Agenda Item A.12
CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
SUBMITTED BY: Peter Imhof, Director of Planning & Environmental Review PREPARED BY: Dana Murray, Sustainability Manager
Angeline Foshay, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Administrative Correction for Energy Performance Reach Code Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve correction of Ordinance No. 25-02, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending Title 15, Chapter 15.15 Entitled “Energy Code” of the Goleta Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto and Determine the Ordinanc e to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.”
BACKGROUND:
This item is to correct a clerical error in the Energy Performance Reach Code Ordinance 25-02 adopted by Council on February 18, 2005. Specifically, it will add a table inadvertently omitted from the ordinance listing energy performance requirements for non-residential building types. This table was provided in the materials presented to the City Council regarding this ordinance at the February 18, 2025, public hearing, including the staff report and attachments 2 and 6 of that item.
Since 2022, staff have been developing solutions to improve building performance, encourage electrification, and reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions in the building sector in Goleta. Reach Codes are a primary lever that cities can use to impro ve the efficiency and design of new construction . After a year of collaboration with the County of Santa Barbara and technical code experts , staff developed and presented an Energy Performance Reach Code to City Council. On February 4, 2025, the Goleta City Council introduced and voted unanimously to approve the Ordinance at First Reading and conducted the Second Reading and public hearing on February 18, 2025. In order for the ordinance to go into effect and be cleared for implementation , the City need s approval from the California Energy Commission (CEC).
1 Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
DISCUSSION:
Staff submitted the Ordinance 25 -02 for CEC review in early March and w as notified in April of a minor error in the Ordinance in the form of an omitted table breaking down the energy performance requirements of different non -residential building types. In order to implement the Energy Performance Reach Code, staff is requesting that Council approve an administrative correction to formally incorporate the table below, which delineates the building performance requirements for different non -residential building types. The correction is to include Table 140.1 rather than the current language of “at least 7 percent for all nonresidential occupancies.” The original staff report materials from February 2025 repeatedly reference the percentages in Table 140.1 and the intent of the Council to adopt the table was clear (see Ord. 25-02 Staff Report, p. 5 “2-14%”, p. 6 referencing Table 1; PowerPoint presentation to Council; table in Memo, p. 1, p. 5 reference to percentages).
Table 140.1 – A SOURCE ENERGY COMPLIANCE MARGINS
Occupancy Type Source Energy Use Compliance Margin
Hotel 7%
Small Restaurant 2%
Office 14%
All Other Building Types 7%
Following Council approval of this administrative correction in compliance with Gov. Code Section 36934, staff will resubmit the ordinance and relevant documents to the CEC for approval.
GOLETA STRATEGIC PLAN:
City-Wide Strategy: 1. Support Environmental Vitality
Strategic Goal:
1.1.3. Encourage renewable energy generation and use through installation of solar panels, battery energy storage, electric vehicle charging stations and similar measures
1.1.4. Adopt a "Reach" Building Code
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may choose to 1) direct staff to return with further information; or 2) take no action.
LEGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
2 Meeting Date: June 3, 2025
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Corrected Ordinance No. 25-02, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending Title 15, Chapter 15.15 Entitled “Energy Code” of the Goleta Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto and Determine the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.”
2. Staff Packet for Energy Performance Reach Code Ordinan ce from February 18, 2025 Performance Reach Code Ordinance
3 ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO 25-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15. 15 ENTITLED
“ENERGY CODE” OF THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING AND ENERGY CODE
AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO AND DETERMINE THE
ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
4
ORDINANCE NO 25-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15. 15 ENTITLED
“ENERGY CODE” OF THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING AND ENERGY CODE
AND LOCAL A MENDMENTS THERETO AND DETERMINE THE
ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS California Health and Safety Code Section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopte d by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and WHEREAS the California Energy Code is a part of the California Building Standards , which implement minimum energy efficiency standards in building s through mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performance standards; and WHEREAS California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards based upon express finding that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Goleta finds that each of the amendment additions and deletions to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS Public Resources Code Section 25402.1 (h)2 and Section 10 -106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) establish a process which allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards, provided that such local standards are cost effective and the California Energy Commission finds that the standards will require building to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and WHEREAS, on or about September 20, 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which added Health and Safety Code Section 38566 to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030; and
5
WHEREAS the State of California updates and sets Building Codes and Standards on a triennial cycle for single-family, multifamily and nonresidential structures with the intended purpose to improve building efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS the City’s local amendments to the 2022 California Building Codes, including the California Green Building Code, increase requirements for single -family (e.g., townhomes), multifamily, and nonresidential structures beyond that of the State’s requirement because , base d on local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, they are necessary to reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases emissions; and
WHEREAS the content and details of this ordinance were the subject of a public stakeholder workshop conducted on January 14, 2025 , which included numerous stakeholders; and
WHEREAS staff has reviewed the cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program and associated study data and find them sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106; and
WHEREAS the City’s local amendments will result in designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2022 State Energy Code through the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program, has performed cost effectiveness analyses as required by the California Energy Commission for the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance which is hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, based upon these analyses, the City Council of the Goleta finds that the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance have at least one cost effective pathway and will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS the Goleta City Council adopted a determination at a public meeting on February 4, 2025 , that the locally adopted energy efficiency standards contained in Ordinance No. 25-02 are cost-effective; and
WHEREAS adoption of Reach Codes support s the Goleta City Council’s Strategic Plan and climate action goals, which aim to reduce communitywide GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS the Goleta City Council adopted the 2023 -24 and 2024 -25 Planning and Environmental Review Annual Work Programs, which included developing Reach Codes that further building electrification as a top priority; and
6
WHEREAS scientific evidence has established that GHG accumulation in the atmosphere as the result of human activity is the primary cause of the global climate crisis; and
WHEREAS, in California alone, the initial impacts of climate change have resulted in unprecedented disasters with consequential human, economic, and environmental costs; and
WHEREAS the climate change crisis is happeni ng now, impacting Goleta in unprecedented ways, and affecting the health and safety of the Goleta community; and
WHEREAS the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global emissions need to be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100% by 2050 to prevent global catastrophe; and
WHEREAS,in 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to require GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and in 2018 Governor Brown issued Executive Order B -55-18 establishing a statewide target of carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS achieving climate goals will require action at all levels, including individual, community, local and state government, businesses and utilities, in order to protect the health and welfare of the community, while meeting state and federal efforts; and
WHEREAS the City must accelerate our actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in Goleta, and more quickly move toward a low-carbon, sustainable, and resilient future; and
WHEREAS Goleta is already experiencing and is at risk of more frequently experiencing the devastating effects of extreme heat and weather events and flooding caused by climate change, including increased frequency and magnitude of wildfires and associated air pollution, health impacts, utility and transportation service interr uptions, economic disruption, property loss, dislocation, housing shortages, and increased demand on public sector resources and emergency response capacity; and
WHEREAS the City of Goleta is situated along a wildland-urban interface and as a result is extremely vulnerable to wildfires and firestorms according to the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) Wildfire Risk Index Map; and
WHEREAS Santa Barbara County is ranked in the 99.4 th national percentile and 84.5 th percentile in California for the natural hazard risk index; and
WHEREAS, because of the City’s unique local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions, the City desires to make amendments and additions to the code.
WHEREAS using electric heating and cooling infrastructure in new buildings fueled by less greenhouse gas intensive electricity is linked to significantly lower greenhouse gas 7
emissions and is cost competitive because of the cost savings associated with all-electric designs that avoid new gas infrastructure; and
WHEREAS the most cost -effective time to integrate electrical infrastructure is in the design phase of a building project because building systems and spaces can be designed to optimize the performance of electrical systems, and the project can take full advantage of avoided costs and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas piping and venting for combustion air safety; and
WHEREAS it is the intent of the City Council to reduce natural gas emissions in new buildings where all electric infrastructure can be most practicably integrated, thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas;
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.
SECTION 2. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, the City of Goleta City Council declares that the following amendments to the Goleta Green Building Code are reasonably necessary due to local climactic, geological, or topographical conditions listed below and as set forth in the Recitals incorporated herein.
Goleta is already experiencing and is at risk of more frequently experiencing the devastating effects of extreme heat and weather events and flooding caused by climate change, including increased frequency and magnitude of wildfires and associated air pollution, health impacts, utility and transportation service interruptions, economic disruption, property loss, dislocation, housing shortages, and increased demand on public sector resources and emergency response capacity.
The City of Goleta is situated along a wildland-urban interface and as a result is extremely vulnerable to wildfires and firestorms according to the Federal Emergency Man agement Authority (FEMA) Wildfire Risk Index Map. Santa Barbara County is ranked in the 99.4 th national percentile and 84.5th percentile in California for the natural hazard risk index.
According to the 100-year and 500-year flood maps provided by FEMA, the City of Goleta has a significant risk of flooding during extreme weather events and flood events can majorly disrupt access to utilities, emergency services, and transportation. Extreme 8
weather events are expected to increase as the climate warms due to the greenhouse gas effect.
The amendment is in the interests of public health and safety and general community welfare, as City residents suffer from asthma and other health conditions associated with poor air quality exacerbated by burning fossil fuels. Census tract 6083003001, located in Old Town Goleta, is in the 85th percentile for pollution burden in the state, designating this tract as a state recognized Disadvantage Community per SB 535 and indicated in CalEnviroScreen 4.0.
The local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code implemented by this ordinance will reduce GHG emissions within the City with the intent to reduce the City’s contributions to climate change and in turn reduce the impacts of climate change.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA does not apply, "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment ." These standards are more stringent than the State energy standards, and as such, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, and there is no possibility that the Ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant effect on the environment because the adoption and local amendments to the California Energy Code are enacted to provide more protection to the environment and therefore is exempt from CEQA. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 4. CODE AMENDMENT.
Chapter 15.15 Energy Code of Title 15 of the Goleta Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
15.15.010 Adoption of Energy Code
15.15.020 Local Amendments to Definitions
15.15.030 Local Amendments to Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel Occupancies and Covered Processes – Mandatory Requirements
15.15.040 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment and Electrical Power Distribution Systems
9
15.15.050 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency
15.15.060 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Mandatory Features and Devices
15.15.070 Local Amendments to Single -Family Residential Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
15.15.080 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Mandatory Requirements
15.15.090 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
15.15.010 Adoption of Energy Code
A. The California Energy Code, 2022 Edition including the appendices thereto, except as may be amended by this chapter, are hereby adopted as the Energy Code of the City.
B. One copy of the California Energy Code shall be at all times maintained in the office of the Building Official for use and examination by the public.
15.15.020 Local Amendments to Definitions
A. Chapter 1 "All Occupancies – General Provisions," Section 100.1(b), "Definitions and Rules of Construction," of Chapter 1 of the Energy Code is amended to add the following definitions:
ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.
KITCHEN, INSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to a foodservice establishment that provides meals at institutions including schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, correctional facilities, private cafeterias, nursing homes, and other buildings or structures in which care or supervision is provided to occupants.
KITCHEN, QUICK-SERVICE COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to an establishment primarily engaged in providing fast food, fast casual, or limited services. Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out, or delivered to the customer’s location.
10
NET FREE AREA (NFA) is the total unobstructed area of the air gaps between louver and grille slats in a vent through which air can pass. The narrowest distance between two slats, perpendicular to the surface of both slats is the air gap height. The narrowest width of the gap is the air gap width. The NFA is the air gap height multiplied by the air gap width multiplied by the total number of air gaps between slats in the vent.
15.15.030 Local Amendments to Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel Occupancies and Covered Processes – Mandatory Requirements
A. Section 120.2 “Required Controls for Space-Conditioning Systems” of Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.2(l) to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:
(a) – (k): Subsections 120.2(a) – (k) are adopted without modification.
(l) HVAC Hot Water Temperature. Zones that use hot water for space heating shall be designed for a hot water supply temperature of no greater than 130 °F.
B. Section 120.6 “General” of Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.6 to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows:
(a) – (j): Subsections 120.6(a) – (j) are adopted without modification.
(k) Mandatory requirements for commercial kitchens. Electric Readiness for Newly Constructed Commercial Kitchens shall meet the following requirements:
1. Quick-service commercial kitchens and institutional commercial kitchens shall include a dedicated branch circuit wiring and outlet that would be accessible to cookline appliances and shall meet all of the following requirements:
a. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 50 amps minimum.
b. The electrical service panel shall have a minimum capacity of 800 connected amps.
2. The electrical service panel shall be sized to accommodate an additional either 208v or 240v 50-amp breaker.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 120.6(k): healthcare facilities.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 120.6(k): all-electric commercial kitchens. 11
15.15.040 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment and Electrical Power Distribution Systems
A. Section 130.0 “Lighting Systems and Equipment, and Electrical Power Distribution Systems – General" of Subchapter 4 is amended to read as follows:
a. The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems within the scope of Section 100.0(a), shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6.
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 also apply to additions and alterations to existing buildings.
B. Section 130.6 “Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane” of Subchapter 4 is amended to add Section 130.6 to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:
130.6 Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electric heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor.
a) Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electric heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions.
Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and
b) Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and
c) Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and
12
d) Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electric heating appliances.
The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and
e) Physical space for future electric heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electric heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.
15.15.050 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency
A. Section 140.0 “Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches” of Subchapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
Nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings shall comply with all of the following:
a) The requirements of Sections 100.0 through 110.12 applicable to the building project (mandatory measures for all buildings). b) The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.56 (mandatory measures for nonresidential and high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings). c) Either the performance compliance approach (energy budgets) specified in Section 140.1 or the prescriptive compliance approach specified in Section 140.2 for the Climate Zone in which the building will be located.
Climate zones are shown in FIGURE 100.1-A.
NOTE to Section 140.0(c): The Commission periodically updates, publishes and makes available to interested persons and local enforcement agencies precise descriptions of the Climate Zones, which is available by zip code boundaries depicted in the Reference Joint Appendices along with a list of the communities in each zone.
NOTE to Section 140.0: The requirements of Sections 140.1 through 140.10 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which 13
requirements of Section 140.1 through 140.10 also apply to additions or alterations to existing buildings.
B. Section 140.1 “Performance Approach: Energy Budgets” of Subchapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach if provided that:
1. The time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a), and
2. The source energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least the value specified for the corresponding occupancy type in Table 140.1 - A below. of at least 7 percent for all nonresidential occupancies.
Table 140.1 – A SOURCE ENERGY COMPLIANCE MARGINS
Occupancy Type Source Energy Use Compliance
Margin
Hotel 7%
Small Restaurant 2%
Office 14%
All Other Building Types 7%
EXCEPTION 1 to 140.1 item 2. A source energy compliance margin of 0 percent or greater is required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2.
(a) – (c): Subsections 140.1 (a) – (c) are adopted without modification.
15.15.060 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Mandatory Features and Devices
A. Section 150.0 “Mandatory Features and Devices” of Subchapter 7 is amended as follows:
Single -family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(v).
14
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0 (a) through ( v) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) also apply to additions or alterations. The amendments to sections 150.0 (t) do not apply to additions or alterations.
(a) – (s): Subsections 150.0(a) – (s) are adopted without modification.
(t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:
1. A dedicated 240 -volt branch circuit wirin g shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit
conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the
California Electrical Code.
2. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation.
The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For
Future 240V use.”
3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit with either a drain or natural drainage for condensate.
(u) – (v): Subsections 150.0(u) – (v) are adopted without modification.
15.15.070 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
A. Section 150.1 “Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Single Family Residential Buildings” of Subchapter 8 is amended to read as follows:
(a) Section (a) is adopted without modification
15
(b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commission -certified compliance soft ware as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual , as specified in sub -sections 1, 2 and 3 below.
1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time -dependent valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy
Efficiency Design Rating, a nd the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building s hall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no g reater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND Source Energy compliance margin of at least 5, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 1,500 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 2 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
16
EXCEPTION 3 to Section 150.1(b)1. If due to conditions specific to the project it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a dwelling unit of not more than 1,500 square feet of conditioned floor space.
EXCEPTION 4 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined by Goleta Municipal Code Section 17.41.030, shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 0 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
2. Section (b)(2) is adopted without modification.
3. Section (b)(3) is adopted without modification.
15.15.080 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Mandatory Requirements
A. Section 160.4 “Mandatory Requirements for Water Heating Systems” of Subchapter 10 is amended to remove subsection (a) as follows:
(a) Reserved. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components:
1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:
A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”; and
2. A Category III or IV vent, or a Type B vent with straight pipe between the outside termination and the space where the water heater is installed; and
3. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance; and
4. A gas supply line with a capacity of at least 200,000 Btu/hr.
Sections (b) to (f) are adopted without amendments.
B. Section 160.9 “Mandatory Requirements for Electric Ready Buildings” of Subchapter 10 is amended to read as follows:
17
(a) – (c): Subsections 160.9(a) – (c) are adopted without modification.
(d) Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components and shall meet the requirements of Section 160.9(f):
1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, copper branch circuit rated to 30 amps, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:
A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”;
2. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance,
3. The construction drawings shall indicate the location of the future heat pump water heater. The reserved location shall have minimum interior dimensions of 39”x39”x96”,
4. A ventilation method meeting one of the following:
A. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall have a minimum volume of 700 cubic feet; or
B. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boundary via permanent openings with a minimum total net free area of 250 square inches so that the total combined volume connected via permanent openings is 700 cu. ft. or larger. The permanent openings shall be:
i. Fully louvered doors with fixed louvers consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slats; or
ii. Two permanent fixed openings, consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slat louvers or grilles, one
18
commencing within 12 inches from the top of the
enclosure and one commencing within 12 inches from
the bottom of the enclosure.
C. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall include two 8” capped ducts, venting to the building exterior:
i. All ducts, connections and building penetrations shall be sealed.
ii. Exhaust air ducts and all ducts which cross pressure boundaries shall be insulated to a minimum insulation
level of R-6
iii. Airflow from termination points shall be diverted away from each other.
(e) Central Heat Pump Water Heater Electric Ready. Central water heating systems using gas or propane to serve multiple dwelling units shall include the following:
1. The system input capacity of the gas or propane water heating system shall be determined as the sum of the input gas or propane capacity of all water heating devices associated with each gas or propane water heating system.
2. Space reserved shall include:
A. Heat Pump. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and air flow clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be
2.0 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the
gas or propane water heating system, and the
minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall
be 48 linear inches.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump
19
shall be 3.6 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per
hour the gas or propane water heating system, and
the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved
shall be 84 linear inches.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total
building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated
with the project.
B. Tanks. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum space reserved for the storage and
temperature maintenance tanks shall be 4.4 square
feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or
propane water heating system.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum physical space reserved for the
storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be
3.1 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the
gas or propane water heating system.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total
building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated
with the project.
3. Ventilation shall be provided by meeting one of the following:
A. Physical space reserved for the heat pump shall be located outside, or
B. A pathway shall be reserved for future routing of supply and exhaust air via ductwork from the reserved heat pump location to an appropriate outdoor location. Penetrations through the building envelope for louvers and ducts shall be planned and identified for 20
future use. The reserved pathway and penetrations through the building envelope shall be sized to meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum air flow rate shall be 70 CFM per input 10,000
BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating
system and the total external static pressure drop of
ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when
the future heat pump water heater is installed.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 420 CFM per
input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water
heating system and the total external static pressure
drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
iii. The reserved pathway and penetrations shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets
the total building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated with
the project.
