteries in Single Family Homes. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/930/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%20Battery%20Costeff%20Report.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021b). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Prepared by TRC. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/760/file_path/fieldList/2019%20New%20Detached%20ADUs%20Co st-effectiveness%20Report.pdf
TRC, P. E. (2021). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units.

UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. (2021). Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 7 Appendices

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 4. The map in Figure 4 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 4. Map of California climate zones.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the CA IOU and POU rate tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package. The California Climate Credit was applied for both electricity and natural gas service for the IOUs using the 2022 credits shows below. 15 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts.

7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 32 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.0362 / kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.
15 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/californiaclimate-credit

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 32: 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 August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 33. The corresponding CARE rates are shown in Table 34.

Table 33: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.76338 $1.33589 $1.79545 $2.09927 $2.55883
Feb 2022 $0.73412 $1.33589 $1.79545 $2.07001 $2.52957
Mar 2022 $0.61773 $1.33589 $1.79545 $1.95362 $2.41318
Apr 2021 $0.22304 $1.19868 $1.68034 $1.42172 $1.90338
May 2021 $0.21063 $1.19868 $1.68034 $1.40931 $1.89097
June 2021 $0.21778 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.41797 $1.90021
July 2021 $0.19109 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.39128 $1.87352
Aug 2021 $0.22551 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.4257 $1.90794
Sept 2021 $0.44379 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.64398 $2.12622
Oct 2021 $0.68120 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.88139 $2.36363
Nov 2021 $0.81218 $1.20019 $1.68243 $2.01237 $2.49461
Dec 2021 $0.82555 $1.20019 $1.68243 $2.02574 $2.50798
Table 34: PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month CARE Discount Total CARE Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 ($0.41947) ($0.51139) $1.67790 $2.04554
Feb 2022 ($0.41362) ($0.50553) $1.65449 $2.02214
Mar 2022 ($0.39034) ($0.48226) $1.56138 $1.92902
Apr 2021 ($0.28372) ($0.38006) $1.13490 $1.52022
May 2021 ($0.28124) ($0.37757) $1.12497 $1.51030
June 2021 ($0.28297) ($0.37942) $1.13190 $1.51769
July 2021 ($0.27764) ($0.37408) $1.11054 $1.49634
Aug 2021 ($0.28452) ($0.38097) $1.13808 $1.52387
Sept 2021 ($0.32818) ($0.42462) $1.31270 $1.69850
Oct 2021 ($0.37566) ($0.47211) $1.50263 $1.88842
Nov 2021 ($0.40185) ($0.49830) $1.60742 $1.99321
Dec 2021 ($0.40453) ($0.50098) $1.61811 $2.00390

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.2 Southern California Edison
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 35 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.03339 / kWh was

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.

Table 35: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.3 Southern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 36 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 36: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
`CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 37. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges. 16 To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on January 2021 and April 2021 costs.

CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.

Table 37: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.83569 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.66056 $2.07446
Feb 2022 $0.60655 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.43142 $1.84532
Mar 2022 $0.55921 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.38408 $1.79798
Apr 2021 $0.31373 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.11972 $1.51935
May 2021 $0.35684 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.16283 $1.56246
June 2021 $0.39460 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.20059 $1.60022
July 2021 $0.42622 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.23221 $1.63184
Aug 2021 $0.44599 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.25198 $1.65161
Sept 2021 $0.44425 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.26912 $1.68302
Oct 2021 $0.57580 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.40067 $1.81457
Nov 2021 $0.63799 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.46286 $1.87676
Dec 2021 $0.65129 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.47616 $1.89006
16 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 38 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.04174 / kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.

Table 38: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 39. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.

Table 39: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.83668 $1.43201 $1.70577 $2.26869 $2.54245
Feb 2022 $0.60727 $1.43201 $1.70577 $2.03928 $2.31304
Mar 2022 $0.55988 $1.43201 $1.70577 $1.99189 $2.26565
Apr 2021 $0.31401 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.75865 $2.02133
May 2021 $0.35719 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.80183 $2.06451
June 2021 $0.39498 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.83962 $2.10230
July 2021 $0.42663 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.87127 $2.13395
Aug 2021 $0.44642 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.89106 $2.15374
Sept 2021 $0.44468 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.88932 $2.15200
Oct 2021 $0.57637 $1.38238 $1.63573 $1.95875 $2.21210
Nov 2021 $0.63862 $1.38238 $1.63573 $2.02100 $2.27435
Dec 2021 $0.65194 $1.38238 $1.63573 $2.03432 $2.28767

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown Page 175 of 256 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 66 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 in Table 40. The distribution charge was $0.4835/therm for Tier 1 and $1.0426/therm for Tier 2. The monthly service charge applied was $10.94 per month per the G-1 tariff in effect at the time of the analysis.

Table 40: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Effective
Date
Commodity
Rate
Cap and Trade
Compliance
Charge
Transportation
Charge
Carbon
Offset
Charge
G1 Tier 1
Volumetric
Totals
G1 Tier 2
Volumetric
Totals
Jan 2022 $0.77140 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.53900 $1.83144 Feb 2022 $0.53600 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.30360 $1.81874 Mar 2022 $0.53700 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.30460 $1.8565 Apr 2022 $0.59750 $0.07680 $0.14404 $0.04000 $1.38734 $1.8363 May 2021 $0.39010 $0.04860 $0.12200 $0.04000 $1.10450 $1.8889 June 2021 $0.39820 $0.04860 $0.12214 $0.04000 $1.11274 $1.89714 July 2021 $0.48000 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.22034 $2.04394 Aug 2021 $0.54920 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.28954 $2.11314 Sept 2021 $0.52170 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.26204 $1.78012 Oct 2021 $0.71750 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.45784 $1.83222 Nov 2021 $0.75050 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.49084 $1.83472 Dec 2021 $0.63210 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.37244 $1.80442

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 67 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 68 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 69 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 41 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for CPAU and SMUD, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied.

Table 41: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Electric Residential Average Rate
(%/year, real)

PG&E SCE SDG&E
2023 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2024 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2025 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2026 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2027 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2028 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2029 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2030 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2031 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2032 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2033 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2034 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2035 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2036 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2037 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2038 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2039 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2040 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2041 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2042 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2043 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2044 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2045 2.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2046 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2047 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2048 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2049 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2050 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2051 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2052 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 70 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12

7.3 Summary of Measures by Package
Table 42 provides the details of the measures in each of the efficiency package by climate zone and case. Table 43 presents the measures for all the single family efficiency + PV + battery packages. Table 44 presents the measures for all the ADU efficiency packages.

Table 42: Single Family Efficiency Package Measures
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.35 W/cfm Buried Ducts
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 X R-60 vs R-38 X
2 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
3 R-60 vs R-30 X X X
4 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
5 R-49 vs R-30 X X X
6 R-60 vs R-30 X X X
7 R-49 vs R-30 X X
8 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
9 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
10 R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
11 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
12 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
13 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
14 X X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
15 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
16 R-60 vs R-38 X X X

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 71 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 43: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Package Measures Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 UFactor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.30 UFactor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.35 W/cfm
Buried
Ducts
Basic
Compact
Hot Water
Credit
1 X X X
2 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
3 R-38 vs R-30 X X X
4 X R-49 vs R-38 X X X
5 R-49 vs R-30 X X X
6 R- 49 vs R-30 X X X
7 R-49 vs R-30 X X
8 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
9 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
10 X X X X
11 X R-49 vs R-38 X X X X
12 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
13 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
14 X X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
15 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
16 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
Table 44: ADU Efficiency Package Measures
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows
Ductless
VCHP
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 X X
2 X X X
3 X X
4 X X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X X
11 X X X X
12 X X X X
13 X X X X
14 X X X X X
15 X X X X
16 X X

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 72 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 The efficiency measures added to the All-Electric prescriptive package in Climate Zones that were not compliant are shown in Table 45 and
Table 46.

Table 45: Single Family All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures Climate
Zone

0.24 U-Factor / 0.50
SHGC Windows
Basic Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 X
16 X
Table 46: ADU All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures Climate
Zone
3 ACH50 R-49 vs R-38
Attic
Insulation

0.30 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows
Improved HVAC
Fan Efficiency:

0.35 W/cfm
Basic Compact
Hot Water Credit
1 2
3 4 X
5 X X
6 X
7 X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 12
13 X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X X X

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 73 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to
access our resources and sign up
for newsletters
Contact [email protected]
for no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors
Follow us on Twitter

www.energy-solution.com
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Cost Analysis
Report for Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) &
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)

1 Ed Pike contributed to this project while an employee at Energy Solutions.

To: Peninsula Clean Energy & Silicon Valley Clean Energy From: Tim Minezaki, Engineer II
Cassidee Kido, Project Manager
Ed Pike, Senior Engineer1
Energy Solutions
Date: November 20, 2019

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 EV Infrastructure: New Construction vs. Retrofit: Customer costs ................................................... 1 EV Infrastructure: Building size / Transformers ..................................................................................... 2 Reach Code Context..................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Background and Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose............................................................................................................................................................ 4 California’s EV Infrastructure Policy Goals .............................................................................................. 4 CALGreen and Beyond................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Cost Modeling................................................................................................................................................ 8 Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Buildings Types Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 8 Results............................................................................................................................................................10 Cost Savings Due to EVSE Installation in New Construction ............................................................14 EVSE Installation ................................................................................................................................14 Good Design Practices......................................................................................................................14 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................15

4. Distribution Transformer Study ..............................................................................................................17 Primary Transformers (utility-owned, often with customer costs)...................................................17 Secondary Transformers (customer-owned) .........................................................................................19 Transformer-sizing and other considerations .......................................................................................20 Appendix A: Cost Estimates by Type of Expense........................................................................................... 1 Appendix B: Permitting and Inspection Costs................................................................................................. 3 Appendix C: Methodology Details ..................................................................................................................... 4 General Assumptions.................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Sources................................................................................................................................................... 4 Soft Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Permit and Inspection Fees ............................................................................................................... 5 Construction Management................................................................................................................ 7 Raceways, Wire, and Termination Point .................................................................................................. 7 Demolition, Reconstruction, and Repaving ............................................................................................. 8 Contingencies................................................................................................................................................. 8 Transformers .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Task Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................10 Appendix D: EV Capable Installation Configurations .................................................................................... 1

1 1. Executive Summary
California and the Bay Area are on the verge of a massive transformation. Current estimates2 put electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) at a 5% market share but by 2030, that is expected to grow to 18-20%. Access to electric vehicles (EV) infrastructure is currently a major barrier for consumers’ willingness to purchase electric vehicles. Meanwhile, several studies show that installation of EV infrastructure has significant costs, most notably in a retrofit scenario which has multiple cost factors. This report investigates infrastructure costs associated with EV infrastructure reach codes by building an EV cost effectiveness model, which examined three common building types and applied different EV infrastructure penetration rates. The model also studied utility-side infrastructure, such as distribution transformers, that potentially yield additional costs and affect a building owner’s ability to comply with expanded EV infrastructure adoption, to understand the scale and frequency of those costs.

EV Infrastructure: New Construction vs. Retrofit: Customer costs The cost effectiveness model compared three building scenarios: (1) a medium 60-unit multi-unit dwelling (MUD) with 60 parking spaces, (2) a high-density 150-unit MUD with 150 parking spaces, and (3) a medium commercial office building with 60 parking spots. The model compares customer-side electrical infrastructure costs, such as wiring, switch gear, conduit, trenching, and secondary transformer. Primary transformer costs which are usually the responsibility of utilities, were considered separately in a later section3.The building models were then analyzed to compare the new construction requirements with the retrofit requirements.

Results from Table 1 below show that costs for new construction were significantly lower, at almost four times as much per spot compared to the retrofit scenario. This indicates that increasing code requirements for charging infrastructure could potentially save significant amounts of money to building owners in the new construction context rather than waiting for tenants to become interested in electric vehicles, at which point significant costs related to invasive demolition and electrical infrastructure replacement would be necessary.

Table 1. Estimated Cost of Installing EV Infrastructure (price per spot) Code Scenario:

Market Rate
25% Level 2
75% Level 1
Affordable Housing
10% Level 2
90% Level 1
Building Type
New
Construction Retrofit4 New Construction Retrofit
60-Unit MUD $1,410 $4,443 $1,049 +$3,982
150-Unit MUD $1,197 $4,101 $1,002 +$3,854
60-Space Office Building $1,166 $3,232 N/A N/A

2 http://businessportal.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GoBIZ-EVCharging-Guidebook.pdf 3 Primary transformers are owned and operated by the utility and covered in a subsequent section but have cost components that can spill over to customer fees in multiple ways (PG&E Electric Rule 16). 4 “New Construction" and “Retrofit” costs are relative to a CALGreen 2019 mandatory baseline building

2 In a retrofit context, there are significant known costs, such as those documented in this infrastructure costing model, but there are a high level of unknown opaque costs that either are born by the utility or by the customer, which while infrequent, can cause significant burden on a small number of building owners and tenants that are not present in New Construction projects. In addition, retrofitting parking structures for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance can be a significant source of costs. Recent large-scale pilot studies conducted by the California utilities confirmed these cost burdens. For example, Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) EV Charge Ready program reported an “Average Cost per Port” costs for retrofit projects in their program to be almost $18,0005 with a range between $10,000 and $31,0006. The utility reports specifically call out ADA requirements and inconsistent requirements across jurisdictions, which required significant redesign costs for ADA compliance.

EV Infrastructure: Building size / Transformers
Distribution transformers are a key piece of EV infrastructure and their costs and magnitude are heavily influenced by building size. For most situations, small buildings utilize shared distribution transformers split between multiple electrical accounts; medium buildings feature a dedicated utility-owned transformer and large buildings may feature several transformers, some are utility-owned and some are customer-owned depending on the uses and electrical design of the building. The particular trigger points between building sizes are influenced by the utility rules on electrical infrastructure equipment specifications and are not comparative between utilities. The graph below illustrates when certain costs become important to assist policy makers:

Figure 1: Costs of Transformers vs. Transformer system size (PG&E service territory)7

5 Note that these costs include extensive design and re-design as well as utility side costs:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company EV Charge Network Quarterly Report (Q1-2019) 6 Q2 2019 Clean Transportation Program Advisory Council Meeting 7 This graph shows PG&E’s specific equipment sizing and is not comparable to other utilities. Calculations are based on estimates from the infrastructure cost model.
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975
Transformer Cost(s) vs. Building Load (kVA)
Customer Owned (208V) Utility Owned (208V) Utility Owned (408V) 10/90 Reach Code
25/75 Reach Code
Building load CALGreen 2019 Mandatory (10%)
Utility Usually Pays
Customer Pays
UtilityUsually Pays
30 - 40 Unit MUD Page 187 of 256
3 Costs of distribution and/or service-line upgrades are partially split between customer and utility. Customers are responsible for excavation, conduits, and protective structures. Utilities are typically responsible for wiring, metering, and transformer(s) (where necessary), however, utility costs can spill over into customer costs anytime that the costs exceed the preset “allowance” for a customer, based on historical energy usage. 8 In addition, if new load, does not materialize, the utility is able to assess additional charges for the difference in expected revenue. Currently, costs are described by California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Electric Rules 2, 15, and 16 which lay out which party is responsible for these costs, however, these costs are complicated, opaque, and hard to predict. Luckily,the CPUC is tracking costs related to EV infrastructure and has found that utility-side infrastructure upgrades triggered by EV-only projects are rare. To date, for PG&E’s service territory found only 3% of projects required distribution or service-line upgrades to accommodate EV infrastructure. However those costs spanned a wide cost range from $14 to $338,274 (additional details on this study can be found in the Transformers section below).