4. Condensate drainage piping. An approved receptacle that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code to receive the condensate drainage shall be installed within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location, or piping shall be installed from within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location to an approved discharge location that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, and meets one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.2 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.7 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
21
C. Condensate drainage shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
5. Electrical.
A. Physical space shall be reserved on the bus system of the main switchboard or on the bus system of a distribution board to serve the future heat pump water heater system including the heat pump and temperature maintenance tanks. In addition, the physical space reserved shall be capable of providing adequate power to the future heat pump water heater as follows:
i. Heat Pump. For the Heat Pump, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide
0.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, provide 1.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient
electrical power required to power a heat pump water
heater system that meets the total building hot water
demand as calculated and documented by the
responsible person associated with the project.
ii. Temperature Maintenance Tank. For the Temperature
Maintenance Tank, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide
1.0 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, provide 0.6 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
22
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient
electrical power required to power a heat pump water
heater system that meets the total building hot water
demand as calculated and documented by the
responsible person associated with the project.
(f) The building electrical system shall be sized to meet the future electric requirements of the electric ready equipment specified in sections 160.9 a – e. To meet this requirement the building main service conduit, the electrical system to the point specified in each subsection, and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each electric ready appliance in accordance with the California Electric Code.
15.15.090 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
A. Section 170.1 “Performance Approach” of Subchapter 11 is adopted with amendments as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally,
1. The energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed low-rise multifamily building (three habitable stories or less) shall be at least 7 percent lower than that of the Standard Design Building.
Sub-sections (a) to (d) are adopted without amendments.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this Chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Chapter, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases is declared invalid or unconstitutional. 23
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and, within 15 days after its adoption, shall cause it to be published in accord with California Law.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect following submission to and approval by the California Energy Commission , at least 30 days following adoption by the City Council.
INTRODUCED ON the 3rd day of June, 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________day of ______, 2025.
_________________________
PAULA PEROTTE, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN
CITY CLERK ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
24
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 25 -__ was introduced on _______, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, held on the _______, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
25 ATTACHMENT 2
Staff Packet for Energy Performance Reach Code Ordinance from February 18, 2025 26 Agenda Item C.1
PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
SUBMITTED BY: Peter Imhof, Planning and Environmental Review Director PREPARED BY: Dana Murray, Sustainability Manager
Angeline Foshay, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Title 15, Chapter 15. 15 of the Goleta Municipal Code for an Energy Performance Reach Code
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Hold a public hearing and conduct the second reading by title only, waiving further reading of Ordinance No. 25-__ entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending Title 15, Chapter 15.15 Entitled “Energy Code” of the Goleta Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto and Determine the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.” B. Find the adoption of Ordinance No. 25 -__ exe mpt from the California Environmental Quality Act and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption within five (5) business days.
SUMMARY:
An Energy Performance Reach Code would modify the California Energy Code within the City to require a higher level of energy performance for new construction. Staff and the Green Committee recommend that the City Council consider adoption of an Energy Performance Reach Code. The proposed ordinance encourages electrification while still allowing for natural gas in buildings, although they may need to comply with additional energy performance measures. These additional measures may include increased energy efficiency (i.e., higher insulation), increased solar panel system size, and battery storage systems. For newly constructed buildings where fuel gas infrastructure is permitted due to any qualifying exceptions, they would be required to have sufficient electrical capacity, including reserved circuit breakers, electrical conduit, subpanels, panels, switchboards, and transformers, to facilitate future full-building electrification. 1 27
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
The ordinance would:
Require higher energy performance for new single -family, low -rise multifamily buildings and non-residential buildings, including pre-fabricated buildings. o Provide for either reduced margins or exceptions for smaller homes and accessory dwelling units.
Extend electric readiness requirements through:
o Exterior location for space heat pump compressor in single-family; o Space and ventilation requireme nts for in-unit water heaters in multifamily buildings;
o Electrical capacity requirements for multifamily central hot water systems, with an option to include space, ventilation, and condensate requirements. Be implemented through the submission of Title 24 reports, which are already a standard submission for all new projects.
The ordinance would NOT:
Prohibit or prevent gas technologies.
Apply to additions and alterations.
Apply to unregulated loads such as equipment and appliances for cooking, laundry, and pools.
BACKGROUND:
Definitive climate data has revealed the urgent need for regulatory action. In 2016, California responded to this demand by adopting comprehensive goals to reduce GHG emissions and support local governments in carrying out community-level emissions reductions strategies. With the passage of Senate Bill 32 in 2016, California set targets to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. To reach these state emissions targets , decarbonizing the building sector is essential. The primary method for the decarbonization of buildings is electrification, as escalating renewable portfolio standards have been and will continue to reduce the emissions content of our electricity.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan provides an implementation pathway to meet the State’s carbon reduction goals. Statewide, residential and commercial buildings are responsible for approximately 25% of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when accounting for fossil fuels, such as natural gas consumed onsite and via electricity demand. The Scoping Plan recommends all-electric buildings become standard for residential construction starting in 2026 and non-residential construction starting in 2029 to improve indoor air quality and reduce GHG emissions to meet state goals.
In 2020, Goleta’s energy use (from both electricity and natural gas) accounted for 40.4% of the community’s total emissions. Of that total energy use, natural gas use in buildings accounted for 40% of Goleta’s energy emissions. While efforts have been made to decarbonize the natural gas system through the development of renewable natural gas, there are insufficient supplies to properly meet state and local demand, ultimately leaving 2 28
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
the full decarbonization of the natural gas system infeasible. As stated in the 2021 California Energy Commission (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report, “Building electrification is the most promising decarbonization strategy and could result in significant reductions in residential and commercial building gas demand.” Taking action locally, the Goleta City Council voted unanimously to pass an all -electric new construction ordinance on April 18, 2023. However, on April 17, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in CRA v. City of Berkeley , that a Berkeley ordinance requiring all -electric new buildings was pre -empted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and was therefore invalid. Due to the Ninth Circuit’s decision to overturn the City of Berkeley’s natural gas ban for new construction, Goleta’s second reading to pass the ordinance was placed on hold. In January 2024, the full Ninth Circuit panel denied the City of Berkeley’s request for an en banc (full court panel) hearing. In effect, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling stands:
Berkeley’s all-electric ordinance is preempted by federal law, and, as a result, all-electric ordinances by any other city would not survive legal challenge.
Based on Council feedback and unanimous interest in pursuing electrification policy from the April 18, 2023 Council meeting, staff added “New Construction Building Electrification:
Evaluate Reach Code Options & Policy Development” to the 2024 -2025 PER Annual Work Program. Since the CRA v. City of Berkeley decision, many cities in California have evaluated alternative policy approaches to support new construction electrification. Staff has monitored new policy developments and collaborated with the Green Cities Network to find alternative pathways to incentivize electrification for new cons truction. Many jurisdictions with previously developed or adopted all -electric Reach Codes have been evaluating alternative options to pursue electrification and decarbonize their new and existing building stock. Notably, the Cities of San Luis Obispo, San Jose, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Santa Monica, Brisbane, Encinitas , and Santa Cruz have adopted Energy Performance Reach Codes in late 2023 and throughout 2024, which Goleta staff have been tracking closely.
On November 21, 2024, the Goleta City Council Energy & Green Issues Standing Committee was provided an update on building electrification policy and presented with a recommended pathway to improve new construction building performance. Staff were advised to construct a primer or brief to demonstrate t he process of compliance for a project applicant and conduct further outreach to the community and developers that may be impacted by policy adoption in 2025. The Committee unanimously supported staff in developing an ordinance and bringing an Energy Perfo rmance Reach Code to City Council for review and consideration.
On February 4 th, 2025, the Goleta City Council introduced and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance at First Reading.
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends the Goleta City Council consider adopting an Energy Performance Reach Code that would increase the performance requirements for newly constructed 3 29
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
buildings, resulting in a reduction of building emissions. This Reach Code would not ban natural gas systems in new construction but require a uniformly applied increase in building performance to drive building decarbonization . The proposed Ordinance is included as Attachment 1.
With the City’s all -electric ordinance for new construction on pause, supporting policies and programs that incentivi ze and remove barriers to electrification in existing buildings provides an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and improve indoor air quality for Goleta residents. According to CARB, buildings emit about 66 tons per day (tpd) of NOx to the ambient air, about four times the emissions from electric utilities and nearly two - thirds the emissions from light-duty vehicles statewide. Electric heat pumps for space and water heating are more efficient than their natural gas counterparts and have the added safety benefits of lowering the potential for carbon monoxide poisoning and gas explosions.
The most cost -effective time to electrify is during the development of new construction, and new construction provides the best opportunity to avoid “lock -in emissions” which would be created through the inclusion of natural gas infrastructure in new build ings.
While it will yield less emissions savings than an all-electric Reach Code, the City can still further support all-electric projects by increasing energy efficiency, solar, and/or battery requirements for both mixed fuel and all -electric buildings because it is typically simpler for all-electric buildings to comply.
Based on these observations, staff recommend adopting an Energy Performance Reach Code to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new buildings.
Proposed Approach
Staff have identified local amendments to the California Energy Code (also known as a “Reach Code”) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings as the preferred alternative approach.
The proposed Energy Performance Reach Code would include requir ements for new buildings that would result in higher efficiency and lower operational greenhouse gas emissions. To be consistent with state law, the City must make findings that the proposed Building Code amendments related to building energy performance are cost-effective and use less energy than the standard State Code. The California Energy Commission (CEC) must agree with the City's analysis before the local amendments to the California Energy Code can go into effect.
The California Energy Code establ ishes whole-building efficiency requirements, which account for a building’s water heater, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system, solar generating system, and insulation, among other things. However, it does not account for cooking equipment, laundry dryers, or other unregulated energy uses. As such, the proposed Energy Performance Reach Code does not regulate cooking equipment, laundry dryers, fireplace, outdoor cooking, or other energy uses not addressed by the California Energy Code.
4 30
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
California Energy Code Energy Evaluation Metrics
The 2022 California Energy Code provides baseline efficiency and building performance standards that a project must meet before receiving a building permit. The California Energy Code provides different metrics for different types of buildings. These metrics are summarized below, and described in a Memo (Attachment 2). (For more information, visit:
https://energycodeace.com/resources/?itemId=66025)
Under the performance pathway of the 2022 Energy Code, new construction buildings must meet energy standards based on efficiency, emissions, and energy use. Single - family homes are rated using Energy Desi gn Ratings (EDR), which measure energy efficiency, energy costs, solar impacts and more. A key focus of this proposal is the EDR1 metric, commonly known as hourly source energy.
Multi-family and non-residential buildings use similarly intentioned metrics and must meet standards for energy cost, emissions, and solar or battery contributions. The key metric of importance for this proposal is the "Source Energy" metric, which promotes renewable energy and decarbonization.
Proposed Energy Performance Enhancements
Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards establish a process that allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide standards. Under this p rocess, the CEC requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings to be cost -effective and use less energy than the standard requirements.
As noted in Table 1 below, the EDR1 of single -family residential new buildings would be required to be less than the EDR1 of the standard design by a compliance margin of at least 5 points. Smaller single -family homes would have a reduced compliance margin requirement of 2 points due to their smaller size and ener gy usage and thus lower capacity for energy improvements. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are exempt.
Table 1 also identifies a Source Energy performance requirement for new multi -family residential buildings (7% better than code for low -rise [three stories or fewer). High-rise [four stories or more] is not included as the State Code prescriptively requires a ba ttery storage system in this building type , making it more difficult to comply with an extended reach beyond the state code.
New non-residential buildings would be required to have a compliance margin of 2% - 14%, depending on the building type. Office facilities have a higher compliance margin of 14% because they tend to have larger conditioned floor areas, which translates to higher savings potential.
5 31
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
An exemption is available for non-residential projects designed with single -zone space- conditioning systems where California Energy Code Section 140.4(a)2 is applicable because the State Code prescriptively requires the use of heat pumps, making it di fficult for mixed-fuel buildings to comply already.
Due to how EDR1 and Source Energy scores are calculated in the 2022 California Energy Code, the higher standards proposed in the Reach Code would incentivize new buildings to select electric appliances/mechanical systems, while also allowing mixed-fuel buildings that include energy efficiency measures, solar, and/or a battery. The enhanced performance requirements would apply equally to mixed-fuel and all-electric buildings and are cost-effective to achie ve through the Energy Code’s performance pathway without requiring appliances that exceed federal efficiency standards.
Table 1. Proposed Improved Energy Performance Standards Building Type Performance Requirement
Single-Family Residential Buildings > 1,500 sq. ft. - EDR1 compliance margin of at least 5 points
Buildings <1,500 sq. ft .– EDR1
compliance margin of at least 2 points
Multi-Family Residential (Low) Source Energy compliance margin of at least 7%
Non-Residential Source Energy compliance margin of at
least the following:
Hotel – 7%
Small Restaurants – 2%
Office – 14%
All Other Building Types – 7%
Exceptions Single Family: Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Non-residential: When non-residential
occupancies are designed with single
zone space-conditioning systems
complying with Section 140.4(a)2.
Electric Ready Requirements
The 2022 California Energy Code currently requires certain mixed -fuel buildings to include “electric -ready” components, including electric outlets near certain natural gas appliances, appropriate ventilation for future heat pump appliances, and reserved and labeled breakers in the electrical panel for future electric appliances.
The proposed Reach Code adds to the 2022 California Energy Code by including electric readiness provisions (which are coming 2025 California Energy Code and will be effective on January 1, 2026 ). This Reach Code essentially brings forward the coming electric readiness regulation by several months.
6 32
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
Practical Effect of the Energy Performance Reach Code
Because the City is working within the confines of the California Energy Code, the description of the proposed approach above is inherently technical. This section illustrates the practical effect of the proposed approach by providing a simplified example of how a single-family home designer would comply with the Energy Performance Reach Code.
A building designer working on a single -family home built to the State’s Energy Code minimum would likely include high efficiency LED lighting, rooftop solar, an electric heat pump hot water heater, a natural gas furnace, insulated walls, an insulated attic, and efficient windows, among other things. The designer would load the building design into a computer model and estimate its energy performance. The energy modeling software would provide standard reporting metrics, including an EDR1 score. The designer would then compare the EDR 1 score to a standard design building on the CF -1R form. The designed building’s EDR1 score would be equal to the standard design building’s EDR1 score and would comply with that part of the California Energy Code.
With the Reach Code in place, the desig ner would now need to achieve an EDR1 compliance margin that is 5 points better than the standard design building. If this building designer replaced the gas furnace with a commonly available electric heat pump HVAC system, the building would achieve an ED R1 compliance margin that is 5 points better than the State Code’s minimum and would be consistent with the proposed Reach Code requirements. Alternately, the building designer could keep the gas furnace and install a battery storage system, which would also result in an improved EDR1 compliance margin of more than 5 points. The building designer also has the option to develop a package of efficiency and solar measures; so long as the measures lead to an increased EDR1 compliance margin of 5 or more points better than the State Code’s minimum, the new building is consistent with the Reach Code.
This example is similar for the other building types where the compliance margins could be achieved by either installing electric heat pump HVAC equipment or instal ling some package of additional solar capacity and efficiency measures.
Cost-Effectiveness
The California Energy Commission requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings to be cost-effective and to use less energy than the standard requirements. The CEC requires the local agency to adopt a determination that the energy standards are cost -effective at a public meeting. The determination must subsequently be filed with the Energy Commission. In s upport of Reach Code development, the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program developed and published the following studies:
2022 Cost -Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data;
7 33
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
2022 Cost -Effectiveness Study: Multifamily New Construction Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data; and
2022 Code: Non-residential New Construction Reach Code Cost -effectiveness Study and the associated cost-effectiveness data.
These studies and the associated cost -effectiveness data are highly detailed and are included in the record to support Green Committee and Council’s findings and policy decisions (Attachment 3). These studies and the associated cost -effectiveness data are the basis for staff’s cost-effectiveness findings and are sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106.
Based on these studies, staff finds the proposed local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code to be cost-effective and consume less energy than otherwise permitted by Title 24, Part 6.
Incentives
Incentive and rebate programs are avail able to support the development of all -electric housing and the adoption of clean energy solutions, contributing to California's decarbonization goals. Notably, Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) provides rebates for housing developers and homeowners to build all-electric housing. Rebates are available for multiple types of housing developments, with enhanced rebates available for homeowners building Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and for Single-family Disaster Rebuilds. See Attachment 4 for more information on rebates and incentives.
Public Engagement
As described in the 2023 Council Agenda reports, extensive outreach was conducted in various community forums and settings affirming that all -electric new buildings are feasible, cost -effective, and supportive of the City’s climate action goals. The City coordinated and collaborated with the County of Santa Barbara, City of Carpinteria, and numerous utilities, consultants and energy -focused organizations to conduct outreach.
The regional group organized an Advisory Committee of stakeholders, hosted multiple public workshops discussing Reach Codes and the benefits of electrification, and conducted targeted outreach to the South Coast Chamber of Commerce, the Joint Affordable Housing Task Group, Santa Barbara Association of Realtors and the Regional Climate Collaborative Equity and Outreach Subcommittee. The work conducted in support of the previous all-electric Reach Code provides a groundwork of understanding around building electrification in the community and supports any future Council policies related to low-emissions new buildings.
Staff has continued to collaborate with the County of Santa Barbara, City of Santa Barbara, and the City of Carpinteria, including recent meetings with regional stakeholders such as the South Coast Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee and Santa Barbara Association of Realtors. In addition to targeted stakeholder outreach, on January 14, 2025, staff collaborated with the County of Santa Barbara to conduct additional community outreach on the Energy Performance Reach Code through a public workshop 8 34
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
with various stakeholders in attendance , where staff presented on the Reach Code and held a discussion with the public and answered three questions that were asked.
Timing & Next Steps
Should City Council move forward with the second reading and adoption, staff would then submit the ordinance to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Building Codes and Standards. Before the Reach Code goes into effect, the CEC must approve the local energy code following the second reading. The CEC ensures that the local energy Reach Code improves building energy performance, is cost -effective and does not pre-empt Federal standards regulating appliance energy us e. It is important to note that the California Building Code, which includes the California Energy Code, is updated every three years. Should City Council adopt the Energy Performance Reach Code, the local Reach Code would expire with the current Building Code on December 31, 2025.
Staff is already coordinating regionally with other jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County on developing potential Reach Codes for the next cycle.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
GOLETA STRATEGIC PLAN:
City-Wide Strategy: 1. Support Environmental Vitality
Strategic Goal:
1.1.3. Encourage renewable energy generation and use through installation of solar panels, battery energy storage, electric vehicle charging stations and similar measures
1.1.4. Adopt a "Reach" Building Code
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
This ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.§ 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the proposed amendment would not be an activity with potential to cause significant effect on the environment. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA. A copy of the NOE is provided as an Attachment.
9 35
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Amend the ordinance and re-introduce it for first reading; or 2) direct staff to return with further information; or 3) take no action.
LEGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, Acting City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 25 -__ entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending Title 15, Chapter 15.15 Entitled “Energy Code” of the Goleta Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto and Determine the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act”
2. Memo on Energy Performance Approach for Goleta Reach Code
3. 2022 Cost Effectiveness Studies (Multifamily, Single-family, Non-residential)
4. Building Performance Incentives
5. CEQA Notice of Exemption
6. Presentation
10 36
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 25 -__ entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending Title 15, Chapter 15.15 Entitled “Energy Code” of the Goleta Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto and Determine the Ordinance to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act”
11 37
ORDINANCE NO 25-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15. 15 ENTITLED “ENERGY CODE” OF THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING AND ENERGY CODE AND LOCAL A MENDMENTS THERETO AND
DETERMINE THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopte d by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and
WHEREAS the California Energy Code is a part of the California Building Standards which implements minimum energy efficiency standards in building t hrough mandatory requirements, prescriptive standards, and performance standards; and
WHEREAS California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards based upon express finding that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Goleta finds that each of the amendment additions and deletions to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10 -106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) establish a process which allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards, provided that su ch local standards are cost effective and the California Energy Commission finds that the standards will require building to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 20, 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which added Health and Safety Code Section 38566 to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030; and
WHEREAS the State of California updates and sets Building Codes and Standards on a triennial cycle for single-family, multifamily and nonresidential structures with the intended purpose to improve building efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and 12 38
WHEREAS the City’s local amendments to the 2022 California Building Codes, including the California Green Building Code, increase requirements for single -family (e.g., townhomes), multifamily, and nonresidential structures beyond that of the State’s requirement because , based on local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, they are necessary to reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases emissions; and
WHEREAS the content and details of this ordinance were the subject of a public stakeholder workshop conducted on January 14, 2025 , which included numerous stakeholders; and
WHEREAS staff has reviewed the cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program and associated study data and find them sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106; and
WHEREAS the City’s local amendments will result in designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2022 State Energy Code through the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program, has performed cost effectiveness analyses as required by the California Energy Commis sion for the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance which is hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS based upon these analyses, the City Council of the Goleta finds that the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this ordinance have at least one cost effective pathway and will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS the Goleta City Council adopted a determination at a public meeting on February 4, 2025 , that the locally adopted energy efficiency standards contained in Ordinance No. 25-XX are cost-effective; and
WHEREAS adoption of Reach Codes support the Goleta City Council’s Strategic Pla n and climate action goals, which aim to reduce communitywide GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS the Goleta City Council adopted the 2023 -24 and 2024 -25 Planning and Environmental Review Annual Work Programs, which included developing Reach Codes that further building electrification as a top priority; and
WHEREAS scientific evidence has established that GHG accumulation in the atmosphere as the result of human activity is the primary cause of the global climate crisis; and
13 39
WHEREAS, in California alone, the ini tial impacts of climate change have resulted in unprecedented disasters with consequential human, economic, and environmental costs; and
WHEREAS the climate change crisis is happening now, impacting Goleta in unprecedented ways, and affecting the health and safety of the Goleta community; and
WHEREAS the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global emissions need to be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100% by 2050 to prevent global catastrophe; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to require GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and in 2018 Governor Brown issued Executive Order B -55-18 establishing a statewide target of carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS achieving climate goals will require action at all levels, including individual, community, local and state government, businesses and utilities, in order to protect the health and welfare of the community, while meeting state and federal efforts; and
WHEREAS the City must accelerate our actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in Goleta, and more quickly move toward a low-carbon, sustainable, and resilient future; and
WHEREAS, in California alone, the initial impacts of climate change have result ed in unprecedented disasters with consequential human, economic, and environmental costs; and
WHEREAS Goleta is already experiencing and is at risk of more frequently experiencing the devastating effects of extreme heat and weather events and flooding c aused by climate change, including increased frequency and magnitude of wildfires and associated air pollution, health impacts, utility and transportation service interruptions, economic disruption, property loss, dislocation, housing shortages, and increased demand on public sector resources and emergency response capacity; and
WHEREAS the City of Goleta is situated along a wildland-urban interface and as a result is extremely vulnerable to wildfires and firestorms according to the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) Wildfire Risk Index Map; and
WHEREAS Santa Barbara County is ranked in the 99.4 th national percentile and 84.5 th percentile in California for the natural hazard risk index; and
WHEREAS, because of the City’s unique local climat ic, geologic and topographic conditions, the City desires to make amendments and additions to the code.
14 40
WHEREAS using electric heating and cooling infrastructure in new buildings fueled by less greenhouse gas intensive electricity is linked to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and is cost competitive because of the cost savings associated with all-electric designs that avoid new gas infrastructure; and
WHEREAS the most cost -effective time to integrate electrical infrastructure is in the design phase of a building project because building systems and spaces can be designed to optimize the performance of electrical systems, and the project can take full advantage of avoided costs and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas piping and venting for combustion air safety; and
WHEREAS it is the intent of the City Council to reduce natural gas e missions in new buildings where all electric infrastructure can be most practicably integrated, thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas; and
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.
SECTION 2. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, the City of Goleta City Council declares that the following amendments to the Goleta Green Building Code are reasonably necessary due to local climactic, geolo gical, or topographical conditions listed below and as set forth in the Recitals incorporated herein.
Goleta is already experiencing and is at risk of more frequently experiencing the devastating effects of extreme heat and weather events and flooding cau sed by climate change, including increased frequency and magnitude of wildfires and associated air pollution, health impacts, utility and transportation service interruptions, economic disruption, property loss, dislocation, housing shortages, and increased demand on public sector resources and emergency response capacity.
The City of Goleta is situated along a wildland-urban interface and as a result is extremely vulnerable to wildfires and firestorms according to the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) Wildfire Risk Index Map. Santa Barbara County is ranked in the 99.4 th national percentile and 84.5th percentile in California for the natural hazard risk index.
According to the 100-year and 500-year flood maps provided by FEMA, the City of Goleta has a significant risk of flooding during extreme weather events and flood events can 15 41
majorly disrupt access to utilities, emergency services, and transportation. Extreme weather events are expected to increase as the climate warms due to the greenhouse gas effect.
The amendment is in the interests of public health and safety and general community welfare, as City residents suffer from asthma and other health conditions associated with poor air quality exacerbated by burning fossil fuels. Census tract 6083003001, located in Old Town Goleta, is in the 85th percentile for pollution burden in the state, designating this tract as a state recognized Disadvantage Community per SB 535 and indicated in CalEnviroScreen 4.0.
The local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code implemented by this ordinance will reduce GHG emissions within th e City with the intent to reduce the City’s contributions to climate change and in turn reduce the impacts of climate change.
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA does not apply, "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the enviro nment." These standards are more stringent than the State energy standards, and as such, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, and there is no possibility that the Ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant effect on the environment because the adoption and local amendments to the California Energy Code are enacted to provide more protection to the environment and therefore is e xempt from CEQA. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment; accordingly, the ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 4. CODE AMENDMENT.
Chapter 15.15 Energy Code of Title 15 of the Goleta Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
15.15.010 Adoption of Energy Code
15.15.020 Local Amendments to Definitions
15.15.030 Local Amendments to Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel Occupancies and Covered Processes – Mandatory Requirements
15.15.040 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment and Electrical Power Distribution Systems
16 42
15.15.050 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency
15.15.060 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Mandatory Features and Devices
15.15.070 Local Amendments to Single -Family Residential Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
15.15.080 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Mandatory Requirements
15.15.090 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
15.15.010 Adoption of Energy Code
A. The California Energy Code, 2022 Edition including the appendices thereto, except as may be amended by this chapter, are hereby adopted as the Energy Code of the City.
B. One copy of the California Energy Code shall be at all times maintained in the office of the Building Official for use and examination by the public.
15.15.020 Local Amendments to Definitions
A. Chapter 1 "All Occupancies – General Provisions," Section 100.1(b), "Definitions and Rules of Construction," of Chapter 1 of the Energy Code is amended to add the following definitions:
ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.
KITCHEN, INSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to a foodservice establishment that provides meals at institutions including schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, correctional facilities, private cafeterias, nursing homes, and other buildings or structures in which care or supervision is provided to occupants.
KITCHEN, QUICK-SERVICE COMMERCIAL is a kitchen dedicated to an establishment primarily engaged in providing fast food, fast casual, or limited services. Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out, or delivered to the customer’s location.
17 43
NET FREE AREA (NFA) is the total unobstructed area of the air gaps between louver and grille slats in a vent through which air can pass. The narrowest distance between two slats, perpendicular to the surface of both slats is the air gap height. The narrowest width of the gap is the air gap width. The NFA is the air gap height multiplied by the air gap width multiplied by the total number of air gaps between slats in the vent.
15.15.030 Local Amendments to Nonresidential, Hotel/Motel Occupancies and Covered Processes – Mandatory Requirements
A. Section 120.2 “Required Controls for Space-Conditioning Systems” of Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.2(l) to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:
(a) – (k): Subsections 120.2(a) – (k) are adopted without modification.
(l) HVAC Hot Water Temperature. Zones that use hot water for space heating shall be designed for a hot water supply temperature of no greater than 130 °F.
B. Section 120.6 “General” of Subchapter 3 is amended to add Section 120.6 to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows:
(a) – (j): Subsections 120.6(a) – (j) are adopted without modification.
(k) Mandatory requirements for commercial kitchens. Electric Readiness for Newly Constructed Commercial Kitchens shall meet the following requirements:
1. Quick-service commercial kitchens and institutional commercial kitchens shall include a dedicated branch circuit wiring and outlet that would be accessible to cookline appliances and shall meet all of the following requirements:
a. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 50 amps minimum.
b. The electrical service panel shall have a minimum capacity of 800 connected amps.
2. The electrical service panel shall be sized to accommodate an additional either 208v or 240v 50-amp breaker.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 120.6(k): healthcare facilities.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 120.6(k): all-electric commercial kitchens. 18 44
15.15.040 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment and Electrical Power Distribution Systems
A. Section 130.0 “Lighting Systems and Equipment, and Electrical Power Distribution Systems – General" of Subchapter 4 is amended to read as follows:
a. The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems within the scope of Section 100.0(a), shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6.
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5130.6 also apply to additions and alterations to existing buildings.
B. Section 130.6 “Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane” of Subchapter 4 is amended to add Section 130.6 to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:
130.6 Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electric heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor.
a) Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electric heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions.
Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and
b) Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and
c) Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and
19 45
d) Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electric heating appliances.
The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and
e) Physical space for future electric heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electric heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.
15.15.050 Local Amendments to Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency
A. Section 140.0 “Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches” of Subchapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
Nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings shall comply with all of the following:
a) The requirements of Sections 100.0 through 110.12 applicable to the building project (mandatory measures for all buildings).
b) The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.56 (mandatory measures for nonresidential and high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings).
c) Either the performance compliance approach (energy budgets) specified in Section 140.1 or the prescriptive compliance approach specified in Section 140.2 for the Climate Zone in which the building will be located.
Climate zones are shown in FIGURE 100.1-A.
NOTE to Section 140.0(c): The Commission periodically updates, publishes and makes available to interested persons and local enforcement agencies precise descriptions of the Climate Zones, which is available by zip code boundaries depicted in the Reference Joint Appendices along with a list of the communities in each zone.
NOTE to Section 140.0: The requirements of Sections 140.1 through 140.10 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which 20 46
requirements of Section 140.1 through 140.10 also apply to additions or alterations to existing buildings.
B. Section 140.1 “Performance Approach: Energy Budgets” of Subchapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach if provided that:
1. The time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a), and
2. The source energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least 7 percent for all nonresidential occupancies.
EXCEPTION 1 to 140.1 item 2. A source energy compliance margin of 0 percent or greater is required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2.
(a) – (c): Subsections 140.1 (a) – (c) are adopted without modification.
15.15.060 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Mandatory Features and Devices
A. Section 150.0 “Mandatory Features and Devices” of Subchapter 7 is amended as follows:
Single -family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(v).
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0 (a) through ( v) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) also apply to additions or alterations. The amendments to sections 150.0 (t) do not apply to additions or alterations.
(a) – (s): Subsections 150.0(a) – (s) are adopted without modification.
21 47
(t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:
1. A dedicated 240 -volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnac e with no obstructions. The branch circuit
conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the
California Electrical Code.
2. The main elect rical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation.
The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For
Future 240V use.”
3. A designated exter ior location for a future heat pump compressor unit with either a drain or natural drainage for condensate.
(u) – (v): Subsections 150.0(u) – (v) are adopted without modification.
15.15.070 Local Amendments to Single-Family Residential Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
A. Section 150.1 “Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Single Family Residential Buildings” of Subchapter 8 is amended to read as follows:
(a) Section (a) is adopted without modificat ion
(b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commission -certified compliance soft ware as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual , as specified in sub -sections 1, 2 and 3 below.
1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time -dependent 22 48
valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy
Efficiency Design Rating, a nd the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building s hall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no g reater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND Source Energy compliance margin of at least 5, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.
EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 1,500 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 2 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
EXCEPTION 3 to Section 150.1(b)1. If due to conditions specific to the project it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the compliance margin for a dwelling unit of not more than 1,500 square feet of conditioned floor space.
EXCEPTION 4 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined by Goleta Municipal Code Section 17.41.030, shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 0 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.
23 49
2. Section (b)(2) is adopted without modification.
3. Section (b)(3) is adopted without modification.
15.15.080 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Mandatory Requirements
A. Section 160.4 “Mandatory Requirements for Water Heating Systems” of Subchapter 10 is amended to remove subsection (a) as follows:
(a) Reserved. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components:
1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:
A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”; and
2. A Category III or IV vent, or a Type B vent with straight pipe between the outside termination and the space where the water heater is installed; and
3. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance; and
4. A gas supply line with a capacity of at least 200,000 Btu/hr.
Sections (b) to (f) are adopted without amendments.
B. Section 160.9 “Mandatory Requirements for Electric Ready Buildings” of Subchapter 10 is amended to read as follows:
(a) – (c): Subsections 160.9(a) – (c) are adopted without modification.
(d) Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components and shall meet the requirements of Section 160.9(f):
1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, copper branch circuit rated to 30 amps, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:
24 50
A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”;
2. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance,
3. The construction drawings shall indicate the location of the future heat pump water heater. The reserved location shall have minimum interior dimensions of 39”x39”x96”,
4. A ventilation method meeting one of the following:
A. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall have a minimum volume of 700 cubic feet; or
B. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boundary via permanent openings with a minimum total net free area of 250 square inches so that the total combined volume connected via permanent openings is 700 cu. ft. or larger. The permanent openings shall be:
i. Fully louvered doors with fixed louvers consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slats; or
ii. Two permanent fixed openings, consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slat louvers or grilles, one
commencing within 12 inches from the top of the
enclosure and one commencing within 12 inches from
the bottom of the enclosure.
C. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall include two 8” capped ducts, venting to the building exterior:
i. All ducts, connections and building penetrations shall be sealed.
25 51
ii. Exhaust air ducts and all ducts which cross pressure boundaries shall be insulated to a minimum insulation
level of R-6
iii. Airflow from termination points shall be diverted away from each other.
(e) Central Heat Pump Water Heater Electric Ready. Central water heating systems using gas or propane to serve multiple dwelling units shall include the following:
1. The system input capacity of the gas or propane water heating system shall be determined as the sum of the input gas or propane capacity of all water heating devices associated with each gas or propane water heating system.
2. Space reserved shall include:
A. Heat Pump. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and air flow clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be
2.0 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the
gas or propane water heating system, and the
minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall
be 48 linear inches.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump
shall be 3.6 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per
hour the gas or propane water heating system, and
the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved
shall be 84 linear inches.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total
building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated
with the project.
26 52
B. Tanks. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum space reserved for the storage and
temperature maintenance tanks shall be 4.4 square
feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or
propane water heating system.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum physical space reserved for the
storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be
3.1 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the
gas or propane water heating system.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total
building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated
with the project.
3. Ventilation shall be provided by meeting one of the following:
A. Physical space reserved for the heat pump shall be located outside, or
B. A pathway shall be reserved for future routing of supply and exhaust air via ductwork from the reserved heat pump location to an appropriate outdoor location. Penetrations through the building envelope for louvers and ducts shall be planned and identified for future use. The reserved pathway and penetrations through the building envelope shall be sized to meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the
minimum air flow rate shall be 70 CFM per input 10,000
BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating
system and the total external static pressure drop of
ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when
the future heat pump water heater is installed.
27 53
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 420 CFM per
input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water
heating system and the total external static pressure
drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
iii. The reserved pathway and penetrations shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets
the total building hot water demand as calculated and
documented by the responsible person associated with
the project.
4. Condensate drainage piping. An approved receptacle that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code to receive the condensate drainage shall be installed within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location, or piping shall be installed from within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location to an approved discharge location that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, and meets one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.2 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.7 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
C. Condensate drainage shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
5. Electrical.
A. Physical space shall be reserved on the bus system of the main switchboard or on the bus system of a distribution board to serve the future heat pump water heater system including the heat pump 28 54
and temperature maintenance tanks. In addition, the physical space reserved shall be capable of providing adequate power to the future heat pump water heater as follows:
i. Heat Pump. For the Heat Pump, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide
0.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, provide 1.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient
electrical power required to power a heat pump water
heater system that meets the total building hot water
demand as calculated and documented by the
responsible person associated with the project.
ii. Temperature Maintenance Tank. For the Temperature
Maintenance Tank, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide
1.0 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per
hour, provide 0.6 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
C. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient
electrical power required to power a heat pump water
heater system that meets the total building hot water
demand as calculated and documented by the
responsible person associated with the project.
(f) The building electrical system shall be sized to meet the future electric requirements of the electric ready equipment specified in sections 160.9 a – e. To meet this requirement the building main service conduit, the electrical system to the point specified in each subsection, and any on-site distribution transformers 29 55
shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each electric ready appliance in accordance with the California Electric Code.
15.15.090 Local Amendments to Multifamily Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches
A. Section 170.1 “Performance Approach” of Subchapter 11 is adopted with amendments as follows:
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally,
1. The energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed low-rise multifamily building (three habitable stories or less) shall be at least 7 percent lower than that of the Standard Design Building.
Sub-sections (a) to (d) are adopted without amendments.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this Chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Chapter, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases is declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and, within 15 days after its adoption, shall cause it to be published in accord with California Law.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
30 56
This ordinance shall take effect following submission to and approval by the California Energy Commission , at least 30 days following adoption by the City Council.
INTRODUCED ON the 4th day of February, 2025.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________day of ______, 2025.
_________________________
PAULA PEROTTE, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN
CITY CLERK ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
31 57
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 25 -__ was introduced on _______, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, held on the _______, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
32 58
Attachment 2
Memo on Energy Performance Approach for Goleta Reach Code
33 59
February 6, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to summarize how the Energy Performance approach reach code ordinance provides Hourly Source Energy compliance margins that are achievable for new construction buildings in Goleta (Climate Zone 6) while meeting two criteria:
1) Cost-effective, for approval by the California Energy Commission (CEC). 2) Te
chnically feasible, using appliances with efficiencies set at the minimum federal requirements.
The Energy Performance approach encourages new construction buildings to reduce their emissions, and improve outdoor and indoor air quality. This is achieved by requiring new construction buildings utilizing the performance pathway to meet an Hourly Source Energy compliance margin which is stricter than that set by the state in the 2022 Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6. The reach codes provides cost- effective pathways to compliance for both mixed-fuel and all-electric buildings utilizing appliances with efficiencies set at the minimum federal requirements.
Table 1. Summary of EDR1/Source Energy Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Data for Climate Zone 6 Building Type Metric
Reach Code
Compliance
Margin
Package Package Details
Achieves
Compliance
Margin?
Is it Cost-
Effective? Links
Single Family EDR1 5 or
g reater
All-electric
Both major appliances are heat pumps (water
heating and space heating & cooling) with a
market baseline water heater.