Reach Code Context
This study investigated EV-infrastructure reach codes for communities in the jurisdiction of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), shown in Table 4 below. The study found that increasing the electric vehicle infrastructure requirements for new construction will save significant costs for all buildings when compared to a retrofitting. The study also found that transformer capacity limitations are not expected to occur very frequently and that even in the retrofit context most buildings should be able to meet the added load. For those that do not have significant capacity, utilizing lower power “Level 1” ports or load management may be a promising options.

Buildings near the boundary conditions highlighted above in Figure 1, in particular those that approach the 300 kVA capacity size9, face added risk of electrical infrastructure upgrade costs. For owners of those new buildings, the electrical systems would have to accommodate a second transformer and associated electrical infrastructure and the owner/developer would need to bear those costs estimated to be approximately $50,000 (or significantly more in a retrofit context).

8 Customers have an “allowance” based on their billing history to fund utility upgrades, but if allowance costs are exceeded, they are charged directly to the customer (PG&E Electric Rule 15 & Rule 16). This allowance is based on the net revenue of the customer account. In addition, if the expected load does not materialize to use the system upgrade, the utility is permitted to recover their costs from the customer. 9 For example, for a 30-40 unit MUD, this may be a consideration as shown in Figure 1.

4 2. Background and Purpose
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide cost analysis data on electric vehicle infrastructure and to support and inform potential adoption of reach codes for cities and municipalities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.

This report investigates potential reach codes that would 1) require “EV-ready” parking spaces, parking spaces which are already equipped with wiring and simply need an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to provide charging, and 2) increase the EV charging space requirements for market-rate housing, affordable housing, and commercial-office buildings. The CALGreen nonresidential code currently requires only that “EV capable” parking spaces be provided, which requires conduit and electrical panel capacity for a 40 ampere, 208/240-volt circuit serving the space, but does not require wiring nor EVSE installation and associated expenses. The following table describes these EV equipment tiers:

EV Capable Includes conduit / raceways
EV Ready
(“Plug and play”)
Includes full circuit with a receptacle /
outlet
EV Installed Includes full charging capability with
EVSE
This cost report estimates the incremental costs associated with expanding EV infrastructure requirements beyond existing CALGreen 2019 mandatory requirements and compares the incremental construction costs from a new construction project with those of a retrofit project, utilizing an EV infrastructure cost model for three prototype buildings: (1) a 60-unit medium MUD, (2) a 150-unit large MUD, and (3) a medium-sized commercial office with 60 parking spaces. In all residential cases, we assumed one parking space per unit was assumed.

In addition, the report also investigates distribution current transformers, which will be increasingly important as electrical loads increase due to building and transportation electrification. Specifically, the utility rules and electrical load requirements were analyzed to determine boundary conditions where transformers would be required, the relative cost to incorporate them, and points at which multiple current transformers may be required, and the relative magnitude of those costs. The report also delineates specific situations for when transformers are utility owned and when they become a customer costs California’s EV Infrastructure Policy Goals
The increased proliferation of EV charging infrastructure supports many of California’s zero-emission vehicle adoption goals, including the objective to deploy 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles and 250,000 publicly

5 available EV charging stations including 10,000 direct current (DC) fast chargers by 2025.10 California also has a goal of deploying 5 million ZEVs by 2030, which will require an even larger scale-up of public stations in addition to millions of non-public EV charging stations.11 As of October 2019, California had approximately 18,500 public Level 2 charging ports at over 5,000 locations and approximately 3,200 public DC fast charging stations at over 700 locations.
12 California must make significant progress quickly, including updating CALGreen requirements and for local communities, investigating reach codes and the potential costs.

Parking spaces at workplaces and other non-residential buildings will be needed to accommodate a California vehicle fleet that is expected to have 18%-24% ZEVs in 2030. The future percentage of ZEVs will require a much higher percentage of parking spaces than the current CALGreen code requirements. 13 EV charging infrastructure is a critical policy to help California reach its climate and EV adoption goals by providing opportunities at homes and workplaces as well as overcoming the critical challenge of “range anxiety” associated with EV adoption.14 Surveys of communities in the Bay Area have shown that access to vehicle charging remains a main hurdle to wider adoption and in spite of that electric vehicle adoption is expected to grow significantly.

Building codes are an important way to facilitate access to EV charging so that residents, commuters, fleets, and car-sharing services can benefit from the significant operating cost advantages in a way that is costeffective and accessible for all. Furthermore, because EV capable parking spaces can avoid or greatly reduce several types of costs associated with installing EV charging stations, public and private funding can achieve greater number of EV charging stations faster and more efficiently. Thus, increasing the levels of EV capable parking spaces beyond those set by CALGreen will lead to significant increases in EV charging infrastructure.

CALGreen and Beyond
CALGreen is the first mandatory green building standards code in the nation and often serves as a model for other state and local governments across the county. It was originally developed in 2007 by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to help meet the goals of AB 32 in reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.15 Every three years, the CALGreen code is reviewed, revised, and adopted statewide

10 Former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Executive Order B-16-2012 set the goal of placing 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California’s roads by 2025. Former Governor Edmund G. Brown’s Executive Order B-48-18 set the goal of 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations, including 10,000 DCFC charging stations, by 2025. In addition, the Charge Ahead California Initiative, [SB 1275 (De León), Chapter 530, Statutes of 2014] set a goal of placing 1 million zero- and near-zero-emission vehicles into service on California’s roads by 2023. 11 Former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Executive Order B-48-18 set the goal of 5 million zero-emission vehicles on California’s roads by 2030.
12 Statistics are from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (August 2019):
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/analyze?region=US-CA&fuel=ELEC&ev_levels=dc_fast&country=US 13 The California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2017 database estimates that 21.0 million “LDA” (automobiles) and “LDT1” (light duty trucks) will be on the road in 2030. The database also estimates that 6.3 million additional “LDT2” (a second category of light duty trucks) will be on the road, some of which could be used for workplace commuting or other trips to non-residential buildings.
14 “Range anxiety” refers to concerns about insufficient range and inability to find EV charging stations. 15 “CALGreen”, Department of General Service, https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/BuildingStandards-Commission-Resources-List-Folder/CALGreen

6 along with other sections of Title 24 for residential and nonresidential buildings. The latest version of the CALGreen code takes effect on January 1, 2020 and is referred to by CBSC as “CALGreen 2019.” The nonresidential CALGreen EV capable infrastructure requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 Sections 5.106 and A5.106) and the multifamily requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Sections 4.106 and A4.106) which will take effect January 1, 2020 are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of Mandatory and Voluntary CALGreen 2019 EV Capable Parking Space Standards for New Construction (Non-Residential)
Current
Mandatory
Voluntary
Tier 1
Voluntary
Tier 2
6% 8% 10%
Table 3. Summary of Mandatory and Voluntary CALGreen 2019 EV Capable Parking Space Standards for New Construction (Residential)
Current
Mandatory
Voluntary
Tier 1
Voluntary
Tier 2
10% 15% 20%
The California Building Standards allow for more restrictive local amendments that are necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Currently, two dozen municipalities in California have adopted local building codes that require more EV parking spaces than CALGreen and in many cases already require “EV ready” spaces with complete wiring.16 Given the findings of this report, local jurisdictions that expand upon CALGreen requirements, could yield improved cost-savings potential for local businesses and developers.

As mentioned above, this report investigated the cost effectiveness of “EV reach codes” for market-rate housing, affordable housing, and commercial-office buildings. Table 4 below shows the following code levels that were investigated. Note that the baseline CALGreen 2019 levels are shown in “()” for comparative purposes.

16 Pike, E. et. al. 2018. Driving Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption with Green Building Codes, August 17. ACEEE Summer Conference. Examples of agencies that are proposing local codes include Berkeley, Brisbane, San Jose, San Mateo, and many others.

7 Table 4. Summary of EV Reach Code Scenarios Analyzed
MUD
Market
Rate
(25/75)
MUD
Affordable
Housing
(10/90)
Commercial
Office
“EV Capable” (10%) (10%) 30% (6%)
Level 2 25% 10% 10%, EVSE
Level 1 75% 90% 10%

8 3. Cost Modeling
Scenarios
The model investigates three prototype building models at the CALGreen 2019 mandatory requirement level.

Those models were then analyzed for EV infrastructure installation costs as described in the scenarios described in Table 4 above for a new construction scenario and a retrofit scenario for a total of thirteen runs in the cost model. Table 5 below provides a high-level view of the building prototype models in terms of number of parking spaces, approximate building area, parking lot area, and number of stories. These buildings represent hypothetical building scenarios that are based on several assumptions and may not be reflective of any one building. Please refer to the appendix and methodology for additional details.

Buildings Types Descriptions
60-unit MUD: A 60-unit apartment building with enclosed parking with 60 parking spaces to represent a medium-sized MUD building.
150-unit MUD: A 150-unit apartment building with enclosed parking with 150 parking spaces to representing a large MUD building.
60-space Commercial Office: An open parking lot with 60 spaces, to representing a medium-sized office building.

T R A N S F O R M E R - R E L A T E D D E F I N I T I O N S :

Primary Transformer: A utility-owned transformer used to convert medium voltage utility distribution lines (normally 12kV) to customer level power at either 480V/277V for large buildings or 208V/120V or 240V/120V for medium buildings. Primary transformers are owned and operated by the utility but any upgrade installation costs are partially split with the building owner.

Secondary Transformer: A customer-owned transformer that converts 480V/277V power down to 208V/120V service (or 240V/120V). Usually only necessary for medium-sized or large-sized buildings.

Headroom: Additional space left for transformer sizing to account for future unspecified load, typically 20%.

9 Table 5. Building Prototypes & Baseline Conditions
Building Type 60-unit MUD 150-unit MUD
60-Space
Office
Number of Units 60 150 n/a
Total number of parking spaces required 60 150 60
Building Area [ft²] 65,000 163,000 20,000
Number of Floors 4 to 5 8 to 9 1 to 3
Parking Lot Size [ft²] 14,000 38,800 14,000
Parking Lot Type 1-level structure 2-level structure stand-alone lot CALGreen Level 2 Charging Requirement 6 15 4
Building Load [kVA] 292 700 98
CALGreen EV Load [kVA] 43 86 29
Total Load [kVA] 335 786 126
Load with Headroom [kVA] 402 944 152
Percent of load from CalGreen EV Load 11% 11% 18%
Secondary Transformer [kVA]
(480V -> 208V / 120V) 500 1000 225
Primary Transformer [kVA]
(12kV -> 480V / 277V) 750 1000 300
Table 6. Load Comparisons across Scenarios
Building Type 60-Unit MUD17 150-Unit MUD 60-Space Office Building
Baseline Building Load
[kVA] 292 700 98
Baseline Level 2 [# of Ports]
(CALGreen 2019) 6 15 4
Baseline EV Load [kVA]
(CALGreen 2019) 43 86 29
Capacity Requirement
(with headroom) 402 kVA 944 kVA 152 kVA
Secondary Transformer Size 500 kVA 1000 kVA 300 kVA
Reach Code Scenario Market Rate Affordable
Housing
Market Rate Affordable
Housing
10% L2
40% L1
Additional Level 2 Ports +12 ports 0 ports +22 ports 0 ports +2 ports Additional Level 1 Ports +45 ports +54 ports +113 ports +135 L1 +24 ports Additional EV Load [kVA] +95 kVA +54 kVA +257 kVA +156 kVA +33 kVA TOTAL EV Load [kVA] 430 kVA 389 kVA 1043 kVA 942 kVA 160 kVA Secondary Transformer Size 500 kVA 500 kVA 1500 kVA18 1000 kVA 300 kVA Percent of load from EVs 32% 25% 33% 26% 39%

17 Some of the capacity loading calculations do not appear additive. For any parking scenario with more than 10 chargers, we utilized a diversity factor of 80% to account for non-coincident charging. 18 Our cost model assumes that for a retrofit scenario, a second 500 kVA transformer would be installed rather than demolition

10 Results
The results of the cost analysis model show that installing EV capable spaces as a stand-alone retrofit are close to four times as expensive compared to during new construction. Costs for these project types are shown in Table 7 and Table 9 with detailed breakdowns in Appendix A.

Several factors related to building types affect these results:
• Costs per space are generally higher for small buildings with a small number of retrofits for EV capable infrastructure. Smaller projects must divide fixed costs among fewer spaces than larger projects.
• Buildings that are at the cusp of needing an upgraded switch gear or transformers represent significant cost increases to add electric vehicles, particularly in a retrofit context where there are large costs from demolition and site disruption. The prototypes we studied were unable to illustrate this point so additional narrative about these costs have been added in the ‘Distribution Transformers’ section. For this study, the prototype buildings we used only surpassed the baseline transformer capacity on one scenario – and the loading was such that we did not expect significant demolition was not expected. Switch gear and secondary transformer costs were included but did not include added costs for demolition, removal, or expansion of electrical rooms19-or- any costs associated with utilityowned primary transformer upgrades20 .
• Our cost model found that enclosed parking was less expensive than an open parking lot. This is because surface-mounted conduit is often less expensive to retrofit than trenching, and repairing surface parking areas. However, enclosed parking is usually much more expensive when considering ADA compliance due to grading, restriping, and accounting for path of travel.

Several factors related to project type affect these results:
• Installing conduit in new construction is much less expensive than retrofitting it later for several reasons.
o Demolition, disposal of materials, and repair of surface parking areas is not required. o Conduit can be installed directly underneath parking rather than routing around existing barriers. In addition, less expensive PVC (plastic) conduit can be installed in the parking floor (tied to rebar before concrete is poured) rather than surface mounted later. While wiring of branch circuits is not included in this report, these shorter lengths will also reduce wiring costs.
o Running conduit through existing buildings will likely require demolition of walls, and potentially through floors as well21
o Requiring that new electrical service panels contain capacity for EV capable infrastructure can achieve economies of scale and avoid the situations where an electrical room must be

19 Demolition, Removal, and expansion of electrical rooms were not considered because they are highly dependent on sitespecific factors that are difficult to estimate from the generic building prototypes we developed. 20 Utility-side transformer costs are analyzed in a separate section 21 X-ray cameras are usually used to prevent damage to concrete structures.

11 expanded to add additional charging. This latter cost is not included in the model, and thus, some retrofits for EV capable spaces would be significantly more expensive. o Compared to stand-alone retrofits, incremental “soft” costs will be lower for new construction. This is because fixed costs not related to EV capable spaces will already be required for construction and the incremental cost will be much lower.22 o Equipment needed for trenching of surface parking will likely already be on-site during new construction, limiting costs.

Table 7. Incremental Costs Required to Install EV Infrastructure Code Scenario
Market Rate
25% Level 2
75% Level 1
Affordable Housing
10% Level 2
90% Level 1
Building Type
New
Construction Retrofit
New
Construction Retrofit
60-Unit MUD $76,142 $239,909 $56,629 $215,051
150-Unit MUD $161,550 $553,682 $135,301 $520,227
60-Space Office Building $34,971 $96,970 N/A N/A

22 Pike, Ed and Steuben, Jeff. “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Cost-Effectiveness Report.” 2016

12 Table 8. Number of EV Charging Ports per Scenario
Code Scenario:

CALGreen 2019
Market Rate
25% Level 2
75% Level 1
Affordable Housing
10% Level 2
90% Level 1
60-Unit MUD 6 L2 15 L2
45 L1
6 L2
54 L1
150-Unit MUD 15 L2 38 L2
112 L1
15 L2
135 L1
60-Space Office Building 4 L2 6 L2
24 L1 N/A
Table 9. Estimated Cost of Installing EV Infrastructure (price per spot)23 Code Scenario:

Market Rate
25% Level 2
75% Level 1
Affordable Housing
10% Level 2
90% Level 1
Building Type
New
Construction Retrofit
New
Construction Retrofit
60-Unit MUD $1,410 $4,443 $1,049 $3,982
150-Unit MUD $1,197 $4,101 $1,002 $3,854
60-Space Office Building $1,166 $3,232 N/A N/A
Figure 2, 3, and 4 summarize the major categories of costs such as: demolishing and repairing parking lots and sidewalks, upgrading electrical service panels, obtaining permits and inspections, and installing conduit and associated equipment. CALGreen is the baseline cost - all other scenarios are costs in addition to the CALGreen baseline. Tables showing the specific dollar amounts and percent of total project cost by category are shown in the Appendix A.

Figure 2. Cost Break-Down for 60-unit MUD

23 Price per spot is calculated against the baseline CALGreen level. For illustrative purposes: 60-unit scenarios are divided by 54 spaces, which represents the incremental number of spaces added for the incremental cost. $0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Market Rate
[NC]
Market Rate
[Retrofit]
Affordable Housing
[NC]
Affordable Housing
[Retrofit]
Electrical panel Main electrical room, excluding tranformer Transformer (480V -> 208V) Raceway / In-slab conduit Electrical components (wire, receptacle) Trenching for installation of conduit Demolition of equipment Pavings (asphalt & concrete) Balance of circuit Permiting & inpection fees Construction management

13 Figure 3. Cost Break-Down for 150-unit MUD
Figure 4. Cost Break-Down for 60-space Commercial Office (assumes surface-level parking) Building code requirements for EV capable parking spaces can also reduce or avoid non-cost barriers such as coordinating between building owners/operators and tenants, potential loss of productive time for tenants during construction, lack of awareness of EV charging as an option, and the additional time and expense of undertaking a stand-alone EV charging infrastructure construction project. This study does not include specific accessibility requirements such as slope, vertical clearance, and path of travel and any of the associated costs with restriping, curb-cutting, or re-grading to meet ADA requirements, however a rough contingency to account for these ADA requirements has been included. For additional information on ADA compliance, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development recently released an Electric $0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Market Rate
[NC]
Market Rate
[Retrofit]
Affordable Housing
[NC]
Affordable Housing
[Retrofit]
Electrical panel Main electrical room, excluding tranformer Transformer (480V -> 208V) Raceway / In-slab conduit Electrical components (wire, receptacle) Trenching for installation of conduit Demolition of equipment Pavings (asphalt & concrete) Balance of circuit Permiting & inpection fees Construction management
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Office
[NC]
Office
[Retrofit]
Electrical panel Main electrical room, excluding tranformer Transformer (480V -> 208V) Raceway / In-slab conduit Electrical components (wire, receptacle) Trenching for installation of conduit Demolition of equipment Pavings (asphalt & concrete) Balance of circuit Permiting & inpection fees Construction management

14 Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook which highlights several ADA-specific issues around accessibility.24
Cost Savings Due to EVSE Installation in New Construction This section discusses the benefits of requiring EVSE installation in a subset of spaces. This section also discusses the potential benefits of good design practices to greatly reduce the potential for expensive redesign and engineering to meet accessibility requirements for buildings subject to Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 11B.

EVSE Installation
We note that several local jurisdictions already require the complete installation of an EVSE on a complete electrical circuit for some parking spaces in nonresidential new construction including Carlsbad, Contra Costa County, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz. Installing a complete electrical circuit, including wiring and circuit breakers, will achieve better economies of scale and avoid the overhead and time needed to hire an electrician.

This includes the need for tenants to get approvals from building owner for an electrical wiring retrofit (for the residential sector, condo owners would typically need approval from the homeowners association).

In addition, many EVSE installation tasks can be completed during new construction at much lower cost than retrofitting later, such as:
• Retrofitting concrete pads for pedestals if needed to mount EVSE (and any associated payment kiosks) and/or bollards if needed, including concrete cutting, excavation, and repair; • Mounting brackets for EVSE installed on walls or pillars; • Any conduit or infrastructure needed to provide data for EVSE that are networked; • Accessibility, as discussed further below in the Good Design Practices section; • Soft costs such as customer (or customer representative) and contractor project management; project planning including design, engineering, and permitting; contractor mobilization; and any additional retrofit tasks needed for EVSE installations;
• Lighting, if required and not already installed on-site; • Additional site-specific, real-world contingencies.

Installing a complete circuit with an EVSE installed will reduce burdens on local building officials and thus will tend to increase code compliance. Inspectors can more easily verify that a complete circuit is installed and operating correctly with an EVSE installed, rather than determining the specific electrical components that would be required for EV capable spaces.

Good Design Practices
Several local jurisdictions have adopted building codes that require good design practices to facilitate compliance with accessibility requirements for buildings subject to the CalGreen requirements, California

24 http://businessportal.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GoBIZ-EVCharging-Guidebook.pdf

15 Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 11B Section 11B-812. Section 11B-812 requires that a facility providing Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS), i.e. a parking spaces with an EVSE installed, for public and common use also provide one or more accessible EVCS, as specified in Table 11B-228.3.2.1. Chapter 11B applies to certain facilities including, but not limited to, public accommodations and publicly-funded housing (see Part 2, Section 1.9 of the California Building Code). It does not require review prior to construction of whether a building is designed to allow compliance with these requirements, and local codes require good design practices to fill this gap.

These local codes typically require that projects subject to the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 11B, document how many accessible EVCS would be required as per Title 24, Chapter 11B to convert all required EV capable or EV ready parking spaces to EVCS. They also typically require that the builder demonstrate that the facility is designed such that compliance with accessibility standards, including Chapter 11B accessible routes, will be feasible for the required accessible EVCS at the time of EVCS installation.25
We note that retrofitting spaces that were not designed to facilitate compliance with accessibility requirements can be very expensive. For instance, this study finds that removing and repairing about 100 to 300 linear feet of surface parking that add conduit to non-accessible parking spaces for a small or medium facility can cost $11,500 to $32,000 in demolition and repair costs. While the scope of work for accessibility retrofits may be different from the conduit installation task, this information indicates that the types of costs required for accessibility retrofits (absent good design practices) may be similarly significant and in retrofit contexts may be cost prohibitive, space prohibitive, or both.

Methodology
The methodology for this report is similar to prior 2016 reports for the City of Oakland (with funding from the City of Oakland and grant funding from the California Energy Commission), and for the City and County of San Francisco (with funding from Pacific Gas & Electric and in-kind support from the City and County of San Francisco).26 27
The cost analysis model that breaks each scenario and number of EV capable parking spaces into individual tasks and quantities, as shown in Appendix C. The model also contains estimates for the costs of each job task. Estimates of retrofit and new construction costs per job task are largely based on RS Means, a construction cost reference handbook for residential and nonresidential hardware and related installation

25 For instance, section 11B-812 requires that “Parking spaces, access aisles and vehicular routes serving them shall provide a vertical clearance of 98 inches (2489 mm) minimum.” It also requires that parking spaces and access aisles meet maximum slope requirements of 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2.083 percent slope) in any direction at the time of new building construction or renovation. Section 11B-812.5 contains accessible route requirements. In addition, Title 24 Part 11 Section 4.106.4.2 requires that developers meet certain aspects of accessibility requirements at the time of new construction for a limited number of parking spaces.
26 Pike, Ed and Steuben, Jeff. “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Cost-Effectiveness Report.” 2016; and Pike, Ed, Jeffrey Steuben , and Evan Kamei. 2016. "Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Cost-Effectiveness Report for San Francisco.” 27 Pike, Ed, Jeffrey Steuben , and Evan Kamei. 2016. "Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Cost-Effectiveness Report for San Francisco."

16 costs.28 Additional costs for contractor labor, permits, architectural drawings, plans, site and/or load studies (for retrofit projects), inspections, and local permit and inspection fees are based on the resources listed in Appendix B and C. Additional information used to model these costs includes feedback from industry and utility experts, engineering estimates, and direct experience. For additional details on the methodology and information specific to the EV capable parking space details, please see Appendix C and Appendix D.

The cost analysis model includes hypothetical installation scenarios to compare costs between different numbers of EV capable parking space for new construction and retrofit projects. Actual project costs and configurations will vary; these cases are intended to provide representative examples for comparison purposes rather than to estimate site-specific costs. The model excludes project-specific costs outside the scope of EV capable parking space building code compliance such as acquisition and installation of the EVSE, signage, lighting, pedestal mounts, bollards, wheel stops, any required accessibility retrofit, and any other factors outside of CALGreen EV capable parking spaces requirements.29 (Codes that address accessibility during alterations and additions such as the City of Fremont, City of Oakland, and City and County of San Francisco local codes can result in significant cost savings compared to changing these design parameters later as part of a stand-alone retrofit project. 30)
Recent editions to this model have added secondary transformers costs and electrical room costs (switchgear).

The model still excludes utility-side infrastructure, such as concrete transformer pads, utility service connections, and associated demolition, to accommodate potential swap-out for a larger capacity primary transformer. Additional information on those costs can be found in the Table 7 of the Transformers section below.

Furthermore, the scenarios do not include sub-metering or separate metering equipment, which are optional, but could be selected by a building owner to access a special electricity rate.31 Primary model costs are based on the City of Sacramento with a correction for PCE and SVCE’s service area based on an average of San Jose and San Mateo’s labor and material costs for the first quarter of 2019.

28 For additional information, see www.rsmeans.com.
29 RS Means specifies a range of potential design costs, while noting that design costs will likely be 50 percent higher for alterations. We note that wheel stops may cost $150-$200 each and bollards may cost $500-$750 each based on input from an installer and RS Means costs for equipment types similar to bollards. 30 San Francisco Green Building Code 2016:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/sfbuilding/greenbuildingcode2016edition?f=templates$fn=default .htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_GreenBuilding 31 A sub-meter may be a desirable add-on for some building owners or PEV drivers to allocate electricity costs and/or provide access to utility PEV charging electricity tariffs, though some special electricity rates for PEV owners are available through whole-house rates and utilities are also conducting pilots of metering via electric vehicle service equipment. The authors believe that builders wishing to install a socket for a sub-meter at the time of new construction may achieve cost savings compared to retrofits but have not quantified this potential.

17 4. Distribution Transformer Study
One important distinction in transformer classifications is between primary transformers (which are owned and operated by the utility) and secondary “step-down” transformers (which are owned and operated by a building owner). The main distinguishing factor between these is the overall building load and the particular utility rules which specify trigger points for the electrical design. For most situations, small buildings utilize shared distribution primary transformers split between multiple electrical accounts; medium-sized buildings feature a dedicated utility-owned primary transformer; and large buildings may feature a dedicated utilityowned primary transformer along with secondary transformer(s) depending on the electrical design of the building.

Primary Transformers (utility-owned, often with customer costs) Primary transformers are needed to convert medium voltage utility distribution lines (normally 12kV) to customer level power at either 480V/277V for large buildings or 208V/120V or 240V/120V for medium buildings (for the purposes of this report, small buildings are on a shared transformer). Primary transformers are owned and operated by the utility but costs are partially split with the building owner. The costs borne by the utility operate with a ceiling, insulating utilities from the ballooning costs of the upgrades, allowing any excess above to be charged to the customer. This mechanism is known as an “allowance,” effectively a budget for infrastructure upgrades funded through the electric rates. For PG&E, it is governed by Electric Rule 232, Electric Rule 1533 & Electric Rule 1634 which together lay out the rules for expanding service, extending distribution lines, and upgrading transformers. The allowance is dictated by these rules and based on historical electrical usage. The following excerpt is from Electric Rule 15:

As written, these formulas and rule exceptions are complex because they apply for all electrical infrastructure situations, including agricultural, industrial, or rural contexts. However, generally-speaking, utility infrastructure upgrades have costs that are broken down between the building owner and the utility. For utility-owned transformers, the building owner will pay for the following nine elements:
1- a load study from the utility’s service planning department, 2- trenching,
3- excavation
4- backfill,
5- compaction,
6- conduit,

32 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_RULES_2.pdf 33 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_RULES_15.pdf 34 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_RULES_16.pdf

18 7- substructures (boxes and pads),
8- pavings (cut, patch, and final repair), and
9- taxes and cost of ownership.

Meanwhile, the utility will pay (up to the allowance) for metering, wiring, and transformers. For any excess work required above the allowance, an advance is required by the customer, but can be converted to a monthly payment. If the revenue for the utility does not end up materializing in the first ten years, utilities have a mechanism to claw back funds called “deficiency billing.” The CPUC has been tracking service and distribution system upgrades for EV-projects from the three major California Investor-Owned Utilities, publishing their 7th annual report in April 201935. The study indicates the relative frequency and magnitude of utility-side infrastructure costs that include both service upgrades and primary transformer upgrades. While this equipment is owned and operated by the utility, the customer will pay for upgrade costs until their allowance is exceeded.