Yes Yes Report
SFNC Study
Data Mixed-fuel Combustion equipment is used with building efficiency measures, additional PV, and a battery. Yes Yes Multifamily (3-
stories and
less)
Source
Ener
gy
7% or
greater
All-electric Both major appliances are heat pumps (water heating and space heating & cooling). Yes Yes Report
MFNC
Study Data Mixed-fuel Combustion equipment is used with building efficiency measures, additional PV, and a battery. Yes Yes Nonresidential Source
Ener
gy
2% to 14%
or greater
(depends on
building type)
All-electric Both major appliances are heat pumps (water heating and space heating & cooling).* Yes* Yes* Report NRNC
Study Data Mixed-fuel Combustion equipment is used with building efficiency measures. Yes* Yes*
*Source Energy compliance margins and cost-effectiveness results vary by prototype building, see the nonresidential report for the full set of results in more detail. 34 60
February 6, 2025
MEMORANDUM February 6, 2025 To: Dana Murray (Goleta)
From: Taylor Taylor, Farhad Farahmand (TRC)
Re: Energy Performance Approach for Goleta Reach Code
OVERVIEW
TRC provides this memo to direct readers to the references of the Hourly Source Energy margins used in the reach code ordinance. Hourly Source Energy is a compliance metric introduced in 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards representing, among other things, transmission, delivery and production losses from the underlying fuel sources used to power building systems and equipment. A more thorough description of Hourly Source Energy compliance metric and relationship with other metrics is included in this Energy Code Ace document, excerpted at the end of this memo.
Cost-effectiveness studies produced by the California Investor-Own ed Utilities Codes and Standards Program serve as the primary source of information. For various measure packages, these studies demonstrate Hourly Source Energy compliance margins that are achievable for new construction in Goleta (Climate Zone 6) while meeting two criteria:
3) Cost-effective, for approval by the California Energy Commission (CEC). 4) Technically feasible, using appliances with efficiencies set at the minimum federal requirements.
Single Family
In single family only, the Hourly Source Energy metric is instead referred to as Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1). EDR1 margins meeting the two criteria listed above are contained in the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study (Report) and workbook (SFNC Study Data) for a 2,400 squ are foot single family building.
Per Figure 1 below:
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves an EDR1 margin equal to 4.2 (cell S385). ♦ The All-Electric Efficiency package that includes efficiency measures as well as the market baseline heat pump water heater, achieves 5.25 (cell S386).
♦ The All-Electric Efficiency + Equipment package that includes efficiency measures as well as the market baseline heat pump water heater (which performs well above federal minimum efficiency requirements), achieves 8.4 (cell S388).
♦ The Mixed Fuel Efficiency, PV, + Battery package achieves 18.3 (cell S391).
An EDR1 compliance margin of 5 reflects a cost-effective baseline achievable by an all-electric new construction single family building with a market baseline water heater, that is also technically feasible by a mixed-fuel building with appliances efficiencies at minimum federal requirements.
35 61
MEMORANDUM (continued) February 5, 2025
To: Dana Murray (Goleta)
Figure 1. Single Family (2400 square foot prototype) source energy margin results Small Homes
Information on small new construction single family homes, such as ADUs, can also be found in the single-family home sources listed above by filtering for the 625 square foot single family building. Single family homes that are less than 1,500 square feet can have difficulties meeting the margins listed above for single family homes. This is because smaller homes use less energy overall and therefore the amount of energy savings potential is diminished.
In order to prevent frequent cases of technical infeasibility, an exception is offered for homes less than 1,500 square foot, set at the target where a 625 square foot home can achieve it. Per Figure 2 below:
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves an EDR1 margin equal to 0.5 (cell S105). ♦ The All-Electric Efficiency package that includes efficiency measures, achieves 1.3 (cell S106). ♦ The All-Electric Efficiency + High Efficiency Equipment package that includes efficiency measures as well as the market baseline heat pump water heater (which performs well above federal minimum efficiency requirements), achieves 2.6 (cell S107).
♦ The All-Electric Efficiency + PV package achieves 5.0 (cell S108). ♦ The Mixed Fuel Efficiency + High Efficiency Equipment package achieves 1.8 (cell S110). ♦ The Mixed Fuel Efficiency, PV, + Battery package achieves 19.8 (cell S111).
The all-electric efficiency + PV package is cost-effective and achieves an EDR1 of 5.0. Therefore, a small homes reach code compliance margin could be set as high as 5.0. The margin can be set lower, such as at a compliance margin of 2, to align with an all-electric building with a market baseline water heater, and also with the all-electric efficiency package. This encourages emissions reductions while reducing construction cost burden on smaller sized homes.
Figure 2. Single Family (625 square foot prototype) source energy margin results
36 62
MEMORANDUM (continued) February 5, 2025
To: Dana Murray (Goleta)
Multifamily
Hourly Source Energy margins meeting the two criteria listed above are contained in the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:
Multifamily New Construction (Report) and workbook (MFNC Study Data) for two multifamily fa mily buildings (3- story, 39,372 ft2 and 5-story, 140,925 ft2). Per Figure 3 below:
♦ For the 3-story prototype
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves an Hourly Source Energy margin equal to 7% (cell AI76).
♦ The Mixed Fuel Efficiency, PV, + Battery package achieves 18% (cell AI105) ♦ For the 5-story prototype
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves an Hourly Source Energy margin of 5% (cell AI107). ♦ The Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV package achieves 0% (cell AI160)
An Hourly Source Energy compliance margin of 7% for 3-stories and less, and 0% for 4-stories and more, reflects a cost-effective baseline achievable by an all-electric code minimum new construction multifamily building, that is also technically feasible by a mixed-fuel building with appliances efficiencies at minimum federal requirements.
Figure 3. Multifamily source energy results. Under the “prototype” column, the 3-story building is 39,372 ft2and the 5- story building is 140,925 ft2.
Nonresidential
Hourly Source Energy margins meeting the two criteria listed above are contained in the 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Study (Report) and workbook (NRNC Study Data) for four nonresidential prototypes (Medium Office, Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel). Per Figure 4 below:
♦ For the Medium Office (‘MO’ tab in the workbook)
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves an Hourly Source Energy margin equal to 3% (cell T33).
♦ The Mixed Fuel + Efficiency package achieves 14% (cell T10). ♦ For the Medium Retail (‘RE’ tab in the workbook)
♦ The Mixed Fuel Code Minimum package achieves -22% (cell T10). ♦ The All-Electric + Efficiency package achieves 16% (cell T56). ♦ For the Quick Service Restaurant (‘QSR’ tab in the workbook) ♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves 35% (cell T125). ♦ The Mixed Fuel + Efficiency package achieves 2% (cell T10). ♦ For the Small Hotel (‘SH’ tab in the workbook)
♦ The All-Electric Code Minimum package achieves 27% (cell T33). 37 63
MEMORANDUM (continued) February 5, 2025
To: Dana Murray (Goleta)
♦ The Mixed Fuel + Efficiency package achieves 7% (cell T10).
For nonresidential buildings, an Hourly Source Energy compliance margin of at least the following is required:
• Hotels – 7%
• Small Restaurants – 2%
• Offices – 14%
• All Other Nonresidential Building Types – 7%
This reflects the performance of mixed-fuel buildings with appliances efficiencies at minimum federal requirements and additional non-preemptive efficiency measures. Nonresidential buildings with all-electric heat pumps at minimum federal requirements will achieve this target without any additional efficiency measures, besides office buildings, which will include additional efficiency measures with all-electric heat pumps to be utilized.
A subset of nonresidential buildings which utilize small rooftop HVAC, like Retail, already have heat pump as the prescriptive code minimum, which achieves the same objective as the reach code applied to the nonresidential buildings. To account for this, an exception is included for nonresidential buildings that reduces the Hourly Source Energy compliance margin to 0% (the state minimum requirement) when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2.
Figure 4. Source energy margin results for Medium Office (MO), Retail (RE), Quick Service Restaurant (QSR), and Small Hotel (SH)
38 64
MEMORANDUM (continued) February 5, 2025
To: Dana Murray (Goleta)
Appendix: Single Family Building Summary of Source Energy and Other Metrics
Source: Energy Code Ace – Single Family Buildings: What’s New in 2022? 39 65
ATTACHMENT 3
2022 Cost Effectiveness Studies (Multifamily, Single-family, Non-residential)
40 66
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2023/06/20
Revision: 1.1
2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:
Multifamily New Construction
41 67
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2022 , Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclose d in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately -owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
Acronym List
2023 PV$ – Present value costs in 2023
ACH50 – Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM – Alternative Calculation Method
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt – Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC – Building Standards Commission
CA IOUs – California Investor-Owned Utilities
CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement
CBECC-Res – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI – California Flexible Installation
CFM – Cubic Feet per Minute
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission
CZ – California Climate Zone
DHW – Domestic Hot Water
DOE – Department of Energy
DWHR – Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR – Energy Design Rating
EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF – Energy Factor
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
42 68
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
HERS Rater – Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA – High Performance Attic
HPWH – Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF – Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IECC – International Energy Conservation Code
IOU – Investor Owned Utility
kBtu – kilo-British thermal unit
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCC – Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU – Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space MF – Multifamily
NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM – Net Energy Metering
NPV – Net Present Value
NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric Company
POU – Publicly-Owned-Utilities
PV – Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison
SDG&E – San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF – Single Family
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company
TDV – Time Dependent Valuation
Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6
TOU – Time-Of-Use
UEF – Uniform Energy Factor
ZNE – Zero-net Energy
43 69
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
2/28/2022 Original Release N/A
6/20/2023 Minor revisions to content; no change to results 2, 3, 32, 33
44 70
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics .............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 8 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs ............................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.2 All-Electric ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 4 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 All-Electric Prescriptive Code .............................................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 All-Electric Plus PV ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
4.3 Mixed Fuel Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.4 Mixed Fuel Plus PV (Plus Battery for the 3-Story Prototype) .............................................................................................. 26
4.5 CARE Rate Comparison ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Reductions .............................................................................................................................................. 30 5 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 32 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 34 7 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 36
7.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 36
7.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 37
7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric .................................................................................................................................................. 38
7.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 43
7.2.3 Southern California Gas .............................................................................................................................................. 46
7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 48
7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 53
7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) ................................................................................................. 55
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 57
7.3 Cost Details......................................................................................................................................................................... 58
7.4 PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo ................................................................................................................................. 59
7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison ................................................................................................................... 62
7.6 Summary of Measures by Package .................................................................................................................................... 63 45 71
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Summary of Efficiency TDV Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ....................................................................... 3 Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2. Prototype Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Base Case Characteristics of the Prototypes ........................................................................................................................ 10 Table 4. Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 5. Incremental Cost Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 6. Heat Pump Water Heater Incremental System Costs (Present Value (2023$)) .................................................................... 16 Table 7. Heat Pump Space Heater Costs per Dwelling Unit (Present Value (2023$) ......................................................................... 16 Table 8. Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures ............................................................................... 17 Table 9. IOU Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building................................................................................... 18 Table 10. Multifamily IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 11. Multifamily CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................... 18 Table 12. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code ......................................................... 21 Table 13. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code ......................................................... 22 Table 14. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV ...................................................................... 23 Table 15. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV ...................................................................... 24 Table 16. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency ..................................................................... 25 Table 17. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency ..................................................................... 26 Table 18. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ............................................. 27 Table 19. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV ............................................................ 28 Table 20. On-Bill IOU Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with CARE Tariffs, Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code 29 Table 21. On-Bill IOU Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with CARE Tariffs, Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Packages ........... 29 Table 22. Summary of Efficiency TDV Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ......................................................................... 33 Table 23. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .......................................................................................................................... 38 Table 24. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 25. PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)............................................................................................................... 39 Table 26: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 43 Table 27. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 46 Table 28. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 29. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 48 46 72
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction
Table 30. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .................................................................................................................................. 48 Table 31. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 32: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 57 Table 33. Heat Pump Water Heater First Costs per Building (Present Value (2023$)) ....................................................................... 58 Table 34. Heat Pump Space Heater First Costs per Dwelling Unit (Present Value (2023$) ............................................................... 58 Table 35. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Prescriptive Code with R-134a Heat Pump Water Heater .................................... 62 Table 36. Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Measures .......................................................................................................................... 63 Table 37. Upgrade Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ......................................................................................................................... 64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 3-Story greenhouse gas reductions (metric tons) per dwelling unit ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 2. 5-Story greenhouse gas savings (metric tons) per dwelling unit .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 3. Map of California climate zones. .......................................................................................................................................... 36 47 73
48 74
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
1 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6 or Energy Code), effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed multifamily buildings. The analysis considers low-rise and mid-rise multifamily building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) Packages include a code compliant electrification package and a mixed fuel efficiency package, as well as the addition of above-code on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity and battery energy storage. The 2022 Energy Code established electric heat pumps as the prescriptive baseline for space heating in most climate zones. As a result, this analysis primarily focuses on the electrification of central water heating. Space heating electrification was also evaluated where the prescriptive heat pump baseline didn’t apply: In Climate Zone 16 for multifamily buildings three habitable stories or fewer, and Climate Zones 1 and 16 for multifamily buildings greater than three habitable stories.
This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is a customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) is the California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part
6. Two multifamily prototypes were evaluated in this study. A 3-story loaded corridor and a 5-story mixed use prototype, which combined are estimated to represent 91 percent of new multifamily construction in California.
The following summarizes key results from the study:
• The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on the California Energy Commission’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) metric in all cases. In many cases all- electric prescriptive code 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.
• 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 2022 Energy Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump space heating baseline in most climate zones encourages all-electric construction. While the code does not include an electric baseline for water heating, the penalty for central electric water heating observed in the performance approach in past code cycles has been removed and a credit is provided for well-designed central heat pump water heaters in most cases.
• Electrification combined with increased PV capacity results in utility cost savings and was found to be On-Bill cost-effective in all cases.
• The results in this study are based on today’s net energy metering (NEM 2.0) rules and do not account for recently approved changes to the NEM tariff (referred to as the net billing tariff). The net billing tariff decreases the value of PV to the consumer as compared to NEM 2.0. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the packages that include above-code PV capacity is expected to be less under the net billing tariff. Conversely, the net 49 75
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
2 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
billing tariff is expected to increase On-Bill cost-effectiveness of the all-electric prescriptive code scenario. An all-electric home has better on-site utilization of generated electricity from PV than a mixed fuel home with a similar sized PV system, and as a result exports less electricity to the grid. Since the net -billing tariff values exports less than under NEM 2.0, the relative impact on annual utility costs to the mixed fuel baseline is greater.
• T his analysis does justify a modest reach based on either efficiency TDV or source energy for all-electric buildings. However, this may be challenging for some projects given the recent changes to which the industry must adapt, including the efficiency updates and multifamily restructuring in the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 code.
While project compliance margins using a CO2 refrigerant heat pump water heating system are high, the Reach Code Team found lower compliance margins using other heat pump water heater system designs.
Focusing on supporting projects to electrify water heating is expected to support the market shift towards more central heat pump water heaters.
• For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings , a mixed fuel efficiency and PV package (and battery for the 3-story prototype) was found to be cost-effective based on TDV in all cases and cost-effective On-Bill in most climate zones. This path, referred to as “Electric-Preferred”, allows for mixed fuel buildings but requires a higher building performance than for all-electric buildings. The efficiency measures evaluated in this study did not provide significant compliance benefit. As a result, the Reach Codes Team recommends establishing a compliance margin target based on source energy or total TDV. This would allow for PV and battery above minimum code requirements to be used to meet the target. • Jurisdictions interested in increasing affordable multifamily housing should know that applying the CARE rates has the overall impact of increasing utility cost savings for an all-electric building in most climate zones compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness.
Table ES-1 summarizes results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency TDV compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. All results presented in the table have a positive compliance margin (greater than zero percent). Cells highlighted in green depict cases with a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches. Cells highlighted in yellow depict cases with a positive compliance margin and cost- effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. Cells not highlighted depict cases with a positive compliance margin but that were not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. 50 76
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
3 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table ES-1. Summary of Efficiency TDV Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
3-Story 5-Story
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-
Electric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-
Electric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV
CZ01 PGE 26% 26% 1% 1% 14% 14% 0% 0%
CZ02 PGE 20% 20% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ03 PGE 21% 21% 1% 1% 11% 11% 0% 0%
CZ04 PGE 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ04 CPAU 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ05 PGE 23% 23% 1% 1% 12% 12% 0% 0%
CZ05 PGE/SCG 23% 23% 1% 1% 12% 12% 0% 0%
CZ06 SCE/SCG 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 0% 0%
CZ07 SDGE 20% 20% 0% 0% 11% 11% 0% 0%
CZ08 SCE/SCG 13% 13% 1% 1% 8% 8% 1% 1%
CZ09 SCE 13% 13% 1% 1% 7% 7% 1% 1%
CZ10 SCE/SCG 14% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ10 SDGE 14% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ11 PGE 14% 14% 3% 3% 8% 8% 2% 2%
CZ12 PGE 17% 17% 2% 2% 9% 9% 2% 2%
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 17% 17% 2% 2% 9% 9% 2% 2%
CZ13 PGE 13% 13% 4% 4% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ14 SCE/SCG 13% 13% 3% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2%
CZ14 SDGE 13% 13% 3% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2%
CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3%
CZ16 PG&E 24% 24% 5% 5% 9% 9% 2% 2%
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. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance (including PV and storage) beyond state code minimums must demonstrate that the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission prior to filing with the BSC.
Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected]. 51 77
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Introduction
4 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed multifamily buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Codes Team. The CA IOU Codes and Standards Program is comprised of IOUs representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) – Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU), The analysis considers low-rise and mid-rise multifamily building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs)1 Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) (California Energy Commission, 2022a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10- 106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2022a)). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.
1 See Appendix 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations. 52 78
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
2 Methodology and Assumptions
2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.
2.1.1 Modeling
The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using software approved for 2022 Title 24 Code compliance analysis, CBECC 2022.2.0.
Using the 2022 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled to determine the projected site energy (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC, and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor -owned utilities (IOUs).
This analysis focused on residential apartments only (a prior study and report analyzed the cost-effectiveness of above code packages for nonresidential buildings (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2022b). The Statewide Reach Codes Team selected measures for evaluation based on the single family 2022 reach code analysis (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2022a) and the multifamily 2019 reach code analysis [ (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2020), (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021)] as well as experience with and outreach to architects, builders, and engineers.
2.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness
2.1.2.1 Benefits
This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use:
Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): This customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using the latest electricity and natural gas utility tariffs available at the time of writing this report. Total savings are estimated over a 30-year duration and include discounting of future utility costs and energy cost inflation.
Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): This reflects the Energy Commission’s current LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand, costs for carbon emissions, and grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (natural gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods due to the less inefficient energy generation sources providing peak electricity (Horii, Cutter, Kapur, Arent, & Conotyannis, 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in the 2022 Energy Code.
2.1.2.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs of the measures and packages over a 30-year lifecycle.
Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Energy Code minimum requirements or standard industry practices. Present value of replacement cost is included for measures with lifetimes less than the evaluation period.
2.1.2.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics.
NPV: The lifetime NPV is reported as a cost-effectiveness metric, Equation 1 demonstrates how this is calculated. If the NPV of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. A negative values represent net costs. 53 79
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
B/C Ratio: This is the ratio of the present value (PV) of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (PV benefits divided by PV costs). The criteria benchmark for cost-effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than one. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 2.
Equation 1
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 − 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙 Equation 2
𝐵𝐵𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 − 𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜 − 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙
Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost is represented by incremental first cost and replacement costs. Some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost.’ In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”.
The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 3.
Equation 3
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = � (𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)𝑡𝑡 (1 + 𝑜𝑜)𝑡𝑡
𝑛𝑛
𝑡𝑡=0
Where:
• n = analysis term in years
• r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30 years
• Real discount rate of three percent
TDV is a normalized monetary format and there is a unique procedure for calculating the present value benefit of TDV energy savings. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV savings (reported by the CBECC simulation software) by a NPV factor developed by the Energy Commission (see E3’s 2022 TDV report for details (Energy + Environmental Economics, 2020)). The 30-year residential NPV factor is $0.173/kTDV for the 2022 Energy Code.
Equation 4
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑁𝑁 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
2.1.3 Utility Rates
In coordination with the CA IOU rate team (comprised of representatives from PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, and CPAU), the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone in order to calculate utility costs and determine On-Bill cost-effectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the most prevalent active rate in each territory. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone, with a few climate zones evaluated multiple times under different utility scenarios. Climate Zones 10 and 14 were evaluated with both 54 80
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
SCE for electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for gas and SDG&E tariffs for both electricity and gas since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two POU or municipal utility rates were also evaluated: SMUD in Climate Zone 12 and CPAU in Climate Zone 4.
For the IOUs in-unit gas was evaluated under the G1 rate and central gas for water heating was evaluated under the relevant master metered gas tariff, GM. Electricity use for central water heating was evaluated using the residential TOU rates. The water heating utility bill was calculated separately from the in-unit electricity bill. Photovoltaic (PV) and battery energy storage benefits were applied according to virtual net energy metering (VNEM) rules.2 PV was first assigned to the central water heating meter to offset 100 percent of the electricity use. The remaining PV and all of the battery impacts were then split evenly across the apartment meters. The same approach was applied for CPAU and SMUD using the rates described in Table 1.
The multifamily prototypes used in this analysis include common area spaces that serve the residents (lobby, leasing office, corridors, etc.). Most of the energy use for these spaces could not be separated from that for the dwelling units within the CBECC model. As a result, average per dwelling unit hourly energy use was calculated to include both the dwelling unit and common space energy use.
First-year utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and natural gas output from CBECC and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 1. Annual costs were also estimated for customers eligible for the CARE tariff discounts on both electricity and natural gas bills. The CARE tariff was only applied to the in-unit apartment meters.
Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules includes details of each utility tariff.
For cases with PV generation, the approved NEM 2.0 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. In December the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision adopting a net billing tariff (NBT) as a successor to NEM 2.0 that will go into effect April of 2023 3 Given the recent
timing of this decision there was not time to incorporate these changes into this analysis. The Reach Codes Team conducted a limited sensitivity analysis on the impacts of NBT relative to NEM 2.0 on utility bills. It was found that utility costs will increase for all homes with PV systems; however, the increase was less for an all-electric building compared to a mixed fuel building with a similarly sized PV system. As a result of better onsite utilization of PV generation and thus fewer exports to the grid, the Reach Codes Team expects the cost-effectiveness for the electrification scenarios for the all-electric home evaluated in this report to improve under NBT. Conversely, cost-effectiveness of increasing PV capacity is expected to be reduced under NBT.
2 PG&E: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_NEM2V.pdf SDG&E: https://tariff.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/tariffs/ELEC_ELEC-SCHEDS_NEM-V-ST.pdf SCE:
https://edisonintl.sharepoint.com/teams/Public/TM2/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?ga=1&id=%2Fteams %2FPublic%2FTM2%2FShared%20Documents%2FPublic%2FRegulatory%2FTariff%2DSCE%20Tariff%20Books%2F Electric%2FSchedules%2FOther%20Rates%2FELECTRIC%5FSCHEDULES%5FNEM%2DV%2DST%2Epdf&parent= %2Fteams%2FPublic%2FTM2%2FShared%20Documents%2FPublic%2FRegulatory%2FTariff%2DSCE%20Tariff%20 Books%2FElectric%2FSchedules%2FOther%20Rates
3 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nemrevisit
55 81
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
8 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone
Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E / PG&E E-TOU Option C G1 (in-unit) & GM (central water heating)1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU Option C GM
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCalGas TOU-D Option 4-9 GM
7, 10, 14 SDG&E / SDG&E TOU-DR-1 GM
POUs
4 CPAU / CPAU E-1 (in-unit) & E-2 (central
water heating) G-2
12 SMUD / PG&E R-TOD, RT02 (in-unit) &
RSMM (central water heating) GM
1G1 rate applied to gas use within the apartment units, which only occurs in Climate Zones 1 and 16, see Section 3 for details. GM rate applied to gas use for central water heating.
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time according to the 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. See Appendix 7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions for details.
2.2 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics
2022 Title 24, Part 6 Section 170.1 defines the energy budget of the building based on source energy and TDV energy for space-conditioning, indoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, PV and battery storage systems, service water heating and covered process loads. In 2022, the Energy Commission introduced the new compliance metric of source energy, which differs by fuel source (as does TDV) and is a reasonable proxy for greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, for multifamily buildings four habitable stories and higher prescriptive requirements for PV and battery systems were also introduced. This led to the need to differentiate an efficiency compliance metric, which ensured that the building met minimum efficiency standards, and a total energy compliance metric which incorporated the PV and battery standards.
In order to be compliant with the building code a building needs to comply with all three compliance metrics described below:
• Efficiency TDV. Efficiency TDV accounts for all regulated end-uses but does not include the impacts of PV and battery storage.
• Total TDV. Total TDV includes regulated end-uses and accounts for PV and battery storage contributions. • Source Energy. Source energy is based on fuel used for power generation and distribution.
2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis reports the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates based on assumptions within CBECC. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. There are two series of multipliers—one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones. 4 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year building lifetime.
4 CBECC 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).
56 82
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes, measures, costs, and the scope of analysis drawing from previous reach code research where appropriate.
3.1 Prototype Characteristics
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. There are 4 multifamily prototypes used in code development : a 2-story garden style, a 3-story loaded corridor, a 5-story mixed use and a 10-story mixed use. Based on work completed for the 2022 Title 24 code development, the 3-story and the 5-story represent 33 percent and 58 percent, respectively, of new multifamily construction in California. As a result, these two prototypes are used in this analysis. Additional details on all four prototypes can be found in the Multifamily Prototypes Report (TRC, 2019).
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype.
Table 2. Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic 3-Story Loaded
Corridor 5-Story Mixed Use
Conditioned Floor Area 39,372 ft2
113,100 ft2 total:
33,660 ft2 nonresidential
79,440 ft2 residential
Num. of Stories 3
6 Stories total:
1 story parking garage (below grade)
1 story of nonresidential space
4 stories of residential space
Num. of Bedrooms
(6) Studio
(12) 1-bed
(12) 2-bed
(6) 3-bed
(8) studios
(40) 1-bed units
(32) 2-bed units
(8) 3-bed units
Window-to-Wall Area Ratio 25% 25%
Wall Type Wood framed Wood frame over a first-floor concrete podium
Roof Type Flat roof Flat roof
Foundation Slab-on-grade Concrete podium with underground parking
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.5 Table 170.2-A and 170.2-B in the 2022 Standards (California Energy Commission, 2022a) list the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone.
Other features are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements and are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2022c). The analysis also assumed electric resistance cooking in the apartment units to reflect current market data. The 3-story building prototype includes a central laundry facility, and the 5-story assumes laundry in the units. Laundry equipment was assumed to be electric in all cases; electrification of laundry equipment was not addressed in this study. The nonresidential 2022 reach code analysis (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2022b) did consider electrification of central laundry facilities within the small hotel prototype.
Table 3 describes 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 establishing an electric
5Due to planned software updates to how the prescriptive requirements are applied in the Standard Design and challenges for certain space types with sizing heating and cooling equipment the same in the Proposed Design as in the Standards, the results compliance margins for the base case models were not exactly zero percent.. 57 83
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
heat pump baseline in all climate zones except 16 for multifamily buildings three habitable stories and fewer and 1 and 16 for multifamily buildings four habitable stories and greater.
Table 3. Base Case Characteristics of the Prototypes
Characteristic 3-Story Loaded Corridor 5-story Mixed Use Space
Heating/Cooling1
Individual split systems with ducts in
conditioned space
CZ 1-15: Heat pump
CZ 16: Natural gas furnace with air
conditioner
Individual split systems with ducts in
conditioned space
CZ2-15: Heat pump
CZ1, 16: Dual-fuel heat pump with
natural gas backup
Ventilation Individual balanced fans, continuously
operating
Individual balanced fans, continuously
operating
Water Heater1
Natural gas central boiler with solar
thermal sized to meet the prescriptive
requirements by climate zone.
Natural gas central boiler with solar
thermal sized to meet the prescriptive
requirements by climate zone.
Hot Water
Distribution Central recirculation Central recirculation Cooking Electric Electric
Clothes Drying Electric (central) Electric (in-unit)
PV System
Sized according to the prescriptive
requirements in Equation 170.2-C of the
2022 Title 24 Standards. Size differs by
climate zone ranging from 1.60 kW to
2.90 kW per dwelling unit, see Table 4.
Sized according to the prescriptive
requirements in Equation 170.2-D of the
2022 Title 24 Standards. Size differs by
climate zone ranging from 2.26 kW to
3.34 kW per dwelling unit, see Table 4.
Battery System None None
1 Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards.
Table 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages.
Table 4. Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
Base Package
3-Story 5-Story
CZ01 2.00 2.26
CZ02 1.79 2.68
CZ03 1.70 2.26
CZ04 1.75 2.68
CZ05 1.60 2.26
CZ06 1.77 2.68
CZ07 1.67 2.68
CZ08 1.91 2.68
CZ09 1.92 2.68
CZ10 1.98 2.68
CZ11 2.21 2.68
CZ12 1.96 2.68
CZ13 2.33 2.68
CZ14 1.94 2.68
CZ15 2.90 3.34
CZ16 1.76 2.26
58 84
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
3.2 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. This analysis focused on measures that impacted the residential dwelling units only.
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. Replacement costs are applied for roofs, mechanical equipment, PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. Incremental 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. Regional variation in costs is not accounted for, although it's recognized that local costs may differ. Cost increases due to recent high inflation rates and supply chain delays are not included.
3.2.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries
The 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. These measures were evaluated for all climate zones but were ultimately adopted in a subset of climate zones based on cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Lower U-Factor Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climate zones except Climate Zones 7 and 8 where it is 0.34. This measure is included in Climate Zone 16 only.
Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflect ance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.70. Low-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. The 2022 Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.63 for Climate Zones 9 through 11 and 13 through 15. This measure is included in Climate Zones 9 through 15.
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, 2022b). This measure is included in Climate Zones 1 and 10 through 16.
Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space: Seal the ducts to achieve a measured leakage no greater than 25 cfm leakage to outside. This may be verified using a guarded blower door test to isolate leakage to outside.
Alternatively, this can also be satisfied by demonstrating that total leakage is not greater than 25 cfm. Ducts are assumed to already be located in conditioned space in the baseline. This measure is included in all climate zones.
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 violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.
6 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions. This measure is included in all climate zones.
Battery Energy Storage: A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Time-of-Use” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. This control option assumes the battery system will
6 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
59 85
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
charge or discharge based on a utility tariff time-of use signal. To qualify, the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA12.2.3.2 (California Energy Commission, 2022b). This measure is included in all climate zones but only for the 3-story prototype. A 100kWh battery was applied following the battery sizing requirements for multifamily buildings more than three habitable stories per Equation 170.2- E of the 2022 Energy Code.
60 86
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 5. Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(2023 PV$)
Source & Notes 3-Story 5-Story
Non-Preempted Measures
Window U-factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $536 $489 $4.23/ft2 of window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).
Low-Sloped Cool
Roof Aged Solar
Reflectance
0.63 vs 0.10 $314 $222
$0.525/ft2 of roof area first incremental cost based on the 2022 Residential Additions and Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).Total costs assume present value of replacement at year 15.
0.70 vs 0.63 $24 $17
$0.04/ft2 of roof area first incremental cost based on the 2022 Nonresidential High Performance Envelope CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a). Costs assume a blended average across roofing product types. Total costs assume present value of replacement at year 15.
Low Pressure
Drop Ducts
0.35 vs 0.45
W/cfm $44 $44
Costs assume half-hour labor per multifamily dwelling unit. 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.
Verified Low
Leakage Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
≤25 cfm leakage
to outside $132 $132
Costs assume half-hour labor per multifamily dwelling unit and a $100 HERS Rater fee.
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. Ducts are already assumed to be located in conditioned space and the incremental costs reflect additional sealing and testing only.
PV + Battery
PV System
First Cost $1.47/W $1.47/W
First costs from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2022 costs (Barbose, Darghouth, O'Shaughnessy, & Forrester, 2022) and represent median costs in California in 2021 of $2.10/WDC for nonresidential greater than 100kWDC systems. The first cost was reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) of 30%.1 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 $0.31/W
61 87
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(2023 PV$)
Source & Notes 3-Story 5-Story
Battery
First cost $700/kWh n/a
First cost of $1,000/kWh from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2022 costs (Barbose, Darghouth, O'Shaughnessy, & Forrester, 2022) for residential systems > 30kWh. The report derived costs from California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) residential participant cost data. First cost is reduced by the solar energy ITC of 30%.1 No SGIP incentives are included.
Costs are assumed to remain consistent at $1,000/kWh through 2025 and then reduced by 7% annually based on SDG&E’s Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020) over a 10 year period. Replacement is assumed at years 10 and 20. At year 10 the replacement cost is based on the average of expected 2033, 2034, and 2035 costs after applying the ITC for a future value cost of $435. Replacement cost at year 20 is based on a future value cost of $484 and does not include any ITC reduction.
Replacement
cost $564/kWh n/a
1As 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 to 26% in 2033 and 22% in 2034. It’s assumed that the ITC is not renewed and is 0% starting in 2035. https://www.irs.gov/pub/taxpros/fs-2022-40.pdf.
62 88
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 15 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
3.2.2 All-Electric
This analysis compared a code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses natural gas for water heating only in most climate zones, with a code compliant all-electric prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances and natural gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for not providing natural gas to the building were included.
To estimate costs the Reach Codes Team leveraged costs from the 2022 Multifamily All-Electric CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c) and the 2019 reach code multifamily cost-effectiveness studies ( (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2020), (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021)), and online equipment research. Present value replacement costs are included in the total lifetime incremental costs.
3.2.2.1 Water Heating
Federal regulations establish minimum efficiency requirements for heat pump water heaters with rated storage volume less than 120 gallons. While some heat pump water heaters falling into this regulated category can be used in a central water heater design, they are not required and therefore this measure does not trigger federal preemption and heat pump equipment of any efficiency level may be used for this analysis to justify the basis of a reach code .
For the central heat pump water heating system in the 3-story prototype the system design was based on the 2022 All- Electric Multifamily CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c) and used CO2 refrigerant based heat pump water heaters (four Sanden GS3-45HPA-US units), 525 gallons of storage, and a 250 gallon electric resistance swing tank.
The 2022 CASE work based the 5-story system design on Colmac R-134a refrigerant heat pump water heaters. While this is an acceptable design, R-134a or R-410a refrigerant heat pump water heaters were found to be less cost- effective for the prototypes evaluated in this analysis due to higher incremental costs and lower overall performance relative to CO2 refrigerant products. As such, the Reach Codes Team evaluated a CO2 refrigerant system for the 5- story prototype for this analysis. As part of the 2025 Energy Code update cycle, designs for both multifamily prototypes are being reexamined using CO2 refrigerant heat pump water heaters. While full design and cost information was not yet available for this analysis, preliminary design data was used to inform sizing of a Sanden system for this prototype.
The system used 10 heat pump water heaters (Sanden GS3-45HPA-US units), 800 gallons of storage, and a 200 gallon electric resistance swing tank.
Table 6 reports costs for the central heat pump water heating systems relative to a gas boiler system with solar thermal that meets the prescriptive requirements of 20% solar fraction in Climate Zones 1 through 9 and 35% solar fraction in Climate Zones 10 through 16. Costs include equipment and labor, gas piping within the building for the boiler system, and additional electrical service necessary for the heat pump system. Replacement costs are based on an effective useful life of 15 years for the water heaters and tanks, and 20 years for the solar thermal collectors. For the solar thermal systems, it’s also assumed that the glycol is replaced at years 9, 18 and 27. Additional details on cost assumptions are presented in Appendix 7.3 Cost Details. 63 89
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 16 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 6. Heat Pump Water Heater Incremental System Costs (Present Value (2023$)) Item
3-Story 5-Story
Source & Notes Central
Gas
Boiler
Central
Heat
Pump
Central
Gas
Boiler
Central
Heat
Pump
First Cost CZs 1-9 $173,772
$211,531
$279,163
$343,920
3-story costs directly from 2022
Multifamily All-Electric CASE
Report. 5-story costs estimated
based on component costs for
the 3-story from the CASE
report.
CZs 10-16 $182,810 $300,883
Replacement Cost CZs 1-9 $32,297
$44,263
$59,930
$110,659
CZs 10-16 $36,943 $69,361
Total Incremental
Cost
CZs 1-9
n/a
$49,725
n/a
$115,486
CZs 10-16 $36,041 $84,335
Incremental Cost
per Dwelling Unit
CZs 1-9 $1,381 $1,312
CZs 10-16 $1,001 $958
3.2.2.2 Space Heating
Table 7 presents the costs for heat pump space heater conversion from gas equipment. In most climate zones the baseline per the 2022 Energy Code is a heat pump space heater, so these costs are only applied in a couple of instances. For the 3-story prototype the baseline in Climate Zone 16 is a gas furnace and air conditioner. For the 5- story prototype the baseline in Climate Zones 1 and 16 is a dual fuel heat pump with a gas furnace as backup. Costs include equipment and labor, gas piping within the building for the boiler system, and additional electrical service necessary for the heat pump system. Most of the cost difference between the two systems is attributed to higher labor costs to install the gas system as a result of gas piping and venting. Additional details on cost assumptions are presented in Appendix 7.3 Cost Details.
Table 7. Heat Pump Space Heater Costs per Dwelling Unit (Present Value (2023$) Item
3-Story 5-Story
Source & Notes Furnace +
Split AC
Heat
Pump
Furnace +
Split HP
Heat
Pump
First Cost
$20,667 $16,776 $21,245 $16,597
Costs largely based on the 2022
Multifamily All-Electric CASE Report with
some updates to reflect online equipment
cost research and labor cost alignments.
Replacement Cost $8,059 $7,326 $9,052 $7,326 See lifetimes referenced in Table 8.
Residual value at the end of the 30-year
analysis period was accounted for to
represent the remaining life of any
equipment.
Residual Value ($1,591) $0 $0 $0
Total $27,135 $24,102 $30,296 $23,924
Incremental Cost ($3,032) ($6,373)
Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 8. 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 64 90
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 17 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
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.
Table 8. Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 17.5
Air Conditioner 17.5
Heat Pump 15
Dual Fuel Heat Pump 15
3.2.2.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure
Eliminating natural gas to a building saves costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly meter customer charges from the utility. This section focuses on the first item, not connecting gas service to the building. The latter two are captured in the appliance costs and the utility bill analysis. Cost savings for removing natural gas infrastructure to a multifamily building in IOU territory are presented in Table 9 and Table 10. These costs are applied as cost savings for the all-electric case when compared to the mixed fuel baseline.