In many cases this allowance is insufficient and costs can spread over to the customer in lump sum costs ahead of construction and/or higher monthly costs. The following table is pulled from the CPUC report and provides a high-level summary of these costs:

Table 10: Summary of Service Line and Distribution System Upgrades As shown above, PG&E’s service territory indicates just over 3% (323 service line upgrades of 10,138 PEVrelated Infrastructure Checks) of sites required distribution or service-line upgrades to accommodate EV infrastructure, demonstrating projects that exceed existing transformer capacity is not common yet. And of these less than 0.4% (39) exceeded the residential allowance resulting in additional costs to the building owner beyond the baseline upgrade costs. Two large caveats should be highlighted here. The first is that most of

35 7th Joint IOU Electric Vehicle Load Research Report: April 2019 (CPUC)

19 these early EV installations are residential customers and the second is that overall demand for charging infrastructure is increasing and it can be expected that more ports will be installed per parking lot than in the past. In addition, local jurisdictions may have local restrictions regarding placing transformers in public right of ways necessitating alternative siting such as placing transformers within the property line and under owner cost. The most important considerations are the “Range of Costs for Upgrades” ($14 - $338,274) and the “Average Cost for Distribution System Upgrade” ($19,262) which indicate both a very wide range between projects and the average magnitude for transformers upgrades in PG&E territory. It should be noted that the distribution upgrade costs across utilities are significant with PG&E ($19,262) incurring much higher costs than those of SCE ($4,514) and SDG&E ($4,089).

Secondary Transformers (customer-owned)
Secondary transformers are required from larger buildings based on the electrical service being provided by the utility. These rules are pre-determined by the utility’s electric rules. In the context of this report, secondary transformers are those that convert 480V/277V power down to 208V/120V service. PG&E’s Unit Cost Guide36, PG&E’s Greenbook37, and RS Means were investigated to develop a characterization of electrical infrastructure costs (transformers) vs. building load (kVA). In the graph below, primary transformers costs are indicated in gold/yellow with blue-accented patterns38 and secondary transformers costs are indicated in solid blue (costs associated with site preparation are not included). In addition to this, load estimates that were utilized for the cost effectiveness model are overlaid to provide a rough back-of-the-envelope load calculation for MUDs, to illustrate when certain costs become important in order to assist policy makers of the relative situations in which these triggers would occur:

36 PG&E Unit Cost Guide - April 2019
37 2017-2018 PG&E Greenbook: Electric & Gas Service Requirements:(http://www.pge.com/greenbook) 38 The blue accent is to highlight that these costs often end up part of customer costs. $0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975
Transformer Cost(s) vs. Building Load (kVA)
Customer Owned (208V) Utility Owned (208V) Utility Owned (408V) 10/90 Reach Code
25/75 Reach Code
Building load CALGreen 2019 Mandatory (10%)
Utility Usually Pays
Customer Pays
UtilityUsually Pays
30 - 40 Unit MUD Page 204 of 256
20 Figure 5: Costs of Transformers vs. Transformer system size (PG&E service territory)39 The figure above shows the magnitude of these transformer costs along with boundary points for small/medium and medium/large buildings utilizing rough estimates for number of units in a MUD with electric vehicle charging equivalent CALGreen 2019 mandatory levels. The sample number of MUDs shown in the figure above are meant to point out sizeable non-linear costs associated with transformer upgrades for this climate and this utility. In particular, attention should be paid to the 300kV load point which may cause considerable cost escalation as the electrical service would switch from 208V/120V to 480V/277V. As mentioned previously, this graphic is high-level, intended for policy makers and does not provide appropriate level of detail for a specific microclimate or a specific site.40 Transformer-sizing and other considerations
Electrical designers typically oversize transformers for future unspecified loads as “transformer headroom.” A typical approach to transformer sizing is to obtain the calculated design load from the electrical schedule (building plan documents) and add 20% spare capacity for future load growth to be shown in the equipment schedule, unless otherwise directed by the facility based on design parameters41. Due to the large step-wise nature of transformers, it is possible that after accounting for headroom significantly more capacity is afforded. The table below illustrates this for the building models produced for this report:

Table 11. Transformer Sizing & Capacity
Building Type 60-Unit MUD 150-Unit MUD 60-Space Office
Building
Baseline Building Load
[kVA] 292 700 95
Baseline EV Load [kVA]
(CALGreen 2019) 43 99 29
Capacity Requirement
[kVA] 335 kVA 786 kVA 126 kVA
Capacity Requirement
(with 20% headroom)
[kVA]
402 kVA 944 kVA 152 kVA
Secondary Transformer Size
[kVA] 500 kVA 1000 kVA 300 kVA
Overall Unused Capacity
[kVA (% unused)]
165 kVA (33%) 214 kVA (21%) 174 kVA (58%)
Code Scenario Market Rate Affordable
Housing
Market Rate Affordable
Housing
10% L2
40% L1
Additional Level 2 Ports +12 L2 0 +22 L2 0 +2 L2
Additional Level 1 Ports +45 L1 +54 L1 +113 L1 +135 L1 +24 L1 Additional EV Load [kVA] +95 kVA +54 kVA +257 kVA +156 kVA +33 kVA TOTAL EV Load [kVA] 430 389 1043 942 160

39 This graph shows PG&E’s specific equipment sizing and is not comparable to other utilities. Calculations are based on estimates from the infrastructure cost model.
40 For example: Electrical system loading was developed by averaging climatic design data from Climate Zone 3 (Oakland) and 4 (San Jose) to develop a prototype HVAC system:
(https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html) 41 https://www.csemag.com/articles/selecting-sizing-transformers-for-commercial-buildings/

21 In the table above, the scenarios that are able to meet the EV reach codes with the existing headroom have been highlighted in green and the one scenario that would be unable to do so is highlighted in red. In most of these cases, the 20% headroom for the secondary transformer afforded significant flexibility to meet the reach codes. Transformers are sized for a worse-case scenario based on the requirements in the electrical code and very seldom operate near capacity. While it may be tempting to oversize a transformer above the typical industry headroom, significant oversizing should be cautioned because it can result in transformer operation significantly out of the normal efficient operation. As shown in Figure 6 below, load factor (percentage of total rated capacity) can have a significant influence on the transformer efficiency. In most times of the day, the transformer is operating at part load and oversizing a transformer can move performance out of the normal operating range and result in inefficient operation. The following figure shows a generalized transformer efficiency curve for a residential distribution transformer sized and highlights where a 20% load point might fall were the transformer pushed to the next size up, typically 40-55% increase in capacity.

Figure 6: Transformer Efficiency vs. Load Factor42
The primary concern around transformers and associated costs pertain to the boundary cases where buildings close to the boundary of (1) needing to host a utility’s dedicated primary transformer or (2) will require different utility service (480V instead of 208V) and need to modify their site to provide a secondary transformer. Approximate ranges of which MUDs would need to contend with this are noted in Figure 1 and Figure 5 above. If more capacity is required, it is likely that a combination of solar, energy efficiency measures, or adding battery storage would be able to prevent a transformer upgrades. On the other hand, the interest in electrification of existing gas appliances may compete for the existing capacity.

In the face of all this, load management is a promising option to allow more electric vehicle charging ports without needing to pay for larger infrastructure upgrades. This technology works by managing the amount of

42https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224598589_Challenges_of_PHEV_Penetration_to_the_Residential_Distributio n_Network
20% load: 98.6% efficiency
~10% load: outside of normal operation

22 throughput to individual charging ports based on what the control system defines for limitations. To date, this feature has primarily been marketed to limit electrical demand charges but could be utilized to prevent overloading panels and/or transformers. Load management for electric vehicles is still nascent technology and would benefit with more developed industry standards. However, the National Electric Code has permitted power management since 2014 but industry may need training to create packaged solutions that can reassure plan checkers and building inspectors.43

43 California Electrical Code (Title 24, Part 3): Article 750.30 – Load Management

1 Appendix A: Cost Estimates by Type of Expense
The following tables (Table 12 through Table 14) summarize model results for each type of expense per building. All costs below represent incremental costs compared to a baseline CALGreen 2019 mandatory building. See Appendix B and Appendix C for more details on the individual tasks included in each of the categories below. The per parking space costs are calculated by dividing the total incremental cost of by the number of added EV capable parking spaces. So for example, for the 60-unit MUD scenario shown below, a CALGreen 2019 mandatory baseline model was created to size the electrical use of a 60-unit MUD apartment building including electrical infrastructure associated with switchgear, panels, and secondary transformer.

Under the new construction scenario, the additional 54 EV ports were added to the load and the system resized along with conduits added. For the retrofit scenario, the costs to upsize infrastructure, demolish structures, and provide raceways were added. NOTE: This study does not include costs for EVSE, and does not include and has a overall 20% contingency to account for ADA compliance. ADA can be a significant source of cost and in this study is only intended to capture a limited scope of ADA compliance.

Labor costs generally range from half to two-thirds of total project costs. Labor costs for small buildings with two EV capable parking spaces, based on current CALGreen six percent requirements, were estimated at about four fifths of the total project costs in new construction; however, this may not be representative of other projects for this building type with different site-specific circumstances.

Table 12. Estimated Incremental Cost of Installing EV Infrastructure: 60-Unit MUD 60-Unit MUD
Retrofit
Market
Rate
[NC]
Market
Rate
[Retrofit]
Affordable
Housing
[NC]
Affordable
Housing
[Retrofit]
Level 2 Ports Added 9 9 0 0
Level 1 Ports Added 45 45 54 54
Electrical panel $15,960 $26,008 $9,289 $13,004
Main electrical room, excluding transformer $13,609 $43,911 $14,055 $35,193 Transformer (480V -> 208V) $14,164 $12,743 $1,081 $10,897 Raceway / In-slab conduit $18,059 $77,247 $18,059 $77,247 Electrical components (wire, receptacle) $11,366 $20,131 $11,307 $20,049 Trenching for installation of conduit $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolition of equipment $0 $31,940 $0 $30,918
Pavings (asphalt & concrete) $0 $7,889 $0 $7,889
Permitting & inspection fees $2,435 $15,592 $2,435 $15,592 Construction management $549 $4,449 $403 $4,264
TOTAL $76,142 $239,909 $56,629 $215,051
TOTAL (Price per Port) $1,410 $4,443 $1,049 $3,982

2 Table 13. Estimated Incremental Cost of Installing EV Infrastructure: 150-Unit MUD 150-Unit MUD
Retrofit
Market
Rate
[NC]
Market
Rate
[Retrofit]
Affordable
Housing
[NC]
Affordable
Housing
[Retrofit]
Level 2 Ports Added 23 23 0 0
Level 1 Ports Added 112 112 135 135
Electrical panel $59,785 $83,699 $44,926 $62,896
Main electrical room, excluding transformer $10,059 $49,276 $10,059 $49,276 Transformer (480V -> 208V) $11,539 $49,742 $0 $40,621
Raceway / In-slab conduit $45,147 $193,116 $45,147 $193,116 Electrical components (wire, receptacle) $28,062 $49,833 $28,407 $50,317 Trenching for installation of conduit $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolition of equipment $0 $79,850 $0 $77,294
Pavings (asphalt & concrete) $0 $8,442 $0 $8,442
Permitting & inspection fees $5,798 $33,069 $5,798 $33,069 Construction management $1,159 $6,655 $964 $5,196
TOTAL $161,550 $553,682 $135,301 $520,227
TOTAL (Price per Port) $1,197 $4,101 $1,002 $3,854
Table 14. Estimated Incremental Cost of Installing EV Infrastructure: 60-Space Office 60-Space Office
Retrofit Offce
[NC]
Office
[Retrofit]
Level 2 Ports Added 2 2
Level 1 Ports Added 24 24
Electrical panel $5,571 $13,004
Main electrical room, excluding transformer $8,558 $35,005 Transformer (480V -> 208V) $5,748 $7,786
Raceway / In-slab conduit $0 $0
Electrical components (wire, receptacle) $5,285 $9,031
Trenching for installation of conduit $5,133 $4,562
Demolition of equipment $0 $6,211
Pavings (asphalt & concrete) $0 $6,305
Permitting & inspection fees $4,448 $11,652
Construction management $227 $3,414
TOTAL $34,971 $96,970
TOTAL (Price per Port) $1,166 $3,232

3 Appendix B: Permitting and Inspection Costs
Table 15 shows examples of permitting and inspection fees. These fees are not calculated in the model per project but as inputs based on the closest representative level for a project. Table 16 shows the details for these calculations based on the City and County of San Francisco and costs may vary by region.

Table 15. Examples of Total Permit and Inspection Cost Summary Stand-alone Retrofit
New Construction
(Incremental Costs)
# of Circuits Fee Builder Staff Time Total Fee Builder Staff Time Total 2 $461 $650 $1,111 $27 $75 $102
4 $1,365 $850 $2,215 $164 $125 $289
Table 16. Electrical and Building Permit and Inspection Cost Data Notes:
• Fees are calculated based on San Francisco Fee Table 1A-A (building) and Table 1A-E (electrical).

New construction fees are based on the incremental cost of adding EV charging infrastructure to a project.
• Two building inspections are assumed for small retrofits, and no additional building inspections are assumed for new construction. One electrical inspection is assumed for adding two circuits and three are assumed for adding 12 circuits.

Fees
$335
$11 Estimated average application fee per additional circuit beyond minimum New
Construction,
alterations &
Stand-alone
Retrofit
$25 $100 Builder staff time to obtain new permit (inclusive of travel) $25 $100 Builder staff time per inspection (inclusive of travel) $0 $150 Electrical engineer staff time for load calculations Fees
Stand-alone retrofit
Plan Permitting Plan Permitting
- - $ 144.85 $ 62.08 up to $500
- - $ 2.93 $ 1.26 per hundred from $500 up to $2000
- - $ 1.78 $ 0.76 per hundred from $2000 up to $50,000
$ 0.19 $ 0.10 - - per hundred from $5,000,000 to $50m
source: San Francisco Fee Table 1A-A note: only costs used in model are listed Incremental
Cost, New Retrofit
$25 $100 Builder staff time to obtain new permit
$0 $100 Builder staff time per inspection (inclusive of travel) Electrical and Building Permit and Inspection Cost Data Builder Time Costs
Minimum inspection fee, which covers from 1 to 3 inspections Builder Time Costs
Electrical
Building
New Construction, alterations,
additions

4 Appendix C: Methodology Details
This appendix provides additional details on the general assumptions used in the models, data sources for per unit equipment and other costs, and the methods used to determine the quantities needed for each expense type. This appendix does not contain data specific to the scenarios that were modeled, but rather a more general overview of the cost model.

General Assumptions
• Cost estimates include a fixed general overhead and profit factor.44 • Labor costs and equipment costs are based on cost estimates from RSMeans 2019 Q1 and utilize standard union rates.
• RSMeans cost data specified Sacramento, CA with a geographic correction which averaged the RS Means City Cost Index of San Mateo and San Jose.
• In some cases, RS Means contains minimum retrofit task costs.45 Where related tasks had separate minimum task costs but the labor crew could likely perform more than one related task, the model applied one minimum labor charge.
• Building electrical infrastructure was sized utilizing W/ft² engineering calculations for lighting, air conditioning, and other major appliances.
• Building area was estimated using US Census Data
• Common area is assumed for Laundry usage
• Air Conditioner sizing was calculated based on California Climate Zone data for Zone 3 and Zone 4 • California CEUS46 data is utilized to determine demand for offices Data Sources
Estimates of per unit equipment and installation costs were based on retrofit and new construction costs from RS Means, a construction cost reference handbook and online tool for hardware and related installation costs.