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.
Service Extension: Service extension costs to the building were taken from a PG&E memo dated December 5, 2019 to Energy Commission staff (see Appendix 7.4 PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo for a copy of the memo). The estimated cost of $6,750 excludes costs for trenching and assumes nonresidential new construction within a developed area. For the 5-story building the cost is apportioned between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building based on associated conditioned floor areas where 84 percent is residential. All of the spaces in the 3-story building are residential based.
Today, total costs are reduced to account for deductions per the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules. 7 These rules
categorize distribution line extensions as “refundable” costs, which are offset or subsidized by all other ratepayers. The CPUC issued a Decision in September 2022 that eliminates the subsidies effective July 1, 2023 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2022). Since most of the development that will occur during the three-year 2022 code cycle (2023-2025) will not be subject to these deduction allowances they are not included in this analysis.
Meter: Cost per meter provided by PG&E of $3,600 for a commercial meter to serve the central water heating and $600 per multifamily dwelling unit. The $600 dwelling unit meter is only applied in Climate Zone 16 for the 3- story prototype and Climate Zones 1 and 16 for the 5-story prototypes where gas is used either for primary or backup space heating. Two scenarios are presented in the tables. One is the case with electric space heating, no in- unit gas and the only residential gas use is to serve the central water heating system. The other case represents the scenario where there is in-unit gas to service space heating.
7 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. 65 91
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 18 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Natural Gas Plan Review: Total costs are based on TRC’s 2019 reach code analysis for Palo Alto (TRC, 2018 ). The cost for the 5-story prototype is apportioned between the residential and nonresidential spaces in the building in the same way as was done for the service extension costs.
Table 9. IOU Natural Gas Infrastructure Cost Savings for All-Electric Building Item 3-Story 5-Story
Service Extension $6,750 $5,695
Meter
No In-Unit Gas
(Gas DHW only) $3,600 $3,600
In-Unit Gas $25,200 $56,400
Plan Review $2,316 $1,954
Table 10. Multifamily IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Prototype Scenario Total
Building
Per Dwelling
Unit
3-Story No In-Unit Gas $12,666 $352
In-Unit Gas $34,266 $952
5-Story No In-Unit Gas $11,248 $128
In-Unit Gas $64,048 $728
CPAU provides gas service to its customers and therefore separate costs were evaluated based on CPAU gas service connection fees.8 Table 11 presents the breakdown of gas infrastructure costs used in this analysis for CPAU. The same approach to apportioning the total building costs to the residential spaces as described in the IOU section was applied here for the service extension and plan review costs for the 5-story prototype. Meter costs were based on $1,772 for an 800 cubic foot per hour commercial meter for the central water heating system.
Table 11. Multifamily CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item 3-Story 5-Story
Service Extension $5,892 $4,971
Meter $1,772 $1,772
Plan Review $2,557 $2,157
3.3 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. A ll-Electric Prescriptive Code: This package meets all the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Energy Code .
2. All-Electric Prescriptive Code + PV: Using the code minimum package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use.
3. Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only: This package uses only efficiency measures that do not trigger federal preemption including envelope and duct distribution efficiency measures.
8 CPAU Schedule G-5 effective 09-01-2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/utilities- engineering/general-specifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf 66 92
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 19 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
4. Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use. A battery system was also added. This package only applies to the 3-story prototype. The 5-story prototype includes a battery system in the baseline per the 2022 prescriptive requirements.
5. Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use. This package only applies to the 5-story prototype. 67 93
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 20 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
4 Results
Cost-effectiveness results are presented per prototype and measure packages described in Section 3.3. The TDV and On-Bill based cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV. Energy savings, compliance margin, utility bill savings, and incremental costs are also shown.
In the following figures, green highlighting indicates that the case is cost-effective with a B/C ratio greater than or equal to 1 and a NPV greater than or equal to 0. Red highlighting indicates the case is not cost-effective.
Compliance margins are presented as percentages both for the efficiency TDV and the source energy metrics. A compliance margin that is equal to or greater than 0 indicates the case is code compliant.
4.1 All-Electric Prescriptive Code
Table 12 and Table 13 shows results for the multifamily all-electric prescriptive code case compared to the 2022 baseline. For both prototypes this scenario is cost-effective based on TDV in all climate zones. This scenario is only On-Bill cost-effective in a few climate zones. The 3-story all-electric case is cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1 through 3, 4 in CPAU territory, 12 in SMUD territory, and 16. The 5-story all-electric case is cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1, 4, 12 in SMUD territory, and 16.
In most cases there is a small net increase in utility cost in the first year.
There is an incremental cost for the central heat pump water heater ranging from $361 to $697 per dwelling unit.
The all-electric packages applied to the 3-story prototype in Climate Zone 16 and the 5-story prototype in Climate Zones 1 and 16 incorporate both gas to electric water heating and gas to electric space heating measures. In these cases, there are significant cost savings due to the avoided first costs of installing a gas furnace as compared to a heat pump. As a result, these cases are On-Bill cost-effective.
These results reflect a CO
2 refrigerant based central heat pump water heating system. The 5-story prototype was also evaluated with a R-134a refrigerant based central heat pump water heater and these results are shown in Appendix
7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison.
68 94
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 21 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 12. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 26% 15% -904 135 ($19) $1,676 $97 $429 3.9 $1,247 >1 $4,158 CZ02 PGE 20% 11% -801 115 ($30) $1,061 $697 $1,029 1.0 $32 9.9 $2,998 CZ03 PGE 21% 10% -789 115 ($26) $1,148 $697 $1,029 1.1 $119 9.9 $2,990 CZ04 PGE 18% 9% -759 109 ($31) $922 $697 $1,029 0.9 ($108) 9.2 $2,767 CZ04 CPAU 18% 9% -759 109 $233 $8,191 $765 $1,097 7.5 $7,094 7.7 $2,700 CZ05 PGE 23% 9% -789 112 ($30) $1,009 $697 $1,029 0.98 ($21) 9.3 $2,782 CZ05 PGE/SCG 23% 9% -789 112 ($79) ($515) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($1,545) 9.3 $2,782 CZ06 SCE/SCG 18% 7% -709 100 ($61) ($226) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($1,255) 8.6 $2,551 CZ07 SDGE 20% 8% -704 102 ($69) ($427) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($1,456) 9.1 $2,712 CZ08 SCE/SCG 13% 6% -689 96 ($61) ($302) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($1,331) 8.2 $2,432 CZ09 SCE 13% 5% -698 96 ($64) ($351) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($1,380) 8.0 $2,363 CZ10 SCE/SCG 14% 7% -701 83 ($88) ($1,109) $446 $649 0.0 ($1,758) >1 $1,959 CZ10 SDGE 14% 7% -701 83 ($112) ($1,803) $446 $649 0.0 ($2,452) >1 $1,959 CZ11 PGE 14% 10% -740 91 ($64) ($177) $446 $649 0.0 ($826) >1 $2,212 CZ12 PGE 17% 11% -755 94 ($62) ($70) $446 $649 0.0 ($719) >1 $2,297 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 17% 11% -755 94 $68 $2,942 $446 $649 4.5 $2,293 >1 $2,297 CZ13 PGE 13% 9% -717 86 ($65) ($291) $446 $649 0.0 ($940) >1 $2,050 CZ14 SCE/SCG 13% 7% -748 83 ($102) ($1,413) $446 $649 0.0 ($2,063) >1 $1,759 CZ14 SDGE 13% 7% -748 83 ($128) ($2,191) $446 $649 0.0 ($2,841) >1 $1,759 CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 2% -607 64 ($89) ($1,403) $446 $649 0.0 ($2,053) >1 $1,305 CZ16 PG&E 24% 29% -1,928 185 ($178) ($1,066) ($4,045) ($2,983) 2.8 $1,917 >1 $4,352 69 95
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 22 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 13. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 14% 9% -1,146 147 ($49) $1,209 ($4,639) ($5,788) >1 $6,998 >1 $9,816 CZ02 PGE 9% 6% -888 120 ($45) $809 $608 $1,185 0.7 ($375) 3.0 $2,270 CZ03 PGE 11% 7% -874 120 ($46) $778 $608 $1,185 0.7 ($407) 3.1 $2,421 CZ04 PGE 9% 6% -824 113 $18 $2,130 $608 $1,185 1.8 $945 3.1 $2,393 CZ04 CPAU 9% 6% -824 113 $230 $8,205 $635 $1,211 6.8 $6,994 3.0 $2,367 CZ05 PGE 12% 6% -871 117 ($47) $706 $608 $1,185 0.6 ($479) 2.8 $2,065 CZ05 PGE/SCG 12% 6% -871 117 ($99) ($919) $608 $1,185 0.0 ($2,103) 2.8 $2,065 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9% 5% -739 104 ($10) $986 $608 $1,185 0.8 ($199) 2.9 $2,183 CZ07 SDGE 11% 6% -735 106 ($74) ($500) $608 $1,185 0.0 ($1,685) 2.9 $2,215 CZ08 SCE/SCG 8% 4% -710 100 ($79) ($644) $608 $1,185 0.0 ($1,829) 3.0 $2,259 CZ09 SCE 7% 4% -725 100 ($53) ($51) $608 $1,185 0.0 ($1,236) 3.0 $2,274 CZ10 SCE/SCG 7% 4% -729 84 ($111) ($1,615) $361 $831 0.0 ($2,445) 2.7 $1,374 CZ10 SDGE 7% 4% -729 84 ($137) ($2,404) $361 $831 0.0 ($3,234) 2.7 $1,374 CZ11 PGE 8% 5% -790 92 ($86) ($663) $361 $831 0.0 ($1,494) 3.1 $1,656 CZ12 PGE 9% 6% -809 96 ($83) ($527) $361 $831 0.0 ($1,358) 3.0 $1,620 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 9% 6% -809 96 $62 $2,831 $361 $831 3.4 $2,000 3.0 $1,620 CZ13 PGE 7% 5% -754 88 ($83) ($686) $361 $831 0.0 ($1,517) 3.0 $1,570 CZ14 SCE/SCG 6% 3% -803 84 ($131) ($2,085) $361 $831 0.0 ($2,916) 2.2 $928 CZ14 SDGE 6% 3% -803 84 ($165) ($3,106) $361 $831 0.0 ($3,937) 2.2 $928 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3% 1% -602 65 ($105) ($1,775) $361 $831 0.0 ($2,606) 1.9 $695 CZ16 PG&E 9% 11% -1,388 142 ($127) ($675) ($4,886) ($6,142) 9.1 $5,467 >1 $6,704 70 96
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 23 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
4.2 All-Electric Plus PV
Table 14 and Table 15 present cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric plus PV packages for the 3-story and 5-story prototypes, respectively. All cases are cost-effective both On-Bill and based on TDV.
Table 14. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 26% 24% 2,127 135 $782 $20,242 $3,638 $5,034 4.0 $15,208 3.2 $9,448 CZ02 PGE 20% 20% 1,835 115 $653 $16,910 $3,294 $4,406 3.8 $12,504 3.3 $8,632 CZ03 PGE 21% 20% 1,711 115 $614 $15,998 $3,076 $4,123 3.9 $11,875 3.4 $8,209 CZ04 PGE 18% 18% 1,558 109 $559 $14,587 $2,841 $3,818 3.8 $10,770 3.6 $8,230 CZ04 CPAU 18% 18% 1,558 109 $489 $14,138 $2,909 $3,886 3.6 $10,253 3.6 $8,162 CZ05 PGE 23% 20% 1,604 112 $579 $15,137 $2,826 $3,798 4.0 $11,338 3.6 $8,026 CZ05 PGE/SCG 23% 20% 1,604 112 $531 $13,613 $2,826 $3,798 3.6 $9,814 3.6 $8,026 CZ06 SCE/SCG 18% 17% 1,207 100 $378 $9,795 $2,364 $3,197 3.1 $6,598 3.8 $7,092 CZ07 SDGE 20% 21% 1,528 102 $723 $19,318 $2,777 $3,734 5.2 $15,584 3.5 $7,623 CZ08 SCE/SCG 13% 17% 1,393 96 $426 $10,842 $2,569 $3,464 3.1 $7,378 3.9 $7,908 CZ09 SCE 13% 15% 1,204 96 $379 $9,756 $2,335 $3,160 3.1 $6,596 3.9 $7,158 CZ10 SCE/SCG 14% 18% 1,381 83 $404 $10,130 $2,237 $2,978 3.4 $7,152 4.1 $7,031 CZ10 SDGE 14% 18% 1,381 83 $621 $16,493 $2,237 $2,978 5.5 $13,514 4.1 $7,031 CZ11 PGE 14% 19% 1,843 91 $625 $15,782 $2,940 $3,893 4.1 $11,889 3.4 $7,748 CZ12 PGE 17% 19% 1,704 94 $579 $14,777 $2,756 $3,654 4.0 $11,124 3.6 $7,607 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 17% 19% 1,704 94 $399 $10,615 $2,756 $3,654 2.9 $6,961 3.6 $7,607 CZ13 PGE 13% 17% 1,572 86 $544 $13,822 $2,567 $3,408 4.1 $10,415 3.6 $7,148 CZ14 SCE/SCG 13% 18% 1,572 83 $449 $11,152 $2,300 $3,060 3.6 $8,092 4.2 $7,668 CZ14 SDGE 13% 18% 1,572 83 $688 $18,158 $2,300 $3,060 5.9 $15,098 4.2 $7,668 CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 11% 1,163 64 $330 $8,164 $1,966 $2,626 3.1 $5,539 3.9 $5,567 CZ16 PG&E 24% 38% 1,371 185 $700 $19,307 ($1,064) $894 21.6 $18,412 58.9 $11,596 71 97
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 24 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 15. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 14% 21% 1,437 147 $629 $16,919 ($1,574) ($1,803) >1 $18,721 >1 $18,222 CZ02 PGE 9% 14% 428 120 $262 $7,918 $1,930 $2,904 2.7 $5,015 4.0 $8,679 CZ03 PGE 11% 16% 682 120 $327 $9,417 $2,121 $3,152 3.0 $6,265 4.0 $9,285 CZ04 PGE 9% 13% 92 113 $207 $6,524 $1,476 $2,313 2.8 $4,211 4.1 $7,054 CZ04 CPAU 9% 13% 92 113 $337 $10,667 $1,502 $2,340 4.6 $8,327 4.0 $7,027 CZ05 PGE 12% 16% 451 117 $259 $7,806 $1,815 $2,754 2.8 $5,052 4.0 $8,096 CZ05 PGE/SCG 12% 16% 451 117 $207 $6,182 $1,815 $2,754 2.2 $3,427 4.0 $8,096 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9% 12% -163 104 $98 $3,449 $1,127 $1,859 1.9 $1,590 3.8 $5,035 CZ07 SDGE 11% 15% 74 106 $192 $6,131 $1,387 $2,198 2.8 $3,934 3.9 $6,204 CZ08 SCE/SCG 8% 14% 265 100 $154 $4,666 $1,516 $2,365 2.0 $2,301 4.0 $7,053 CZ09 SCE 7% 12% 60 100 $122 $3,930 $1,307 $2,093 1.9 $1,837 3.7 $5,636 CZ10 SCE/SCG 7% 13% 289 84 $131 $3,912 $1,266 $2,007 1.9 $1,905 3.9 $5,749 CZ10 SDGE 7% 13% 289 84 $238 $6,951 $1,266 $2,007 3.5 $4,945 3.9 $5,749 CZ11 PGE 8% 17% 1,091 92 $417 $10,990 $2,226 $3,256 3.4 $7,734 4.2 $10,472 CZ12 PGE 9% 16% 594 96 $263 $7,487 $1,712 $2,587 2.9 $4,901 4.3 $8,544 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 9% 16% 594 96 $260 $7,419 $1,712 $2,587 2.9 $4,889 4.3 $8,544 CZ13 PGE 7% 17% 1,036 88 $398 $10,479 $2,064 $3,045 3.4 $7,434 4.2 $9,715 CZ14 SCE/SCG 6% 11% 182 84 $102 $3,250 $1,170 $1,883 1.7 $1,368 4.0 $5,515 CZ14 SDGE 6% 11% 182 84 $194 $5,858 $1,170 $1,883 3.1 $3,975 4.0 $5,515 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3% 10% 387 65 $153 $4,119 $1,238 $1,971 2.1 $2,148 3.6 $4,998 CZ16 PG&E 9% 23% 1,007 142 $501 $13,864 ($2,682) ($3,275) >1 $17,139 >1 $16,140 72 98
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 25 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
4.3 Mixed Fuel Efficiency
Table 16 and Table 17 show results for the Mixed Fuel Efficiency packages. The packages are cost-effective based on at least one of the two metrics in Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, and 8 through 16 for the 3-story prototype and in Climate Zones 2, 4, 6, and 8 through 15 for the 5-story prototype. In all cases the NPV values, whether negative or positive, are small. The compliance impacts are also small.
A summary of measures included in each package is provided in Appendix 7.6 Summary of Measures by Package.
Table 16. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 1% 1% 41 0 $12 $273 $176 $176 1.6 $98 1.2 $38 CZ02 PGE 1% 0% 24 0 $7 $162 $132 $132 1.2 $30 1.5 $62 CZ03 PGE 1% 0% 17 0 $5 $111 $132 $132 0.8 ($21) 0.8 ($27) CZ04 PGE 1% 0% 21 0 $6 $141 $132 $132 1.1 $9 1.3 $46 CZ04 CPAU 1% 0% 21 0 $3 $74 $132 $132 0.6 ($58) 1.3 $46 CZ05 PGE 1% 0% 19 0 $5 $123 $132 $132 0.9 ($9) 0.8 ($32) CZ05 PGE/SCG 1% 0% 19 0 $5 $123 $132 $132 0.9 ($9) 0.8 ($32) CZ06 SCE/SCG 1% 0% 9 0 $2 $56 $132 $132 0.4 ($75) 0.7 ($44) CZ07 SDGE 0% 0% 7 0 $3 $72 $132 $132 0.5 ($60) 0.4 ($81) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1% 0% 20 0 $6 $140 $132 $132 1.1 $9 1.5 $59 CZ09 SCE 1% 0% 28 0 $8 $192 $146 $156 1.2 $36 1.6 $88 CZ10 SCE/SCG 3% 1% 65 0 $20 $447 $190 $199 2.2 $247 2.4 $277 CZ10 SDGE 3% 1% 65 0 $27 $683 $190 $199 3.4 $484 2.4 $277 CZ11 PGE 3% 1% 91 0 $30 $699 $190 $199 3.5 $499 3.5 $489 CZ12 PGE 2% 0% 98 0 $33 $766 $381 $514 1.5 $252 1.5 $273 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 2% 0% 98 0 $17 $396 $381 $514 0.8 ($118) 1.5 $273 CZ13 PGE 4% 1% 99 0 $33 $765 $190 $199 3.8 $566 3.9 $574 CZ14 SCE/SCG 3% 1% 88 0 $26 $585 $190 $199 2.9 $385 3.1 $427 CZ14 SDGE 3% 1% 88 0 $36 $886 $190 $199 4.4 $686 3.1 $427 CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 2% 182 0 $54 $1,226 $190 $199 6.1 $1,026 5.8 $957 CZ16 PG&E 5% 4% 16 12 $34 $1,012 $712 $712 1.4 $300 1.3 $184 73 99
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 17. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency
4.4 Mixed Fuel Plus PV (Plus Battery for the 3-Story Prototype) Table 18 presents the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package for the 3-story prototype. The battery system is a 100kWh battery. This scenario is cost- effective for all climate zones and under both metrics except for On-Bill in Climate Zone 4 in CPAU territory. Table 19 presents the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV package for the 5-story prototype. This package is cost-effective under TDV in all climate zones and cost-effective On-Bill everywhere except in Climate Zones 6 and 7. In the cases where it is not cost-effective, it is very close to being so with small negative NPV. In Climate Zone 6 in the 5-story prototype there is no upgrade to the PV system capacity as the prescriptive PV system already offset all of the estimated electricity use.
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0% 0% 5 0 $2 $39 $176 $176 0.2 ($137) 0.2 ($136) CZ02 PGE 1% 0% 11 0 $2 $38 $132 $132 0.3 ($94) 1.9 $118 CZ03 PGE 0% 0% 7 0 $2 $46 $132 $132 0.3 ($86) 0.8 ($23) CZ04 PGE 1% 0% 12 0 $2 $40 $132 $132 0.3 ($92) 1.9 $114 CZ04 CPAU 1% 0% 12 0 $2 $39 $132 $132 0.3 ($93) 1.9 $114 CZ05 PGE 0% 0% 6 0 $1 $17 $132 $132 0.1 ($114) 0.4 ($73) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0% 0% 6 0 $1 $17 $132 $132 0.1 ($114) 0.4 ($73) CZ06 SCE/SCG 0% 0% 12 0 $2 $51 $132 $132 0.4 ($81) 1.4 $49 CZ07 SDGE 0% 0% 10 0 $0 $0 $132 $132 0.0 ($132) 0.9 ($7) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1% 0% 24 0 $8 $184 $132 $132 1.4 $53 2.2 $152 CZ09 SCE 1% 0% 28 0 $4 $96 $142 $149 0.6 ($52) 2.1 $163 CZ10 SCE/SCG 2% 1% 66 0 $21 $491 $186 $192 2.6 $298 3.2 $425 CZ10 SDGE 2% 1% 66 0 $30 $751 $186 $192 3.9 $558 3.2 $425 CZ11 PGE 2% 1% 83 0 $29 $665 $186 $192 3.5 $473 4.2 $621 CZ12 PGE 2% 0% 84 0 $29 $681 $321 $414 1.6 $267 2.3 $546 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 2% 0% 84 0 $16 $372 $321 $414 0.9 ($42) 2.3 $546 CZ13 PGE 2% 1% 95 0 $33 $765 $186 $192 4.0 $573 4.9 $742 CZ14 SCE/SCG 2% 1% 75 0 $11 $246 $186 $192 1.3 $54 3.9 $561 CZ14 SDGE 2% 1% 75 0 $34 $847 $186 $192 4.4 $654 3.9 $561 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3% 2% 172 0 $55 $1,257 $186 $192 6.5 $1,065 7.3 $1,212 CZ16 PG&E 2% 2% 40 4 $23 $616 $665 $665 0.9 ($49) 0.999 ($0) 74 100
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 18. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 1% 16% 2,068 0 $543 $12,588 $4,603 $6,917 1.8 $5,671 1.5 $3,724 CZ02 PGE 1% 16% 1,757 0 $462 $10,718 $3,881 $5,990 1.8 $4,728 1.6 $3,820 CZ03 PGE 1% 17% 1,624 0 $423 $9,797 $3,700 $5,754 1.7 $4,043 1.5 $3,157 CZ04 PGE 1% 17% 1,476 0 $383 $8,878 $3,518 $5,518 1.6 $3,360 1.6 $3,067 CZ04 CPAU 1% 17% 1,476 0 $171 $3,967 $3,518 $5,518 0.7 ($1,551) 1.6 $3,067 CZ05 PGE 1% 18% 1,520 0 $393 $9,107 $3,503 $5,498 1.7 $3,609 1.6 $3,526 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1% 18% 1,520 0 $393 $9,107 $3,503 $5,498 1.7 $3,609 1.6 $3,526 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1% 18% 1,112 0 $336 $7,677 $3,127 $5,009 1.5 $2,668 1.4 $1,917 CZ07 SDGE 0% 20% 1,431 0 $550 $13,713 $3,498 $5,493 2.5 $8,220 1.6 $3,159 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1% 18% 1,311 0 $413 $9,427 $3,328 $5,270 1.8 $4,156 1.4 $2,277 CZ09 SCE 1% 17% 1,129 0 $367 $8,375 $3,129 $5,017 1.7 $3,359 1.4 $1,937 CZ10 SCE/SCG 3% 19% 1,342 0 $420 $9,584 $3,321 $5,254 1.8 $4,331 1.5 $2,588 CZ10 SDGE 3% 19% 1,342 0 $533 $13,303 $3,321 $5,254 2.5 $8,049 1.5 $2,588 CZ11 PGE 3% 17% 1,833 0 $500 $11,587 $3,914 $6,025 1.9 $5,562 1.6 $3,852 CZ12 PGE 2% 17% 1,701 0 $442 $10,239 $3,926 $6,105 1.7 $4,133 1.6 $3,583 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 2% 17% 1,701 0 $285 $6,609 $3,926 $6,105 1.1 $503 1.6 $3,583 CZ13 PGE 4% 17% 1,568 0 $431 $9,983 $3,594 $5,609 1.8 $4,374 1.7 $3,944 CZ14 SCE/SCG 3% 19% 1,556 0 $477 $10,886 $3,388 $5,341 2.0 $5,545 1.6 $3,434 CZ14 SDGE 3% 19% 1,556 0 $607 $15,155 $3,388 $5,341 2.8 $9,815 1.6 $3,434 CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 19% 1,241 0 $421 $9,616 $3,136 $5,013 1.9 $4,603 1.6 $3,076 CZ16 PG&E 5% 17% 1,286 12 $357 $8,508 $3,894 $5,833 1.5 $2,674 1.6 $3,219 75 101
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 19. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0% 5% 1,446 0 $341 $7,917 $1,889 $2,403 3.3 $5,514 3.0 $4,757 CZ02 PGE 1% 2% 444 0 $55 $1,275 $567 $697 1.8 $578 4.4 $2,365 CZ03 PGE 0% 4% 693 0 $119 $2,766 $801 $1,002 2.8 $1,764 4.4 $3,423 CZ04 PGE 1% 1% 112 0 $14 $324 $226 $254 1.3 $69 3.5 $632 CZ04 CPAU 1% 1% 112 0 $13 $307 $226 $254 1.2 $53 3.5 $632 CZ05 PGE 0% 3% 464 0 $56 $1,310 $550 $676 1.9 $634 4.2 $2,165 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0% 3% 464 0 $56 $1,310 $550 $676 1.9 $634 4.2 $2,165 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0% 0% 12 0 $2 $51 $132 $132 0.4 ($81) 1.4 $49 CZ07 SDGE 0% 1% 95 0 $0 $0 $212 $237 0.0 ($237) 2.8 $423 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1% 3% 299 0 $42 $968 $388 $465 2.1 $504 4.3 $1,527 CZ09 SCE 1% 1% 99 0 $12 $284 $204 $230 1.2 $54 3.0 $465 CZ10 SCE/SCG 2% 3% 364 0 $57 $1,296 $450 $536 2.4 $759 4.2 $1,720 CZ10 SDGE 2% 3% 364 0 $103 $2,566 $450 $536 4.8 $2,030 4.2 $1,720 CZ11 PGE 2% 7% 1,178 0 $281 $6,521 $1,276 $1,610 4.1 $4,911 4.8 $6,162 CZ12 PGE 2% 4% 683 0 $120 $2,791 $898 $1,164 2.4 $1,627 4.2 $3,716 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 2% 4% 683 0 $102 $2,362 $898 $1,164 2.0 $1,198 4.2 $3,716 CZ13 PGE 2% 7% 1,137 0 $274 $6,347 $1,179 $1,484 4.3 $4,863 4.8 $5,599 CZ14 SCE/SCG 2% 2% 266 0 $33 $748 $342 $395 1.9 $353 4.7 $1,447 CZ14 SDGE 2% 2% 266 0 $62 $1,554 $342 $395 3.9 $1,158 4.7 $1,447 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3% 5% 567 0 $125 $2,851 $535 $646 4.4 $2,204 5.6 $2,994 CZ16 PG&E 2% 6% 1,051 4 $237 $5,569 $1,601 $1,883 3.0 $3,686 3.1 $4,011 76 102
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
4.5 CARE Rate Comparison
Table 20 presents a comparison of On-Bill cost-effectiveness results for CARE tariffs relative to standard tariffs for the all-electric prescriptive code case. The CARE rates apply to the apartment meters only and don’t impact the central water heating utility costs. Applying the CARE rates lowers both electric and gas utility bills for the consumer and the net impact for an all-electric building in most climate zones is lower overall bills and improved cost -effectiveness relative to the standard tariffs. Although not presented here, the all-electric + PV packages are all still On-Bill cost- effective using the CARE tariffs.
Table 20. On-Bill IOU Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with CARE Tariffs, Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
3-Story 5-Story
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 3.9 $1,247 9.5 $3,637 >1 $6,998 >1 $10,045
CZ02 PGE 1.0 $32 3.1 $2,139 0.7 ($375) 2.5 $1,831
CZ03 PGE 1.1 $119 3.1 $2,187 0.7 ($407) 2.6 $1,901
CZ04 PGE 0.9 ($108) 2.8 $1,884 1.8 $945 2.9 $2,218
CZ05 PGE 0.98 ($21) 3.0 $2,041 0.6 ($479) 2.5 $1,773
CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.0 ($1,545) 1.5 $517 0.0 ($2,103) 1.1 $148 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($1,255) 0.9 ($57) 0.8 ($199) 2.1 $1,349 CZ07 SDGE 0.0 ($1,456) 1.8 $856 0.0 ($1,685) 1.3 $343
CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($1,331) 0.8 ($165) 0.0 ($1,829) 1.2 $271 CZ09 SCE 0.0 ($1,380) 0.8 ($204) 0.0 ($1,236) 1.6 $750
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($1,758) 0.1 ($574) 0.0 ($2,445) 0.5 ($447) CZ10 SDGE 0.0 ($2,452) 0.8 ($162) 0.0 ($3,234) 0.0 ($1,590) CZ11 PGE 0.0 ($826) 2.7 $1,119 0.0 ($1,494) 1.7 $616
CZ12 PGE 0.0 ($719) 2.9 $1,263 0.0 ($1,358) 2.0 $793
CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($940) 2.4 $936 0.0 ($1,517) 1.6 $491
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($2,063) 0.0 ($803) 0.0 ($2,916) 0.3 ($613) CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($2,841) 0.0 ($3,407) 0.0 ($3,937) 1.1 $61 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($2,053) 0.0 ($1,036) 0.0 ($2,606) 0.0 ($1,452) CZ16 PG&E 2.8 $1,917 >1 $5,527 9.1 $5,467 >1 $8,557
Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. presents the comparison for the mixed fuel efficiency and PV packages.
Generally, the opposite trend occurs here for the mixed fuel packages where the CARE rate lowers utility cost savings and the benefit-to-cost ratios decline.
77 103
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 21. On-Bill IOU Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with CARE Tariffs, Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Packages
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
3-Story (Efficiency + PV + Battery) 5-Story (Efficiency + PV) Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.8 $5,671 1.2 $1,113 3.3 $5,514 2.2 $2,765 CZ02 PGE 1.8 $4,728 1.2 $907 1.8 $578 1.5 $337
CZ03 PGE 1.7 $4,043 1.1 $579 2.8 $1,764 2.0 $1,028
CZ04 PGE 1.6 $3,360 1.0 $259 1.3 $69 0.8 ($44)
CZ05 PGE 1.7 $3,609 1.1 $414 1.9 $634 1.7 $442
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.7 $3,609 1.1 $414 1.9 $634 1.7 $442
CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.5 $2,668 0.9 ($515) 0.4 ($81) 0.3 ($92) CZ07 SDGE 2.5 $8,220 1.7 $4,106 0.0 ($237) 0.0 ($237) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.8 $4,156 1.1 $446 2.1 $504 1.3 $137
CZ09 SCE 1.7 $3,359 0.99 ($26) 1.2 $54 0.9 ($28)
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.8 $4,331 1.1 $577 2.4 $759 1.3 $180
CZ10 SDGE 2.5 $8,049 1.8 $4,180 4.8 $2,030 0.0 ($536) CZ11 PGE 1.9 $5,562 1.2 $1,435 4.1 $4,911 2.7 $2,744 CZ12 PGE 1.7 $4,133 1.1 $517 2.4 $1,627 1.8 $905
CZ13 PGE 1.8 $4,374 1.2 $883 4.3 $4,863 2.9 $2,777
CZ14 SCE/SCG 2.0 $5,545 1.3 $1,395 1.9 $353 1.3 $136 CZ14 SDGE 2.8 $9,815 1.4 $2,292 3.9 $1,158 0.0 ($395) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.9 $4,603 1.2 $887 4.4 $2,204 1.9 $586 CZ16 PG&E 1.5 $2,674 0.97 ($162) 3.0 $3,686 2.0 $1,908
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Figure 1 and Figure 2 compare greenhouse gas reductions across all the packages for the multifamily 3-story and 5- story prototypes, respectively. Savings represent average annual savings per dwelling unit over the 30-year lifetime of the analysis. Electrification of gas uses represents the greatest greenhouse gas reductions, followed by PV.
Greenhouse gas reductions are greatest for the all-electric + PV package. 78 104
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Figure 1. 3-Story greenhouse gas reductions (metric tons) per dwelling unit
Figure 2. 5-Story greenhouse gas savings (metric tons) per dwelling unit
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Greenhouse Gas Reduc�ons (metric tons )
Mixed Fuel Efficiency
Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Ba�ery
All-Electric Code Minimum
All-Electric + PV
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Greenhouse Gas Reduc�ons (metric tons ) Mixed Fuel Efficiency Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV
All-Electric Code Minimum
All-Electric + PV
79 105
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team identified packages of electrification and energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining these measures with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them using 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 22 summarizes results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency TDV 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 cases with a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict cases with a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict cases with a positive compliance margin but that were not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
Following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis. • The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on the California Energy Commission’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) metric in all cases. In many cases all - electric prescriptive code 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.
• 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 2022 Energy Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump space heating baseline in most climate zones encourages all-electric construction. While the code does not include an electric baseline for water heating, the penalty for central electric water heating observed in the performance approach in past code cycles has been removed and a credit is provided for well-designed central heat pump water heaters in most cases.
• Electrification combined with increased PV capacity results in utility cost savings and was found to be On- Bill cost-effective in all cases.
• The results in this study are based on today’s net energy metering (NEM 2.0) rules and do not account for recently approved changes to the NEM tariff (referred to as the net billing tariff). The net billing tariff decreases the value of PV to the consumer as compared to NEM 2.0. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the packages that include above-code PV capacity is expected to be less under the net billing tariff. Conversely, the net billing tariff is expected to increase On-Bill cost-effectiveness of the all-electric prescriptive code scenario. An all-electric home has better on-site utilization of generated electricity from PV than a mixed fuel home with a similar sized PV system, and as a result exports less electricity to the grid. Since the net -billing tariff values exports less than under NEM 2.0, the relative impact on annual utility costs to the mixed fuel baseline is greater.
• T his analysis does justify requiring a modest reach based on either efficiency TDV or source energy for all- electric buildings. However, this may be challenging for some projects given the recent changes to which the industry must adapt, including the efficiency updates and multifamily restructuring in the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 code. While project compliance margins using a CO
2 refrigerant heat pump water heating system are high, the Reach Code Team found lower compliance margins using other heat pump water heater system designs. 80 106
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Focusing on supporting projects to electrify water heating is expected to support the market shift towards more central heat pump water heaters.
• For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings, a mixed fuel efficiency and PV package (and battery for the 3-story prototype) was found to be cost-effective based on TDV in all cases and cost-effective On-Bill in most climate zones. This path, referred to as “Electric-Preferred”, allows for mixed fuel buildings but requires a higher building performance than for all-electric buildings. The efficiency measures evaluated in this study did not provide significant compliance benefit. As a result, the Reach Codes Team recommends establishing a compliance margin target based on source energy or total TDV. This would allow for PV and battery above minimum code requirements to be used to meet the target. • Jurisdictions interested in increasing affordable multifamily housing should know that applying the CARE rates has the overall impact of increasing utility cost savings for an all-electric building in most climate zones compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness.
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. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the California 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 22. Summary of Efficiency TDV Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
3-Story 5-Story
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-
Electric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-
Electric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV
CZ01 PGE 26% 26% 1% 1% 14% 14% 0% 0%
CZ02 PGE 20% 20% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ03 PGE 21% 21% 1% 1% 11% 11% 0% 0%
CZ04 PGE 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ04 CPAU 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 1% 1%
CZ05 PGE 23% 23% 1% 1% 12% 12% 0% 0%
CZ05 PGE/SCG 23% 23% 1% 1% 12% 12% 0% 0%
CZ06 SCE/SCG 18% 18% 1% 1% 9% 9% 0% 0%
CZ07 SDGE 20% 20% 0% 0% 11% 11% 0% 0%
CZ08 SCE/SCG 13% 13% 1% 1% 8% 8% 1% 1%
CZ09 SCE 13% 13% 1% 1% 7% 7% 1% 1%
CZ10 SCE/SCG 14% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ10 SDGE 14% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ11 PGE 14% 14% 3% 3% 8% 8% 2% 2%
CZ12 PGE 17% 17% 2% 2% 9% 9% 2% 2%
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 17% 17% 2% 2% 9% 9% 2% 2%
CZ13 PGE 13% 13% 4% 4% 7% 7% 2% 2%
CZ14 SCE/SCG 13% 13% 3% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2%
CZ14 SDGE 13% 13% 3% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2%
CZ15 SCE/SCG 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3%
CZ16 PG&E 24% 24% 5% 5% 9% 9% 2% 2%
81 107
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
6 References
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Forrester, S. (2022, October). Tracking the Sun. Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2022 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. (2022a). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2022-010-CMF. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 12/CEC-400-2022-010_CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2022b). 2022 Reference Appendices for the 202 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
CEC-400-2022-010-AP. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/CEC-400- 2022-010-AP.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2022c, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-2022-008-CMF-REV. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022- single-family-residential-alternative-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-affairs- division/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 Rulemaking 19-01-011: PHASE III DECISION ELIMINATING GAS LINE EXTENSION ALLOWANCES. Retrieved from https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M496/K876/496876177.PDF E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/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/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197
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.
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-savings- potential-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-CASE- Report.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 82 108
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-and- Alterations_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. (2020). 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study.
Prepared by Frontier Energy, Misti Bruceri & Associates, and EnergySoft. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/492/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Mid-rise%20NC%20Cost- Eff%20Report.pdf
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: 2020 Analysis of High-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared by Frontier Energy and Misti Bruceri & Associates. Retrieved from https://www.localenergycodes.com/download/737/file_path/fieldList/2019%20High-Rise%20NC-Cost- Eff%20Report-2021-02-22.pdf
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2022a). 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family new Construction. Prepared by Frontier Energy and Misti Bruceri & Associates. Retrieved from California Energy Codes & Standards:
https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2022b). Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Study.
Prepared by Avani Goyal, Farhad Farahmand, TRC Companies. Retrieved from California Energy Codes & Standards: https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources TRC. (2018 ). 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Draft. City of Palo Alto. Retrieved from https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66742 TRC. (2019). Multifamily Prototypes. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCE- MFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf
83 109
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7 Appendices
7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 3. The map in Figure 3 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 3. Map of California climate zones.