The City and County of San Francisco rates were used for permit and inspection fee sheets; and the authors estimated costs for contractor labor for permitting, inspections, site inspection, and architectural plans. Cost data from RS Means was for 2018 and was scaled to 2019 using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index statistics. Additional data sources include: feedback from industry experts, engineering estimates, and direct experience to capture different tasks required for the scenarios that were analyzed. This appendix contains a list of all tasks included in the analysis.

44 Individual RS Means line items related to overhead (under General Requirements) are assumed to be addressed by overhead and profit.
45 Minimum task costs are typically not relevant for new construction due to the overall project scale. 46 http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/ChartsSF/Default2.aspx

5 Soft Costs
Permit and Inspection Fees
Permitting costs for breaking concrete and electrical permit fees are based on available information from the City and County of San Francisco fees.47 The total estimated costs include rough and final building and electrical permit fees where applicable. The cost for adding EV capable spaces during construction of a new building is assumed to be relatively low. Builder time spent towards permit filing and inspections is included at $100 per hour spent on site. Permit and inspection costs can vary between regions.

The model includes a small amount of labor to accommodate permitting and inspection of elements specific to EV capable parking spaces in new construction and alterations and additions, since these activities are already required and minimal additional effort should be needed to add EV capable infrastructure.

Since economies of scale occur with larger quantities, these fees generally scale up with increasing quantities of EV capable infrastructure, though they are not completely scalable. Costs are higher for outdoor circuits than for indoor circuits due to trenching and are higher for retrofits than for new construction or alterations and additions due to demolition, repaving, and repairs.48

A R C H I T E C T U R A L P L A N F E E S
Costs to add EV capable parking spaces to architectural plans and drawings will vary between projects based on their overall complexity. They are based on the estimated number of hours for each project and a fee of $150/hour before geographic adjustments. Costs will also vary if the project is new construction or a retrofit.

In the former case, costs will be relatively minor because the architectural firm will likely be familiar with the plan of the building and can easily influence relevant design decisions like adding EV capable infrastructure.

For retrofit projects, costs will likely be significantly higher due to the need to investigate and accommodate more complex on-site conditions such as: longer conduit runs, demolition and reconstruction, meeting accessibility requirements based on existing conditions, and/or more limited options for electrical room and panel placement.

A minimal incremental cost is required for adding several EV capable parking spaces to a new building or alteration and addition. In contrast, preparing construction plans for large numbers of EV capable parking spaces to an existing building may take a significant amount of time considering the layout and construction details for each parking space and existing site conditions. Costs will partially scale by the number of EV capable parking spaces.

L O A D S T U D Y / S I T E C O N D I T I O N S S T U D Y Additional expenses are required for stand-alone retrofits at medium or large buildings to assess existing load and other conditions. The load study is necessary to determine the current electrical supply capacity, such as

47 See Table 1A-A and Table 1A-E
48 We note that efforts are underway to streamline permitting and inspections of EV charging infrastructure including EV capable parking spaces.

6 the transformer and other systems related to the main electrical supply and the current actual load.49 The study will then determine which on-site upgrades may be needed to install EV capable parking spaces. In addition, site-specific conditions may need to be determined such as current concrete conditions, soils conditions, and/ or other conditions. A load study at a facility where other site condition studies aren’t needed is assumed to cost $1,000. Factors such as demolition and/or a greater number of EV parking spaces will drive costs up and a more complex study is assumed to cost $5,000 in this report (prior to prime contractor expenses). X-ray costs are roughly $1,000 for a half dozen images, which may be enough for retrofit installations at a medium sized facility, however, more may be required for a 150-space garage.50 A specific site may require more or less resources depending on actual conditions.

Assuming alterations and additions originally intended for non-EV charging purposes will require an assessment of load and existing conditions, the assessment would also suffice for EV charging as well.

E L E C T R I C A L P A N E L L O C A T I O N S A N D S I Z I N G Some electrical panels are located in the main electrical room while others are distributed closer to EV parking spaces to reduce branch circuit lengths and costs. Distributed panels are more practical in locations with convenient wall mounting locations protected from weather and vandalism. All panel and sub-panel conduits are assumed to be installed in 1 ½ inch steel surface-mounted conduits for 225 ampere panels (to carry 250 MCM wire) or 2-inch conduits for 400 ampere panels (to carry 600 MCM wire) to provide a high level of protection and allow for easy visual inspection.

In some cases, a panel installed in new construction can be upsized to serve both base loads (such as garage lighting, elevators, and miscellaneous outlets) and EV charging loads. In other cases, panels for EV charging are sized to their maximum practical size (typically 400 amperes) just to meet EV charging needs. (Panels are generally limited by electrical panel capacity rather than physical size for EV electrical infrastructure. A single-phase 400-ampere panel has electrical capacity for 10 circuits and typically has physical space for 15 40-amperes circuits even if they utilize double slot 20-ampere breakers.) The type of electrical panels will depend on whether a building is served by three-phase (4-wire) electrical service or one-phase (3-wire) electrical service. Medium and large commercial buildings and multifamily buildings usually receive three-phase service. When a panel receives three phases of electricity instead of one, it can accommodate additional EV capable parking spaces. However, the phases must be “balanced”, which restricts how many additional circuits for EV capable parking spaces can be accommodated. We assumed that three-phase 225 ampere panels can accommodate 9 40-amp circuits and three-phase 400 ampere panels can accommodate 15 40 ampere circuits based on interviews with contractors and an electrical design firm.

49 Transformers are usually sized based on the typical maximum actual load of a building. Unlike electrical panels and electrical circuits, transformers can be under loaded to extend their lifetime of fully loading, or even occasionally overloaded without causing an immediate reliability issue but with potential reduced long-term lifetime. 50 Concrete X- Ray Imaging, Penhall, https://www.penhall.com/concrete-x-ray-imaging/ accessed 7-4-2019.

7 Construction Management
The model also includes a cost factor to represent additional fixed costs incurred by contractors for retrofit installations prior to project initiation. These costs include contractor time spent traveling to a site for surveying, evaluating existing conditions, estimating project costs, and preparing bids. Costs will vary based on the complexity of the project.51 For new construction, these costs likely do not apply or require minimal additional effort to address EV capable electrical infrastructure. The construction management category also includes general permit application fees.

Raceways, Wire, and Termination Point
PVC materials (i.e. plastic) are included for branch circuit conduits installed in new construction of enclosed parking areas and alterations and additions to enclosed parking that remove the parking surface, while wall and ceiling-mounted metal conduit is assumed for stand-alone retrofits. The authors assumed that intermediate metal conduit was installed for any outdoor raceway in trenches to provide corrosion resistance and for any indoor retrofit cases where walls and floors will not be replaced. Additional raceways may be needed between floors and inaccessible areas.
1¼-inch raceways are generally assumed to carry up to twelve #8 wires rated at 40 amperes (three per circuit) to support 30-ampere EVSE, with the potential to add wiring for a fifth circuit where convenient.52,53 Some additional raceways are also needed to serve individual termination locations (i.e. a main conduit run carrying four wires may end at one receptacle pair and a local distribution conduit would carry the other pair to its termination point). These short distribution raceways were also sized at one and a quarter inches for simplicity; though they could be sized at one inch or below, we do not expect that this difference would be significant. In some cases, raceways installed in-slab during new construction will accommodate more and/or higher capacity wires than retrofits that are wall mounted and encounter additional bends at corners and obstacles, limiting their capacity. These potential cost savings are site-specific and not included in the model.

Wire is not included for branch circuits for EV capable parking spaces. Wires for any distributed panels that are noted in the scenario summary table are included in the costs.

The length of raceways within a given floor for enclosed parking at new construction and repaving are calculated based on direct routes from the electrical panel to the termination point since no obstacles are present during new construction. Retrofitting surface-mounted conduit is generally assumed to be twice as long in new construction because they must follow walls and ceilings with less direct routing. Compared to new construction, raceway distances are increased by 125 percent for gut rehabilitation because significant

51 This estimate assumes that contractors win some of their bids for retrofit projects. The success rate will vary based on specific circumstances. For instance, a sole source contacting mechanism would result in a higher success rate while a contracting mechanism requiring three or more bids would result in a lower success rate. Actual costs will vary from project to project.
52 Because EV charging is consider a continuous load, the circuit capacity must be at least 25 percent higher than the end load.
53 We note that higher capacity #6 wire could also be installed at a rate of four sets per 1 ¼ inch conduit without larger sized conduit, unless conduit capacity is limited due to bends that restrict fill rates. For an example of allowable fill rates, see Elliot Electric Supply “Conduit Fill Table” at
https://www.elliottelectric.com/StaticPages/ElectricalReferences/ElectricalTables/Conduit_Fill_Table.aspx.

8 portions of the building are removed while some obstructions may remain. Raceway distances are also increased by 150 percent for stand-alone retrofits in outdoor trenches to account for indirect routing (i.e. avoiding existing infrastructure). Surface mounted retrofit distances are increased by 200 percent, compared to new construction, due to the long distances to follow existing walls and to account for routing around existing obstacles.

Actual configurations can vary based on site-specific circumstances. For instance, if several EV parking spaces are located a significant distance from the main electrical panel, a single (larger) raceway run to an additional electrical panel closer to EV parking spaces can be installed with raceways branching from the panel to the planned EVSE location. This configuration would most likely save costs in buildings where the reduced length of raceways would exceed additional electric panel costs. Raceways for electrical panels outside of the main electrical room are sized (at ½ inch intervals, i.e. 1 ½ inch or 2 inches) based on the wire needed to serve that panel.

Conduits will generally terminate at a receptacle with an outlet box with a face plate and no EVSE (i.e. the unit that connects to the vehicle) installed at the time of construction. Local municipal building codes can also require a specific type of receptacle, which does not have a large impact on the cost-effectiveness of code.

Receptacles are assumed to be installed in pairs to serve parking spaces on either side of the pair.

No additional curbs or bollards are assumed at the termination point. Local jurisdictions may wish to include a requirement for anchor points for EVSE near the termination point if the EVSE can be wall-mounted, which should not significantly affect the cost of EV capable building codes.

Demolition, Reconstruction, and Repaving
The model contains several job types related to demolition, construction, and repaving for stand-alone projects and projects where parking areas and/or electrical rooms are undergoing renovations that would allow installation of this equipment without any further demolition and reconstruction.

For both enclosed and surface parking, demolition for electrical rooms includes cutting and/or drilling, breaking large pieces into smaller pieces, minimum equipment/labor costs, loading and disposal.

Reconstruction costs include concrete work (cost for pouring slabs is used as a proxy), reinforcing rods, forms, and minimum labor charges.

Demolition for parking areas include cutting a three-foot-wide section of pavement to allow two-foot-wide trenches; backhoe rental to trench, mobilization and operation, and disposal of materials. Some trenching would also be required for adding EV capable parking spaces in new construction, when repaving existing parking or adding parking. In these cases, costs would likely be much lower due to the presence of trenching equipment on-site to meet other project needs unrelated to EV capable parking spaces.

Contingencies
A 20 percent contingency was applied for stand-alone retrofit projects based on RS Means. Contingencies are necessary because specific challenges may not be visible at the start of a stand-alone retrofit project or because existing conditions may be difficult to alter without expanding the scope and cost of a retrofit project - for instance if an electrical room lacks space for additional panel(s) or was originally constructed far from parking spaces. A general contingency was not added for EV capable parking spaces installed as part of a

9 larger retrofit project such as resurfacing or building new parking spaces at an existing site because the conditions will more closely resemble new construction, given their broader scope. In addition, specific cost increases were already included to address higher costs for alterations and additions compared to new construction, such as conservatively assuming that additional parking spaces would be located further from electrical power than existing spaces.

On top of this, another 20 percent contingency was applied to estimate potential costs for accessibility (ADA) compliance associated with restriping, adjusting path of travel, vertical clearances, and slope modifications.

ADA compliance costs can be significant but are not the focus of this report.

Transformers
Transformer costs related to secondary or “step down” transformers have been incorporated into this cost model. Only the wiring costs are considered, not the additional costs for a concrete pad, or disposal of the previous transformer. As mentioned previously, these transformers are used to “step down” 480 V service to 208/240 V for buildings connected to 480 V power, which in PG&E’s service area consist of buildings in the 300kVA and up range. CARB has found that EV charging generally represents a relatively small fraction of overall building power demand in multifamily housing with 10% EV Capable parking spaces. These transformer upgrades are often not necessary to support EV charging infrastructure for buildings but may be more likely with the higher EV infrastructure requirements such as those considered in this report.

An electrical engineering firm and several contractors were consulted with and confirmed that they have found that levels of EV capable parking spaces proposed for CALGreen typically would not require a transformer upgrade, noting the typical headroom of 20% is usually sufficient to cover this growth. It was noted that in some cases, a potential off-site utility infrastructure upgrade could be required, as noted in the Primary Transformers section above.

In the case that EV infrastructure would trigger an expensive switchgear or transformer upgrade it should be investigated whether retrofits that include more energy-efficient lighting and other equipment meeting current mandatory California, ENERGY STAR®, and/or federal standards.

We expect that in cases where a transformer upgrade would be required to install EV capable infrastructure, building codes requiring EV capable parking spaces and associated electrical capacity could achieve significant cost savings related to these costs. Stand-alone transformer retrofits could require replacing conduits serving the transformer, replacing the transformer pad or adding a new pad, and adding an additional transformer or upgrading an existing transformer. By comparison, designing the electrical room for adequate capacity would allow the installation of larger sized conduits and/or transformer pads during initial construction at minimal cost. While we have not quantified all of these costs, the incremental cost of installing a 3” conduit instead of a 2” conduit would be very small compared to breaking existing concrete to install a larger sized conduit later.

10 Task Descriptions
Task descriptions for each scenario are listed below in Table 17. The table lists tasks with a note to designate where the task applies to retrofits, new construction, or both. A negative number indicates the avoidance of smaller electrical panel(s) due to installation of a larger panel. (Tasks that are listed with a “0” quantity were included as an option in detailed calculations used to determine project task descriptions, but the detailed design calculations resulted in a zero quantity for the specific task).

Table 17. Task Descriptions and Quantities
60-unit MUD 150-unit MUD Medium Office
Task Description Construction
Type
Work
Type Unit
CALGree
n
Market
Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen Market Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen 10% L240% L1
Quantity for Each Scenario
Rent core drill, electric, 2.5 H.P. 1" to 8" bit diameter, includes hourly operating cost retro demo ea.
8 10 20 25 4
Rent mixer power mortar & concrete gas 6 CF, 18 HP, one day including 4 hours operating cost retro demo Ea. 2 2 5 5 Rent backhoe-loader 40 to 45 HP 5/8 CY capacity, one day including 4 hours operating cost retro demo per day 3
Selective demolition, rubbish handling, dumpster, 6 C.Y., 2 ton capacity, weekly rental, includes one dump per week, cost to be added to demolition cost. retro demo Week
2 2 5 5 0
Deconstruction of concrete, floors, concrete slab on grade, plain, 4" thick, up to 2 stories, excludes handling, packaging or disposal costs retro demo S.F.
24 30 60 75
Selective concrete demolition, reinforce less than 1% of crosssectional area, break up into small pieces, excludes shoring, bracing, saw or torch cutting, loading, hauling, dumping retro demo C.Y. 8 10 20 25 5
Selective concrete demolition, minimum labor/equipment charge retro demo Job 2 2 5 5 Concrete sawing, concrete slabs, rod reinforced, up to 3" deep retro demo L.F. 24 30 60 75 16 Concrete sawing, concrete, existing slab, rod reinforced, for each additional inch of depth over 3" retro demo L.F. 24 30 60 75 16 Selective demolition, concrete slab cutting/sawing, minimum labor/equipment charge retro demo Job 2 2 5 5 1
Concrete core drilling, core, reinforced concrete slab, 2" diameter, up to 6" thick slab, includes bit, layout and set up retro demo Ea. 60 60 150 150 Receptacle devices, residential, duplex outlet, ivory, EMT & wire, 20', 15 amp, incl box & cover plate new electric Ea. 27 23 68 56 12

11 60-unit MUD 150-unit MUD Medium Office
Task Description Construction
Type
Work
Type Unit
CALGree
n
Market
Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen Market Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen 10% L240% L1
Quantity for Each Scenario
Receptacle, range, 50 Amp retro electric Ea. 6 15 15 38 6 Receptacle devices, residential, duplex outlet, ivory, EMT & wire, 20', 15 amp, incl box & cover plate retro electric Ea. 27 23 68 56 12 permitting & inspection, 2 internal circuits, excludes general building permit fees new fee per job
permitting & inspection, 4 internal and 2 external circuits, excludes general building permit fees new fee per job 1 5 permitting & inspection, 4 internal circuits, excludes general building permit fees new fee per job 1
permitting & inspection, 14 internal circuits, excludes general building permit fees new fee per job 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
permitting, per internal circuit over 4, excluding general buildling permit fees new fee per ciruit 2 20 20 1 60 60 2
permitting & inspection, 14 internal and 7 external circuits, excludes general building permit fees retro fee per job 11 1 permitting & inspection, 14 internal circuits, excludes general building permit fees retro fee per job 1 1
1 permitting, per internal circuit over 4, excluding general buildling permit fees retro fee per circuit 20 20 60 60 20
architectural plans/drawings retro fee per hour 8 14 14 14 38 38 6 9 architectural plans/drawings new fee per hour 2 4 4 4 12 12 2 3 site and load study retro fee per $1000 1 3 3 3 5 5 1 2 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 70 to 225Amp new main Ea. 1 -1 -1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 70 to 225Amp retro main Ea. 1 Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 400 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 450 to 600 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 700 to 800 Amp new main Ea. 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 700 to 800 Amp retro main Ea. 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 125 to 400Amp new main Ea. 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 125 to 400Amp retro main Ea. 1 Circuit Breakers - 480V 3-pole, 15 - 60 Amp retro main Ea. 1 Distribution Switchboard Enclosure - 4 wire, 1000 Amp new main Ea. 1 1 Distribution Switchboard Enclosure - 4 wire, 1000 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Incoming Switchboards - 277/480V, 4 wire, 800 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Incoming Switchboards - 277/480V, 4 wire, 800 Amp (w/ Fused Switch & CT Compartment) new main Ea. 1 1

12 60-unit MUD 150-unit MUD Medium Office
Task Description Construction
Type
Work
Type Unit
CALGree
n
Market
Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen Market Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen 10% L240% L1
Quantity for Each Scenario
Incoming Switchboards - 277/480V, 4 wire, 800 Amp (w/ Fused Switch & CT Compartment) retro main Ea. 1 1
Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 2000 Amp new main Ea. 1 1 Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 2000 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 600 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 800 Amp new main Ea. 1 1
Switchboard - 3-pole, 4-wire, 800 Amp retro main Ea. 1 1 Panelboards, 1 phase 3 wire, main circuit breaker, 120/240 V, 225 amp, 30 circuits, NQOD, incl 20 A 1 pole bolt-on breakers new panel 1 1 -1 Panelboards, 1 phase 3 wire, main circuit breaker, 120/240 V, 225 amp, 30 circuits, NQOD, incl 20 A 1 pole bolt-on breakers retro panel 1 Panelboards, 1 phase 3 wire, main circuit breaker, 120/240 V, 400 amp, 30 circuits, NQOD, incl 20 A 1 pole bolt-on breakers new panel 1 1 -1 1 Panelboards, 1 phase 3 wire, main circuit breaker, 120/240 V, 400 amp, 30 circuits, NQOD, incl 20 A 1 pole bolt-on breakers retro panel 1 2 1 1 Reinforcing steel, in place, dowels, smooth, 12" long, 1/4" or 3/8" diameter, A615, grade 60 retro pave Ea. 90 90 72 72 48
Structural concrete, in place, slab on grade (3000 psi), 4" thick, includes concrete (Portland cement Type I), placing and textured finish, excludes forms and reinforcing retro pave S.F. 30 30 24 24
16 Structural concrete, in place, minimum labor/equipment charge retro pave Job 1 1 1 1 1 PVC conduit, schedule 40, 1-1/4" diameter, in concrete slab, includes terminations, fittings and supports new race L.F. 324 2147 2147 1080 5366 5366 LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (112.5 kVA) retro trans Ea. 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (75 kVA) Retro trans Ea. 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (150 kVA) Retro trans Ea. 1 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (225kVA) Retro trans Ea. 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (300 kVA) New trans Ea. 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (500 kVA) New trans Ea. 1

13 60-unit MUD 150-unit MUD Medium Office
Task Description Construction
Type
Work
Type Unit
CALGree
n
Market
Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen Market Rate
Affordabl
e Housing CalGreen 10% L240% L1
Quantity for Each Scenario
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (500 kVA) Retro trans Ea. 1
LV Transformer, Dry Type - 480V primary, 120/208V secondary (750 kVA) Retro trans Ea. 2 1

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 1 Appendix D: EV Capable Installation Configurations
This section includes figures to generally depict the configuration of each scenario that was analyzed. They are not intended to include all details of a particular installation nor are they intended to represent any particular specific installation.

Scenario(1)
60 Unit MUD
Code: CALGreen Mandatory (10%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 Level 2 EVSE
32 36 Electrical Room
41 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 54 Electrical Panel
59 63
68 72
77 81
86 90
95 99
104
108
113
117
122
126
131
135
140
144
400A

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 2 Scenario(2)
60 Unit MUD
Code: Market Rate Housing (25%/75%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 O Level 2 EVSE
32 36 Electrical Room
41 45 O O Main Conduit Outlet
50 54 Electrical Panel
59 63
68 72 O
77 81 O
86 90
95 99
104
108 O
113
117 O
122
126 O
131
135
140
144
400 A

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 3 Scenario(3)
60 Unit MUD
Code: Affordable Housing (10%/90%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 O O Level 2 EVSE
32 36 Electrical Room
41 45 O O Main Conduit Outlet
50 54 O Electrical Panel
59 63
68 72 O
77 81 O O
86 90
95 99
104
108 O
113
117 O
122
126 O
131
135
140
144
400A

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 1 Scenario(4) - page 1 of 2 Scenario(4) - page 2 of 2
150 Unit MUD 150 Unit MUD
Code: CALGreen Mandatory (10%) Code: CALGreen Mandatory (10%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 14
18 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 27 Level 2 EVSE
32 32
36 36 Electrical Room
41 41
45 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 50
54 54 Electrical Panel
59 59
63 63
68 68
72 72 Area 19440
77 77 38880
81 81
86 86
90 90
95 95
99 99
104 104
108 108
113 113
117 117
122 122
126 126 O
131 131
135 135
140 140
144 144
149 149
153 153
158 158
162 162
167 167
171 171
176 600A 176
180 180

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 2 Scenario(5) - page 1 of 2 Scenario(5) - page 2 of 2
150 Unit MUD 150 Unit MUD
Code: Market Rate Housing (25%/75%) Code: Market Rate Housing (25%/75%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 113 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 14
18 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 27 Level 2 EVSE
32 32
36 36 Electrical Room
41 41
45 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 50
54 54 Electrical Panel
59 59
63 63
68 68
72 72
77 77
81 81
86 86
90 90
95 95
99 99
104 104
108 108
113 113
117 117
122 122
126 O 126 O
131 131
135 135
140 140
144 144
149 149
153 153
158 158
162 162
167 167
171 171
176 600A 176 600A
180 180

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 3 Scenario(6) - page 1 of 2 Scenario(6) - page 2 of 2
150 Unit MUD 150 Unit MUD
Code: Affordable Housing (10%/90%) Code: Affordable Housing (10%/90%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 104 108 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 14
18 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 27 Level 2 EVSE
32 32
36 36 Electrical Room
41 41
45 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 50
54 54 Electrical Panel
59 59
63 63
68 68
72 72
77 77
81 81
86 86
90 90
95 95
99 99
104 104
108 108
113 113
117 117
122 122
126 O 126 O
131 131
135 135
140 140
144 144
149 149
153 153
158 158
162 162
167 167
171 171
176 600A 176 600A
180 180

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 1 Scenario(7)
60 Space Office
Code: CALGreen Mandatory (6%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 Level 2 EVSE
32 36 Electrical Room
41 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 54 Electrical Panel
59 63
68 72
77 81
86 90
95 99
104
108
113
117
122
126 O
131
135
140
144
400A

449 15th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510.482.4420 | energy-solution.com 2 Scenario(8)
60 Space Office
Code: Reach Code (10%/10%/30%)

4.5 9 14 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 86 90 95 99 4.5ft x 4.5 ft Non-Charging Space

4.5 Level 1 EV Capable
9 Level 1 EV Ready
14 18 Level 2 EV Capable
23 Level 2 EV Ready
27 Level 2 EVSE
32 36 Electrical Room
41 45 O Main Conduit Outlet
50 54 Electrical Panel
59 63
68 72
77 81 O
86 90
95 99
104
108
113
117
122 O
126 O
131
135
140
144
400 A

Item No. 8
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ANTHONY SUBER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2022
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND

RECREATION COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
Review applicant for one (1) vacant seat on the Park and Recreation Committee for a term expiring June 2026.

BACKGROUND
Staff has conducted a continuous recruitment for vacant seats on several Town Committees. The Park and Recreation Committee received a resignation in August for a term set to expire in June 2026, this vacant seat was added to the recruitment. We currently have vacant seats on the following committees:

1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (2 Vacancies)

2. Park and Recreation Committee (1 Vacancy)

3. Environmental Programs Committee (1 Vacancy)

4. Transportation Committee (1 Vacancy)
Park and Recreation Committee (1)
The Park and Recreation Committee has one (1) vacancy. The vacancy is the result of a member resignation and will be to fill a term expiring on June 30, 2026.

There was one (1) applicant for this opening.
· Robert Roeser
Appointment Process
The Park and Recreation Committee has only one applicant for the open seat. It is recommended that the Council consider the appointment to the Committee by making a motion for the

Park and Recreation Appointment
October 19, 2022

candidate and the City Clerk will conduct a roll call vote. If the candidate receives a majority vote the seat will be filled. If the candidate does not receive a majority vote the Council can direct staff to continue the recruitment for the vacant seat.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area E – Strengthen Community Engagement and Transparency

POLICY FOCUS
The Council is not obligated to appoint any of the candidates to any of the positions and may choose to extend the candidate recruitment process as it deems necessary. The Council reserves complete discretion in appointments.

Town Commissions and Committees represent a key component of civic engagement within the community. The participation of the members is a vital part of the Town’s public engagement and review process. These groups have the ability to gather public input on an issue and provide feedback and recommendations to the City Council for consideration.

When evaluating applicants for Commissions and Committees, the City Council should consider the role of each committee, the amount of oversight needed, cost effectiveness, efficiency in decision-making, and the desire of the City Council for direct policy involvement on particular issues.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

ATTACHMENTS

Park and Recreation Appointment
October 19, 2022

1. Park and Recreation Applicant

2. Commission and Committee Roster

3. Committee and Commission Governing Resolution

From: [email protected]
To: Anthony Suber; Francesca Reyes
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Application for Town Committee/Commission Date: Sunday, September 25, 2022 1:09:51 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Application for Town Committee/Commission
Name Robert Roeser
Address , Atherton, CA 94027
Phone Number
Commission/Committee
of Interest
Park and Recreation 2012-2016, Water Capture Project Team 2018, Sub-committee of P&R for review and selection of tennis management company.

Education BS in Chemical Engineering, MBA in Management and Finance List your civic
affiliations and
community activities,
including service on
other commissions and
committees?
Served on Park & Rec committee 2012-2018, Participated in Water Capture Project, Member of Sub-committee for selection of tennis mgt company.

Describe your
understanding of the
responsibilities of the
commission or
committee that you are
applying for and how
your personal,
community or
professional experience
relate to these
responsibilities?
Review and update HP Park Master Plan, Make
recommendations to Town Council for changes and
improvements.

Experience-project review and analysis, development of
strategic and action plans in management positions.

Describe why you want
to serve on this
commission and what
you hope to accomplish
as a member?
Help to ensure that our amazing park continues to get the care it needs and work for improvements.

Additional Information
you would like to add?
I am willing and ready to put in the time and effort with the HPP committee to meet our goals.

Audit and Finance Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
Walter Sleeth 6/2020 6/2023
Thomas Hill 1/2022 6/2026
Devika Patil 6/2021 6/2025
Kate Scolnick 6/2020 6/2024
Ann Yvonne Walker 6/2021 6/2025
Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
VACANT 6/30/2023
Steve Baloff 6/2021 6/30/2025
VACANT 6/30/2026
Jerome Leugers 6/2019 6/30/2023
David Jones 6/2020 6/30/2024
Environmental Programs Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
Stacy Holland 6/2021 6/30/2025
Kenneth Frederick 6/2022 6/30/2026
Gregory Loew 6/2021 6/30/2023
VACANT 6/30/2023
Amy Farrell 6/2022 6/30/2024
Park and Recreation Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
VACANT 6/30/2026
Patricia Kubal 6/30/2026
Alex Keh 6/2019 6/30/2023
Julianna Robertson 6/2019 6/30/2023
Noah Eisner 6/2022 6/30/2024
Frank Merrill 6/2022 6/30/2024
Walter Robinson 6/2021 6/30/2023
Planning Commission
Name Appointment Expiration
Randy Lamb 6/2019 6/30/2023
Eric Lane 6/2022 6/30/2026
Nancy Lerner 6/2020 6/30/2024
Perry Narancic 6/2019 6/30/2023
Gabia Konce 6/2021 6/30/2025
Rail Committee - Up To 7 Members
Name Appointment Expiration
Greg Conlon 6/2021 6/30/2025
John Maulbetsch 6/2019 6/30/2026
Jim Janz 6/2020 6/30/2024
Paul Jones 6/2019 6/30/2023
Alex Keh 6/2019 6/30/2023
Jack Ringham 6/2020 6/30/2024
Jim Massey 6/2021 6/30/2025
Transportation Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
Joseph Davis 6/2021 6/30/2025
VACANT 6/30/2026
Tom Owen 6/2020 6/30/2024
Sriram Lyer 6/2020 6/30/2024
Christine David 4/2021 6/30/2023
Commissions & Committees Roster 2022-23

FOUNDATION APPOINTMENT

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 1 of 12 January 19, 2022
RESOLUTION 22-01
AMENDS RESOLUTION 21-14
A Resolution of the City Council of the Town of Atherton Establishing and Governing Town Committees
Amended May 16, 2018
Amended May 15, 2019
Amended October 26, 2020
Amended September 15, 2021
Amended January 19, 2022
The City Council of the Town of Atherton hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of Committees
The following committees are established for the Town of Atherton:

1. Audit/Finance Committee

2. Environmental Programs Committee

3. Park and Recreation Committee

4. Rail Committee

5. Transportation Committee

6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Section 2. Committee Principles and Rules of Procedure
Principles: All committees shall follow the City Council Rules of Procedure, the Atherton Municipal Code, the Political Reform Act, and the provisions of the California Open Public Meeting Law (Brown Act). These resources may be found on the Town’s website and/or via the City Clerk’s Office. All members shall attend an education and training session hosted by the City Attorney and City Clerk upon appointment.

The responsibility and accountability for all work necessary to efficiently and cost effectively carry out the advisory functions of each committee shall rest exclusively with the Chairman or Council Member assigned to the committee.

A Town Department is assigned to each Committee. Each Department Manager is responsible for providing the necessary staff (in the most cost-effective manner) to prepare for and attend committee meetings. This includes but is not limited to meeting with the Committee Chair and City Council Liaison in advance of each meeting to create an agenda; prepare the agenda packet; take and prepare minutes; and conduct follow up from meetings.

Committee Agenda Preparation: In general practice, the staff liaison to each committee shall meet with the Committee Chair and the City Council Liaison in advance of each upcoming meeting to review the meeting agenda. Regular agenda items, such as approval of meeting minutes, followPage 235 of 256 Resolution No. 22-01 Page 2 of 12 January 19, 2022
up staff reports, and general information reports shall be added to the agenda as needed. Other items shall be added through one of the methods described below.

One of the following methods may be used for placing an item on a Committee agenda:

1. Council: A majority vote of the Council may direct staff to add an item to a Committee agenda.

2. City Manager: The City Manager may receive requests for agenda items from the public, staff, a committee member or a Council Member. The City Manager will review the request with the Committee Chair and City Council liaison. The City Manager shall have sole discretion to refer the request to the City Council at the next available meeting, or schedule the item for the Committee agenda.

3. Staff and Committees: There may be a need for routine agenda items which may arise out of committee meeting discussions; are requested and agreed on by a majority of the Committee as part of Future Agenda Items; or items created from staff follow up of previous Committee and/or staff meetings. These items may be added to a future agenda following an agenda preparation meeting between the Committee Chair, Council Member liaison and staff liaison.

4. Colleagues’ Memorandum: If at least two committee members prepare a colleagues' memo, the staff liaison shall place the item on the Committee’s agenda under a Future Agenda Items Section. A colleague's memo is a written request, no more than two pages in length, presenting an item to be added to a future agenda. Upon review of the colleagues’ memo, the Committee shall not discuss the merits of the item itself; but shall solely discuss whether to add the item to a future agenda for discussion. Upon majority vote of the Committee, the item shall be added to the next agenda or a specific designated Agenda.

Committee Procedures for placing items on Council agenda:

1. Committee Action: Any formal recommendation to Council taken by a Committee shall be placed on a City Council agenda within the next two regular meetings.

The City Clerk has overall responsibility for posting committee agendas.

Advocate: Collectively, committees are encouraged to advocate positions to the City Council on matters under the purview of their committee. Otherwise, no committee or any of its members shall represent itself or themselves as speaking on behalf of the Town, City Council, and/or committee without prior approval of the City Council. Individual members are not authorized to make public statements or comments on matters within the purview of their committee outside of the normal committee process. It could be perceived as using the member’s position to indicate some special knowledge or understanding of the matter, or to confuse members of the public with respect to whether the comments are being made to improperly influence an agency decision.

Committee members should refrain from using their title when addressing other boards, commissions, committees, or the City Council to avoid creating an appearance of special status to the public. Statements of previously approved City Council policy may be made without additional City Council approval. When there is a question, a committee member shall consult the City Attorney for advice. Members of committees may attend meetings of other committees and

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 3 of 12 January 19, 2022
the City Council; however, members shall not present opinions of their own committee at such meeting unless the position is previously approved by their committee. A quorum of a committee may attend such a meeting, but they may not discuss among themselves Town business, nor comment or discuss the matter under consideration unless authorized to do so by the committee to avoid a possible Brown Act violation.

Educational Materials: Committees may provide approved educational materials to the public regarding the functions and actions of the committee, but shall not engage in advocating to the public any particular position which is contrary to City Council policy. Any educational materials sent to the public shall be approved by the City Manager, and shall follow the Town’s procurement process. It shall be the City Manager’s discretion on whether or not the educational materials need Council approval beforehand.

Meetings: The Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule on an annual basis in July.

The Department assigned to the committee shall update the website to reflect the meeting schedule.

Changes in the dates or time of meetings from the established schedule may be made by majority vote of the committee.

Minutes: Staff shall prepare action minutes for all committees. Action minutes shall be presented to the City Clerk within 7 days following the meeting or as soon as feasible if there is a reason not to produce them within that timeframe. Finalized minutes should be sent electronically to the City Clerk for posting, after the Committee has approved them. The City Clerk will share appropriate information received from the minutes with the City Manager and City Council.

Reports: If desired by the City Council, an annual report shall be created and approved by the Committee and provided to the City Manager, City Clerk and City Council of committee activities for the preceding year.

Special Meetings: The Chair or a majority of the Committee may call a special meeting at any time in accordance with the Brown Act.

Website: Any website created for a Committee by the Town shall be incorporated into the Town’s website. If created, websites shall be developed in accordance with the “advocate” section of this resolution.

Section 3: Appointment of Voting Members to Committees
Appointment: Members other than City Council Members shall be appointed following recruitment process set forth by the City Clerk and approved by the City Council. With the exception of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee as described, all appointed members shall be registered voters in the Town. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, or until the expiration of their terms set out below. The terms of the Members were staggered pursuant to Resolution No. 19-07 with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term. Vacancies in any committee arising from any reason, including expiration of term, shall be filled by temporary appointment of the City Council, or by annual recruitment. The Committee Chairperson or staff assigned shall notify the City Clerk of resignations and vacancies.

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 4 of 12 January 19, 2022
Each Committee which cannot fill at least 50% of its seats shall be postponed until the Town can recruit at least a quorum (50%+1). During that time, the City Council shall continually recruit qualified individuals and town staff shall continue to advertise periodically.

Term expiration dates shall end on June 30. Appointed committee members shall serve no more than two full consecutive terms on the committee to which they are appointed. A member may be reappointed to the committee following a minimum two (2) year hiatus. However, if a seat is vacant and no one applies, City Council may grant an exemption.

City Council representatives and any alternates on committees are selected by the Mayor and approved by the City Council to serve a one (1) year term. Appointed City Council Members and City Council Member Alternates shall serve as liaisons to Committees; but shall not serve as voting members to Committees. Alternates participate on committees in the absence of the appointed Council Members. For each Committee, unless otherwise directed by the City Council, one City Council member shall be appointed as a primary liaison and one as an alternate. Members shall coordinate attendance to ensure appropriate representation.

Members who intend to be absent from a meeting shall alert the chairperson and/or staff person assigned. The Chairperson shall state during the meeting, under roll call whether the member is excused (notification was given) or absent (no notification was given). Unexcused absences of members, other than City Council Members, from two or more consecutively scheduled meetings shall result in the automatic vacation of the member’s office. The staff person assigned to the Committee shall work with the Chairperson to alert the City Clerk of consecutive absences. The City Clerk shall alert the City Manager who shall decide how to inform City Council. City Council has the authority to override this rule based on the information received.

Chairperson and Staff: Each committee shall have a Chairperson. The Committee shall select its Chair on an annual basis in July. Council Members shall not serve as Chair or Vice Chair of Committees. The Department assigned to the committee shall have the authority to appoint staff member(s) to serve Town committees. Any requests by a committee for staff work, information, or assistance from Town staff shall be made to the City Manager.

Section 4: Funding for Committees
Committees do not have authorization to expend Town resources. In the event funding for a committee activity is desired, a budget shall be prepared and presented to the City Council for review and approval as part of the Town’s regular budget process. The committee shall follow the guidelines set forth by the purchasing policy approved by City Council through Ordinance 595 and any expenditure policies developed and approved by the City Council. No Committee member shall use his or her own personal credit card. For items under $150 a committee member may request a cash advance and then come back to the Town with itemized receipts. For items over $150, a committee member shall complete a check request from the Town or have the Town purchase the goods/services.

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 5 of 12 January 19, 2022
Section 5: Committee Composition, Powers and Duties

1. Audit/Finance Committee
The Audit/Finance Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on issues related to the Town’s audit and finances. The Committee typically meets every other month. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Audit/Finance Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Make recommendations to the City Council in all matters pertaining to Town finances; b. Discuss and consult with the City Manager on any matter pertaining to the budget, capital spending plan and the long-range financial plan for the Town; c. Upon request, make recommendations to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the Town’s annual audit;
d. Assist staff, as needed, in the provision of oversight to the annual audit process; and, assist in the presentation of the annual audit to the City Council with recommendations as to acceptance;
e. Upon request, advise the City Council regarding appointment of outside auditors to complete the annual audit;
f. Assist staff as needed in the review of the proposed audit scope prior to commencement of annual audit.

The Committee consists of two (2) City Council liaisons, typically the Mayor and Vice Mayor, and five (5) appointed resident members Resident appointed members shall serve a term of four (4) years. The Committee meets in the Council Chambers or the Town Administrative Conference Room.

The Finance Department is assigned overall responsibility of the Audit/Finance Committee.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

2. Environmental Programs Committee
The Environmental Programs Committee provides the City Council with recommendations, outreach programs, and education on environmental issues facing the Town’s natural and built environment. The Environmental Programs Committee typically meets every other month. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Environmental Programs Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Upon request, make recommendations (programmatic and legislative) to the City Council on all matters pertaining to the Town’s natural and built environment and the Town’s regional role and responsibilities as one of the communities on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula.

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 6 of 12 January 19, 2022
b. Pursuant to established City Council programs and policy, assist staff in the creation of pro-active community engagement programs for residents, commercial and public enterprises active within the Town’s jurisdiction.

The Environmental Programs Committee consists of five (5) appointed resident members and one (1) City Council Member liaison. Resident appointed members shall serve a term of four (4) years. The Committee meets in the Council Chambers or the Town Administrative Conference Room.

The City Manager's Department is assigned overall responsibility of the Environmental Programs Committee.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

3. Park and Recreation Committee
The Park and Recreation Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on issues related to Holbrook Palmer Park and any active or passive recreational space within the Town. The Committee typically meets monthly. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Park and Recreation Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Upon request, make recommendations to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the Town’s active and passive parks and public recreation services; b. Work with staff, as needed, to assist other governmental agencies and public and private groups in the advancement of park and recreation planning and programming; c. Work with staff to develop and maintain a Master Plan for active and passive recreational spaces within the Town; and, annually, in the month of April, present a report to the City Council;
d. Work with staff to review the annual budget for the Town’s park and recreation programs and services during the budget process and make recommendations with respect thereto to the City Council.
e. Assist staff with a review of fees and services within the Park and make recommendations with respect thereto to the City Council. f. Upon request, study and make recommendations on the acquisition and development of recreation areas, activities and facilities such as playgrounds, buildings, parks, open space and other centers of recreation;
g. Assist staff in the planning of recreation programs for the community.

The Park and Recreation Committee consists of seven (7) appointed resident members and one (1) City Council Member liaison. Of the appointed members, two members shall be representatives of the Holbrook-Palmer Park Foundation. Each of the foregoing representatives shall serve a term of two (2) years. When a vacancy arises, the City Clerk will contact each organization to request a new representative. If the organization submits more than two candidates, the City Council shall select the candidate to serve as the representative.

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 7 of 12 January 19, 2022
Remaining resident appointed members serve a term of four (4) years. The Park and Recreation Committee meets in Holbrook-Palmer Park.

The Public Works Department is assigned overall responsibility of the Park and Recreation Committee.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

4. Rail Committee
The Atherton Rail Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on issues related to the Town’s Rail Corridor, High Speed Rail, and Caltrain consistent with the City Council’s adopted Rail Related Policy Issues, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Committee typically meets every other month. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Rail Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Advise the City Council on all matters pertaining to High Speed Rail (HSR), the Rail Corridor and Caltrain, consistent with the City Council adopted Rail Related Policy Issues.
b. Assist staff in the research of specific impacts that HSR and other rail infrastructure and services may have on the Rail Corridor and the Town. c. Rail Committee members are authorized to act as spokespersons to articulate and advocate the Town’s Rail Related Policy Issues as they pertain to Rail Committee matters to legislatures, HSR and Caltrain board of directors, regional organizations, press and other interested parties.

The Rail Committee consists of seven (7) appointed resident members and one (1) City Council Member liaison. Resident appointed members shall serve a term of four (4) years.

The Committee meets in the Council Chambers or the Town Administrative Conference Room.

The Public Works Department is assigned overall responsibility of the Rail Committee.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

5. Transportation Committee
The Transportation Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on issues related to transportation, traffic, and roadway safety. The Committee typically meets every other month. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Transportation Committee shall have the following powers and duties:

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 8 of 12 January 19, 2022
a. Upon request, make recommendations to the City Council in all matters pertaining to transportation, traffic, and roadway safety within the Town. b. As needed, assist staff in the identification and review of traffic and roadway safety enhancements.
c. As needed, assist staff in the review of regional project impacts on local traffic and transportation corridors.
d. As needed, assist staff in the review of traffic safety enforcement measures. e. As needed, assist staff in the review of Neighborhood Traffic Management Program requests.

The Transportation Committee consists of five (5) appointed resident members and one (1) City Council Members liaison. Resident appointed members shall serve a term of four (4) years. The Chair of the Transportation Committee also serves as a non-voting liaison to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The Chair shallselect another member as his or her alternate. The Committee meets in the Council Chambers or the Town Administrative Conference Room.

The Police Department shall have overall responsibility of the Transportation Committee.

The Chief of Police will coordinate with the Public Works Department when Public Works staff are needed for the meeting.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on issues related to the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and bicycle and pedestrian network. The Committee typically meets as needed. Acting in an advisory capacity, the BPAC shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Work with staff in providing recommendations on issues related to the Town’s bicycle and pedestrian network and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. b. Make recommendations to the City Council on the selection of bicycle and pedestrian projects to be submitted for state and federal funding opportunities. c. Work with staff to promote bicycling and walking as safe and healthy alternative modes of transportation.
d. Assist Town staff in the planning, operations and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Town.

The BPAC consists of at least five (5) appointed members plus two non-voting liaisons, one (1) Transportation Committee Member and one (1) City Council Member. At least three (3) appointed members of the Committee must meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Committee and live or work in the Town of Atherton. Other members of the BPAC must be residents of the Town. Members shall be composed of both

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 9 of 12 January 19, 2022
active bicyclists and pedestrians. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee shall be residents of the Town. BPAC appointed members shall serve terms of four (4) years.

The makeup of the Committee members is encouraged as follows:
• At least one member should represent schools.
• At least one member should represent an established bicycle and/or pedestrian related organization or coalition.
• At least one member should have knowledge and interest in Countywide pedestrian and bicycle facility planning and operations.

The Committee meets in the Council Chambers or the Town Administrative Conference Room.

The Public Works Department is assigned overall responsibility of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

Resolution 19-07 established staggered terms with subsequent terms of appointment reverting to the standard 4-year term.

Section 6: Advice
Appointed members of committees are encouraged to seek advice from Town staff when they are uncertain of the foregoing rules.

This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. All previous resolutions governing Town committees and commissions including Resolution No. 15-10 and Resolution No. 19-07 are hereby superseded and rescinded.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Atherton at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of September, 2021, by the following vote.

AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hawkins-Manuelian, DeGolia, Widmer, Lempres, Lewis NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________
Rick DeGolia, Mayor
Town of Atherton
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony Suber, City Clerk

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 10 of 12 January 19, 2022
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Mona Ebrahimi, City Attorney

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 11 of 12 January 19, 2022

EXHIBIT A

RAIL POLICY ISSUES

ADOPTED BY THE TOWN OF ATHERTON
A. HIGH-SPEED RAIL (HSR)
Legislative
In 2008, the Town voters decided against Prop 1A which authorized the HSR project. At that time, Town Resolutions, passed unanimously by the Council, opposed the HSR project, including the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Business Plan and use of the rail corridor by HSR.

The Town remains opposed to the HSR project and supports legislative initiatives to prevent the implementation of the HSR project, in its current form, through the Town. If the HSR project moves forward, the Town fully expects that the project will minimize and fully mitigate environmental impacts to the Town.

Litigation
The Town may take the position to use legal means, as deemed appropriate by the City Council, to delay, hinder or halt the implementation of Prop 1A which Atherton residents and the City Council voted to oppose.

Lobbying
The Town has engaged a lobbyist, in conjunction with other communities, to represent the Town’s interests on HSR matters.

The Council encourages members of the Town’s Rail Committee to advocate on behalf of the Town with respect to HSR in manners consistent with the above HSR Rail Policy.

B. RAIL CORRIDOR AND CALTRAIN
The Town was one of the earliest train stops on the rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose.

Families, and later commuters, used the Atherton station for rail service to and from ‘the City’ for over 100 years. Lloyden Park was developed for residents desiring easy access to public transportation provided by the train.

In years past, Caltrain provided the Atherton Station with weekday and weekend rail service until it declared its first “fiscal emergency” citing the need to reduce costs, including station stops. As a result, the number of weekday rail stops at the Atherton Station were reduced to zero while weekend service is still provided.

Atherton is the only city on the Caltrain line that receives no weekday train service. Atherton residents have been using nearby stations in Redwood City and Menlo Park for weekday commute services and for express service on the weekends. Atherton understands that Caltrain is an integral part of the transportation system in the peninsula and still serves as an important alterative to automotive travel in and through the Town.

Further Caltrain’s fiscal health is important to maintain rail as a viable transit option.

The Atherton Station building serves as an important historical and cultural resource to the Town and should be preserved.

Resolution No. 22-01 Page 12 of 12 January 19, 2022
Town Priorities Regarding Caltrain Line and Corridor
The Town recognizes that successful implementation of the Town’s rail corridor priorities with Caltrain require a partnership with Caltrain. To that end, the Town will endeavor to work with Caltrain to address the following priorities for the Atherton Station and Rail Corridor:
• Modernization of the rail system must minimize and fully mitigate any environmental impact to the Town.
• Safety improvements along the rail corridor through the Town, including safety fencing and screening along the corridor, and the installation of four-quadrant gates at the Watkins Avenue rail crossing.
• Conversion of the Atherton Station building to a public amenity and civic space integrated with the Atherton Town Center, including the installation of safety fencing, removal of the center boarding platform and associated access points.
• Installation of an active transportation route to the Menlo Park Caltrain Station. • The Town seeks to perfect the Quiet Zone within the Town through the addition of four quadrant gates at the Watkins Avenue crossing, closure of the Atherton Station and repurposing of the Atherton Station building. These measures require the support and partnership of Caltrain.

Item No. 9
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
THROUGH: ROBERT OVADIA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: SALLY BENTZ-DALTON, TOWN ARBORIST/PARKS MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2022
SUBJECT: PLAYER CAPITAL TENNIS RENT CREDIT FOR TENNIS COURT

CLOSURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OVERLAY OF THE

TENNIS COURTS AT HOLBROOK-PALMER PARK

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council consider a rent credit for Player Capital Tennis in the amount of $3,166.66.

BACKGROUND
The Town has been resurfacing each of the five (5) non-clay tennis courts on a cyclical basis approximately every 3 - 5 years. Tennis court resurfacing has typically included some crack filling and taping, followed by a new surface coating and striping. As the underlying courts were in such poor shape that this type of resurfacing has not lasted long, staff investigated various overlay and court treatments to improve and extend the life of the tennis courts. After review and consultation with others, staff recommended that the courts be resurfaced with approximately 1-1/2 inches of asphalt. Cracks greater than ½ inch were to be filled and an asphalt fabric will be applied to the entirety of each court prior to the overlay. The colored court surface and striping would then be applied.

Michael Jessup of Player Capital Tennis was consulted and agreed that this type of overlay would be best and provide the needed longevity to the courts. Consistent with these recommendations, the Council approved the overlay of the five (5) non-clay tennis courts under two separate contracts to maintain some court usage during the construction activities. The Town currently charges Player Capital Tennis rent in the amount of $3,333.33 a month for a total of $40,000 per year.

Player Capital Tennis has made all monthly payments through September.

ANALYSIS

Credit for Court Loss of Use – Player Capital
OCTOBER 19, 2022

In May 2022 the work started for the first contract to overlay the 3 rear tennis courts (4, 5 and 6).

The three courts were closed for usage for approximately 6 weeks. Following completion of this work, the Town awarded a construction contract for the overlay of the remaining 2 courts (1 and 2). The overlay of the two courts resulted in a closure of the two courts for a little over a month.

The court closures associated with the asphalt overlay resulted in the tennis courts being closed for a longer duration than the previous resurfacing efforts, which typically took about two weeks.

On October 3, 2022, Michael Jessup requested a credit in the amount of $3,166.66 for the tennis court closures in 2022 as follows:
• May 2, 2022 through June 12, 2022 – two courts, in the amount of $2,333.33. • September 1, 2022 through October 4, 2022 – one court in the amount of $833.33 Michael Jessup stated in his request that he has had to rent courts in Menlo Park to compensate for the loss of the courts. The contract with Player Capital does not contemplate the authorization for a credit in the event of loss of use. As such, the authorization must come from the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
Player Capital Tennis pays the Town $3,333.333 monthly ($40,000 annually) for Tennis Facility Management Services, including use of the tennis courts and to be the exclusive tennis instructor at Holbrook-Palmer Park. fees a yearly fee of $40,000. If approved the Town would credit Player Capital Tennis $3,166.66 towards rent, reducing the planned income to the Tennis Fund by the credited amount.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area A – Maintain Fiscal Responsibility
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life

POLICY FOCUS
The policy focus should be on a potential credit associated with a longer than typical court closure associated with the overlay of the tennis courts. Though the agreement with Player Capital Tennis places the responsibility to keep the courts secure and in playable condition, including management of the resurfacing or the courts, it does discuss rent reductions or credits associated with court closures to accomplish such work.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately

Credit for Court Loss of Use – Player Capital
OCTOBER 19, 2022

1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

ATTACHMENTS

1. Player Capital Tennis Rent Credit Request Letter

Player Capital Tennis
Michael Jessup
PO BOX 7847
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Dear Town of Atherton Council,
Thank you for upgrading the tennis facility courts so both Player Capital Tennis and the Town of Atherton residents can enjoy the game more fully. During the construction we have had to go rent courts in Menlo Park and have not had the four courts to use at Holbrook Palmer park.

Therefore, I am requesting a rent credit as follows.

May 2nd - June 12th: (Lost 2 courts 50%)
Rental Credit Request: $2,333.33 (50% of $4,666.66 (6 weeks)) Sept. 1st - Oct. 4th (Lost 1 court 25%)
Rental Credit Request: $833.33 (25% of $3333.33)
Total Rental Credit Request: $3,166.66
Sincerely,
Michael Jessup

Item No. 10
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EL CAMINO REAL

COMPLETE STREETS GAP CLOSURE PROJECT AND

SUBMITTING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO

COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT

PLANNING FUNDS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution of local support for the El Camino Real Gap Complete Streets Closure Project grant application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for project planning funds.

BACKGROUND
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) released its 2022 Cycle 6 Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Call for Projects on August 4, 2022, with applications due September 23,2022.

The TA has allocated $16.74 million towards capital improvement projects, with approximately $11.2 million towards large projects (total project costs > $1 million). The goal of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation in lieu of driving.

The scoring rubric outlined in the grant application materials are generally as follows:

Project Readiness: 15
Funding Leverage: 10
Project Need: 19
Effectiveness: 42
Sustainability: 14
Total 100
The application materials further state that evaluators may take other factors into consideration

Resolution Supporting the ECR Gap Complete Streets Project OCTOBER 19, 2022

when scoring applications, such as the overall application quality, project context, and project readiness.

The TA is also offering technical assistance through the use of its on-call consultants and project management support teams to assist in the development and implementation of projects funded through the program. Funds for these services would be part of any TA grant award to a local jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS
In reviewing the grant funding criteria, and the identified needs within the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the evaluation and improvement of El Camino Real is an ideal fit for the TA’s Bike and Ped Program. The Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan includes the study and improvement of El Camino Real through the Town, (“Grand Boulevard Greenway”) from Redwood City to Menlo Park, as a priority project due to its lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, prevailing speeds and associated safety concerns.

This 1.5-mile portion of El Camino Real, from north of Selby Lane to Valparaiso Avenue, connects Redwood City, the North Fair Oaks community of San Mateo County, the Town of Atherton, and the City of Menlo Park. With its lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, the need for improvement has been outlined in various state and regional plans in addition to the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, including: the San Mateo County City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Caltrans District 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Reimagine SamTrans initiative, and the Grand Boulevard Initiative. El Camino Real is a State highway, a route of significance to the County and the region, and serves the highest ridership bus route in the County.

As the roadway segment is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, this multi-jurisdictional infrastructure project will be of significant cost and is not a project that the Town can address or fund on its own.

The TA Pedestrian & Bicycle Grant is an opportunity to fund the initial planning efforts including the Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/ PDS) and initial environmental review associated with the repurposing of the outside travel lanes or on-street parking on El Camino Real in each direction between Selby Lane and Valparaiso Avenue for pedestrian walkways/sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities, transit access improvements, drainage and stormwater treatment improvements, and lighting and signage amenities. The project would also include a HAWK safety beacon crossing at Selby Lane to help connect the North Fair Oaks neighborhoods to Adelante-Selby Immersion School in the event that these improvements do not receive funding through OBAG 3 grant program (currently under consideration and recommended by C/CAG).

This project would provide active transportation alternatives to equity focus areas in Redwood City and Unincorporated San Mateo County and would complement parallel active transportation investments being made in three adjacent jurisdictions, including Caltrans’ bike/ped safety improvements in Redwood City on El Camino from Brewster to Selby Lane, the County’s efforts to improve mobility in the North Fair Oaks neighborhood, and Menlo Park’s Complete Streets program. This phase of project development would set the stage for future engineering

Resolution Supporting the ECR Gap Complete Streets Project OCTOBER 19, 2022

development of the project’s design plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E).

As noted above, due to El Camino Real being a State highway, Caltrans support in the development and review of the planning documents for the project is required. The estimated cost of the planning and environmental effort, including Caltrans support costs is $1.6M. The grant request is $1.425M with a local match of $175,000, which is 10.9 percent of total project costs. Additionally, due to the complex nature of the project and multi-jurisdictional coordination needed, technical assistance has been requested from the TA to support the development of the project. TA staff costs associated with the project would be augmented to the project funding by the TA.

FISCAL IMPACT
If the requested $1,425,000 in grant funds are awarded, local matching funds in the amount $175,000 will be required to support the planning phase. Staff will continue to seek grant funds to support further development of the project as opportunities become available.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area A – Maintain Fiscal Responsibility
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area D – Manage Circulation and Improve Safety
• Goal Area F – Be Forward-Thinking, Well-Managed, and Well-Planned

POLICY FOCUS
The Council policy focus should be on implementing the Town’s Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan utilizing available grant opportunities. Implementing the Bike Pedestrian Master Plan is a key program in the Town’s 2016 Climate Action Plan, accounting for 233 metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions, the fourth most effective means of achieving its sustainability objectives.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

Resolution Supporting the ECR Gap Complete Streets Project OCTOBER 19, 2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution supporting the El Camino Real Complete Streets Gap Closure project and submitting a grant application to the San Mateo Couty Transportation Authority

RESOLUTION 22- __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ATHERTON

SUPPORTING THE EL CAMINO REAL COMPLETE STREETS GAP CLOSURE

PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

PROGRAM FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Town of Atherton (Sponsor) has identified the need to provide active transportation infrastructure improvements along El Camino Real through the Town of Atherton to provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between the City of Redwood City, the North Fair Oaks community of San Mateo County, the Town of Atherton, and the City of Menlo Park; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor intends to develop the El Camino Real Complete Streets Gap Closure Project (Project) to install bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along a 1.5-mile segment of El Camino Real, between Selby Lane and Valparaiso Avenue, by repurposing the third travel lane or on-street parking for new bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and WHEREAS, it will cost $1,600,000 to fund the Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) and initial environmental review; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $1,425,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $1,425,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:

1. Supporting the Project and application for $1,425,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;

2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $175,000 needed for implementation;

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA [and/or other parties, if applicable] for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Atherton:

1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $1,425,000 the El Camino Real Complete Streets Gap Closure Project;

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority [and/or other parties, if applicable] to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds;

3. Commits to the completing the PSR/PDS, including contributing $175,000 of matching funds needed for the study, if the requested TA funds are awarded;

4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the Town of Atherton at the regular meeting held on the 19th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:
______________________
Rick DeGolia, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
Anthony Suber, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Mona G. Ebrahimi, City Attorney