84 110
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
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.9 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts.
Electricity rates reflect the most recent approved tariffs. Monthly gas rates were estimated based on the latest available gas rate (December 2022) and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand.
The seasonal curve was estimated from monthly residential tariffs between 2012 and 2022 (between 2020 and 2022 for CPAU). 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the eleven years (three years for CPAU).
These annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. This was conducted separately for baseline and excess energy rates. Costs used in this analysis were then derived by establishing the most recent baseline and excess rate from the latest tariff as a reference point (December 2022), and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the reference point rate.
9 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/california-climate- credit
85 111
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.1 P acific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Error! Reference source not found. describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.0474/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between November 2021 and October 2022.
Table 23. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These are applied to both the G-1 and GM rates. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. for further details. The corresponding CARE rates are shown in Error! Reference source not found. and reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff. The GM master metered wather heating baseline quantity of 0.43 therms per dwelling unit per day in all baseline territories and in both seasons was applied to the centrally metered gas water heating.
Table 24. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.20579 $2.66008
February $2.24291 $2.69637
March $2.11750 $2.58278
April $2.08101 $2.55500
May $2.08062 $2.55844
June $2.09104 $2.56928
July $2.10404 $2.58189
August $2.15162 $2.63251
September $2.18718 $2.67910
October $2.23153 $2.71934
November $2.32121 $2.79158
December $2.34123 $2.80922
86 112
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 25. PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total CARE Charge
Baseline Excess
January $1.76463 $2.12806
February $1.79433 $2.15710
March $1.69400 $2.06622
April $1.66480 $2.04400
May $1.66449 $2.04675
June $1.67283 $2.05543
July $1.68323 $2.06551
August $1.72129 $2.10601
September $1.74974 $2.14328
October $1.78523 $2.17547
November $1.85697 $2.23327
December $1.87298 $2.24738
87 113
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
88 114
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
89 115
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
90 116
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.2 S outhern California Edison
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Error! Reference source not found. describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.04361/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a on e-year average of the rates between November 2021 and October 2022
Table 26: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
91 117
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
92 118
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
93 119
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.3 S outhern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Error! Reference source not found. describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 27. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section Error! Reference source not found.
Error! Reference source not found. for further details. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.10 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2022 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.
Table 28. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
January $0.90581 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.73068 $2.14458
February $0.83669 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.66156 $1.84967
March $0.80596 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.63083 $1.82938
April $0.71941 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.54428 $1.75890
May $0.77049 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.59536 $1.78548
June $0.86253 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.68740 $1.83337
July $0.87687 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.70174 $1.86833
August $0.95391 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.77878 $1.91089
September $0.85896 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.68383 $1.83611
October $0.84147 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.66634 $1.84936
November $0.89018 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.71505 $1.88836
December $1.05329 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.87816 $1.98294
10 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices 94 120
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
95 121
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.4 S an Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Error! Reference source not found. 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 January 2022 and December 2022.
Table 29. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section Error! Reference source not found.
Error! Reference source not found. for further details. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.
Table 30. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.33762 $2.34748
February $2.26751 $2.28440
March $2.25119 $2.27016
April $2.20192 $2.22744
May $2.24252 $2.26403
June $2.31819 $2.33060
July $2.32406 $2.33630
August $2.37527 $2.38090
September $2.33542 $2.34971
October $2.30366 $2.32151
November $2.31722 $2.33381
December $2.45653 $2.73517
96 122
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
97 123
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
98 124
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
99 125
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
100
126
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
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 according to the rates shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on three years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. for further details. The monthly service charge applied was $106.90 per month per the December 2022 G-2 tariff.
Table 31. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month G2
Volumetric
Totals
January $1.80964
February $1.67009
March $1.68480
April $1.68698
May $1.78478
June $1.88288
July $1.88355
August $2.06943
September $2.06798
October $2.08553
November $2.09681
December $2.45700
101
127
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
102
128
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.6 S acramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used.
103
129
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
104
130
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Error! Reference source not found. 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 32: 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%
105
131
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.3 Cost Details
Table 33 presents additional detail on the first cost assumptions for the central water heating systems. For the 5- story prototype costs are provided both for a CO2 refrigerant Sanden-based and R-134a refrigerant Colmac-based heat pump water heater designs. The results presented in the main body of this report are based on the Sanden design. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted for a Colmac design (see Appendix 7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison) and the cost comparison is presented here. All costs are based on data from the 2022 Multifamily All- Electric CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c).
Table 33. Heat Pump Water Heater First Costs per Building (Present Value (2023$)) Item
3-Story (36-units) 5-Story (88-units)
Gas
Boiler
(CZs 1-9)
Gas Boiler
(CZs 10-16)
Heat
Pump
Gas
Boiler
(CZs 1-9)
Gas Boiler
(CZs 10-16)
Heat
Pump
(Sanden)
Heat
Pump
(Colmac)
Water Heating
Equipment $87,602 $87,602 $140,907 $135,146 $135,146 $244,742 $319,485 Solar Thermal
Collector $39,800 $46,888 n/a $74,740 $91,776 n/a n/a
Gas Piping $8,890 $8,890 n/a $9,065 $9,065 n/a n/a
Electrical Circuits n/a n/a $25,000 n/a n/a $25,000 $25,000 Overhead & Markup $37,480 $39,430 $45,624 $60,212 $64,896 $74,179 $94,733 Total $173,772 $182,810 $211,531 $279,163 $300,883 $343,920 $439,218
Table 34 presents additional detail on the first cost assumptions for the space hating systems.
Table 34. Heat Pump Space Heater First Costs per Dwelling Unit (Present Value (2023$) Item
3-Story 5-Story
Source & Notes Furnace +
Split AC
Heat
Pump
Furnace +
Split HP
Heat
Pump
Dwelling Unit HVAC
$5,651 $5,460 $6,109 $5,460
Gas system costs based on 2022
Multifamily All-Electric CASE Report.
Heat pump costs based on online
equipment research indicating a 2-ton
HP is $191 less than a furnace/AC of
the same size.
Refrigerant Piping $563 $563 $423 $423
2022 Multifamily All-Electric CASE
Report. Gas Piping $92 $0 $227 $0
Electrical Circuits $0 $150 $0 $150
Labor
$9,904 $6,985 $9,904 $6,985
Based on the 2022 Multifamily All-
Electric CASE Report with
adjustments to align with updated
equipment costs.
Overhead & Markup $4,457 $3,618 $4,582 $3,579 Based on a 27% markup Total $20,667 $16,776 $21,245 $16,597
Incremental Cost ($3,891) ($4,647)
106
132
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.4 PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo
107
133
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
108
134
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
109
135
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison
Table 35 presents energy and cost-effectiveness results for a R-134a refrigerant based system design using a Colmac central heat pump water heater in the 5- story prototype. This was only found to be cost-effective based on at least one of the two metrics in Climate Zones 1, 4 in CPAU territory, and 16.
Table 35. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Prescriptive Code with R-134a Heat Pump Water Heater Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 6% 6% -1,496 147 ($155) ($1,240) ($3,556) ($4,223) 3.4 $2,984 >1 $5,870 CZ02 PGE 4% 2% -1,197 120 ($145) ($1,513) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($4,262) 0.5 ($1,287) CZ03 PGE 6% 3% -1,166 120 ($138) ($1,360) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($4,109) 0.8 ($523) CZ04 PGE 4% 2% -1,116 113 ($76) ($49) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($2,798) 0.7 ($949) CZ04 CPAU 4% 2% -1,116 113 $185 $7,144 $1,718 $2,776 2.6 $4,368 0.6 ($976) CZ05 PGE 5% 2% -1,161 117 ($137) ($1,391) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($4,140) 0.5 ($1,412) CZ05 PGE/SCG 5% 2% -1,161 117 ($189) ($3,016) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($5,765) 0.5 ($1,412) CZ06 SCE/SCG 4% 1% -1,000 104 ($92) ($879) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($3,628) 0.6 ($1,013) CZ07 SDGE 5% 2% -996 106 ($183) ($3,216) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($5,965) 0.7 ($936) CZ08 SCE/SCG 3% 1% -948 100 ($156) ($2,413) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($5,162) 0.7 ($695) CZ09 SCE 3% 0% -966 100 ($132) ($1,863) $1,691 $2,749 0.0 ($4,612) 0.7 ($738) CZ10 SCE/SCG 3% 1% -962 84 ($188) ($3,375) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($5,770) 0.3 ($1,596) CZ10 SDGE 3% 1% -962 84 ($239) ($4,959) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($7,354) 0.3 ($1,596) CZ11 PGE 4% 3% -1,029 92 ($165) ($2,487) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($4,882) 0.4 ($1,367) CZ12 PGE 4% 3% -1,081 96 ($172) ($2,591) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($4,986) 0.3 ($1,667) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4% 3% -1,081 96 $26 $1,988 $1,444 $2,395 0.8 ($407) 0.3 ($1,667) CZ13 PGE 3% 2% -976 88 ($156) ($2,361) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($4,756) 0.4 ($1,452) CZ14 SCE/SCG 2% -1% -1,045 84 ($210) ($3,880) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($6,275) 0.1 ($2,056) CZ14 SDGE 2% -1% -1,045 84 ($270) ($5,725) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($8,120) 0.1 ($2,056) CZ15 SCE/SCG 2% -1% -718 65 ($146) ($2,713) $1,444 $2,395 0.0 ($5,108) 0.3 ($1,564) CZ16 PG&E -5% 6% -1,913 142 ($276) ($4,142) ($3,803) ($4,577) 1.1 $435 1.2 $746 110
136
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
7.6 Summary of Measures by Package
Table 36 provides the details of the measures in each of the efficiency package by climate zone. The measures are the same for the 3-story and 5-story prototypes. Table 37 presents the PV capacities per dwelling unit in the upgrade packages. In Climate Zone 6 for the mixed fuel case in the 5-story prototype there is no upgrade to the PV system capacity as the prescriptive PV system already offset all of the estimated electricity use.
Table 36. Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Measures
Climate
Zone
0.70 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 U-Factor
Windows
0.35 W/cfm
Verified Low
Leakage Ducts in
Conditioned
Space
1 X X
2 X
3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
7 X
8 X
9 X X
10 X X X
11 X X X
12 X X X
13 X X X
14 X X X
15 X X X
16 X X X
111
137
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
Table 37. Upgrade Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
All-Electric + PV Mixed Fuel + PV
3-Story 5-Story 3-Story 5-Story
CZ01 4.41 4.35 3.69 3.43
CZ02 3.56 3.58 3.02 2.98
CZ03 3.31 3.29 2.80 2.72
CZ04 3.21 3.27 2.73 2.75
CZ05 3.04 3.08 2.57 2.55
CZ06 2.91 3.04 2.49 2.68
CZ07 3.09 3.21 2.64 2.74
CZ08 3.18 3.30 2.76 2.86
CZ09 3.04 3.16 2.63 2.73
CZ10 3.20 3.30 2.79 2.86
CZ11 3.90 3.95 3.42 3.43
CZ12 3.53 3.60 3.05 3.08
CZ13 3.77 3.84 3.32 3.36
CZ14 3.20 3.23 2.79 2.79
CZ15 3.93 3.94 3.58 3.58
CZ16 3.79 3.76 2.60 2.90
112
138
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20
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
113
139
Prepared by:
Alea German, Claudia Pingatore, Ada Shen, & Keith Saechao, Frontier Energy, Inc Misti Bruceri, Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2024/03/25
Revision: 1.1
114
140
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Legal
Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 202 2, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately- owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
Acronym List
2023 PV$ – Present value costs in 2023
ACH50 – Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure
differential
ACM – Alternative Calculation Method
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt – Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC – Building Standards Commission
CA IOUs – California Investor-Owned Utilities
CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement
CBECC-Res – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating
compliance with the California Residential Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
CFI – California Flexible Installation
CFM – Cubic Feet per Minute
CO
2 – Carbon Dioxide
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission
CZ – California Climate Zone
DHW – Domestic Hot Water
DOE – Department of Energy
DWHR – Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR – Energy Design Rating
EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF – Energy Factor
115
141
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater – Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA – High Performance Attic
HPWH – Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF – Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
IECC – International Energy Conservation Code
IOU – Investor Owned Utility
kBtu – kilo-British thermal unit
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCC – Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU – Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
LSC – Long-term System Cost (2025 Title 24, Part 6 compliance metric) MF – Multifamily
NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM – Net Energy Metering
NPV – Net Present Value
NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric Company
POU – Publicly-Owned-Utilities
PV – Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison
SDG&E – San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF – Single Family
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company
TDV – Time Dependent Valuation (2022 Title 24, Part 6 compliance metric) Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6
TOU – Time-Of-Use
UEF – Uniform Energy Factor
VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space ZNE – Zero-net Energy
116
142
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
9/12/2022 Original Release (1.0) N/A
3/25/2024 Updated analysis (1.1) • New simulation results with latest CBECC-Res version (Section 2.1.1)
• Updated utility cost estimates using
recent utility tariff and net billing
tariff (Section 2.1.3)
• New measure costs for heat pumps,
batteries, and PV (Section 3.3)
• Revised packages (Section 3.4)
• Revised Results, Summary,
References, and Appendices
(Sections 4-7)
117
143
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Cost-effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Energy Design Rating ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Prior Reach Code Research ................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Prototype Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.3.2 Electrification ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 4 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 Compliance Results: All-Electric vs. Mixed Fuel Code Minimum ........................................................................................ 24
4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results ..................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 All-Electric Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results ................................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Mixed Fuel Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 31
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Reductions .............................................................................................................................................. 33
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.6.1 CARE Rate Comparison ............................................................................................................................................. 36
4.6.2 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................ 38
4.6.3 Utility Rate Escalation ................................................................................................................................................. 39 5 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 46 7 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 48
7.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 48
7.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric .................................................................................................................................................. 50
7.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 57
7.2.3 Southern California Gas .............................................................................................................................................. 61
7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 62
7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 68
7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) ................................................................................................. 70
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 72
7.3 Summary of Efficiency Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 74
7.4 Summary of Applicable Prescriptive Base case Measures ................................................................................................. 76
118
144
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Prototype Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes ........................................................................................................................ 11 Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions: Efficiency, PV, and Battery Measures ................................................................................ 14 Table 6: Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs .................................................................................................... 17 Table 7: Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................ 18 Table 8: ADU Utility Infrastructure Total and Incremental Costs ......................................................................................................... 18 Table 9: Effective Useful Lifetime (EUL) of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment ............................................................ 19 Table 10: Space Conditioning System Nominal Capacities ................................................................................................................ 20 Table 11: Space Conditioning System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) ............................................................................................... 20 Table 12: Heat Pump Water Heating System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) .................................................................................... 21 Table 13: Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs ...................................................................................................... 22 Table 14: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum ............................................................................................ 27 Table 15: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum .......................................................................................................... 28 Table 16: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Comparison of All-Electric Efficiency Only, PV, and Battery Packages ........................ 29 Table 17: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................................. 30 Table 18: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ............................................................................ 31 Table 19: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ......................................................................................... 32 Table 20: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) .................................................................................................. 33 Table 21: ADU Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) ................................................................................................................ 34 Table 22: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum ......................................................................... 36 Table 23: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV+ Battery Package ........................................... 37 Table 24: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs: All-Electric Code Minimum ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Table 25: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: All-Electric Code Minimum ...................................................................................... 40 Table 26: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ...................................................................... 41 Table 27: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................... 44 Table 28: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 45 Table 29: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .......................................................................................................................... 50 Table 30: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ..................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 31: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 57 Table 32: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 61 Table 33: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 61 Table 34: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 62 119
145
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
Table 35: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .................................................................................................................................. 62 Table 36: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 37: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis ...................................................... 72 Table 38: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis ....................................................................................... 73 Table 39: All-Electric Single Family Efficiency Measures, Various Packages ..................................................................................... 74 Table 40: Mixed Fuel Single Family Measures, Efficiency + PV + Battery Package ........................................................................... 75 Table 41: Efficiency Measures for All ADU Packages ........................................................................................................................ 75 Table 42 Prescriptive Envelope, PV, and Battery Measures by Climate Zone .................................................................................... 77 Table 43 Prescriptive HVAC Measures by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 78 Table 44 Prescriptive Water Heating Measures by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................... 78
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Single family all-electric home compliance impacts. ............................................................................................................ 24 Figure 2: ADU all-electric home compliance impacts. ......................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3: Single family four gas appliance home compliance impacts. ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Map of California climate zones. .......................................................................................................................................... 48
120
146
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
1 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
This report documents cost-effectiveness analysis results for traditional new detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types. It evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs). Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.
This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is a customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) is the California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy, including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
The following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis.
Conclusions and Discussion:
• All-electric buildings have lower GHG emissions than mixed fuel buildings, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers as well as accounting for increased penetration of renewables in the future. Almost all the all-electric packages evaluated resulted in greater GHG emission savings than the mixed fuel packages, with the exception of the mixed fuel package with battery storage in climate zones with low heating loads.
• The Reach Codes Team found code-compliant all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on TDV for single family homes in all cases except Climate Zone 16. • All-electric single family new construction was On-Bill cost-effective in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.
• The all-electric ADU home was cost-effective based on TDV in all cases except in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 where the higher cost of installing a ducted heat pump water heater (HPWH) instead of the prescriptively required gas tankless water heater exceed the resulting energy cost savings. In the other climate zones there were first cost savings for installing a heat pump space heater instead of a gas furnace, contributing to an overall TDV cost-effective result.
• Few cases were cost-effective On-Bill for the ADU.
• A ll-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in first year utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home, except for CPAU and SMUD where electricity rates are much lower than for the investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The addition of efficiency measures, market dominant HPWHs that meet the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s (NEEA’s) Advanced Water Heating Specification1, high efficiency heat pumps, increased solar photovoltaics (PV), and batteries all reduce utility costs, and a combination of these options was found to reduce annual utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home in all cases.
1 Refer to Section 0 for an explanation of HPWHs certified through NEEA’s Advanced Water Heating Specification, their market status, and how they compare to federal minimum efficiency standards. 121
147
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
2 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
• Under the Net Biling Tariff (NBT)2, utility cost savings for increasing PV system size beyond code minimum are substantially less than what they were under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones for the all-electric single family home. Coupling PV with battery systems increases utility cost savings as a result of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid.
• Applying California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) rates in the IOU territories improves On-Bill cost- effectiveness for all-electric buildings, as compared to the same case under standard rates, due to higher utility cost savings compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building also on a CARE rate. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas.
• If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, all-electric new construction was found to be On-Bill cost-effective in almost all scenarios over the 30-year analysis period. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates are anticipated to increase, how much and how quickly is not known. Electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low- income customers and supports electrification measures
3. The CPUC will make a decision in mid-2024 and the
new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits like incentivizing electrification, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings.
Recommendations:
• A reach code with a single performance target based on source energy (EDR1) can be structured to strongly encourage electrification. This approach requires equivalent performance for all buildings and allow s mixed fuel buildings which minimizes the risk of violating federal preemption. Below are examples of how a reach code for single family homes could be set up based on the results summarized in Table 27. o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 12 could set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 11.5 (the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, and a mixed fuel home would likely need to incorporate a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system to comply. o Similarly, a jurisdiction in Climate Zone 7 may consider setting a performance target of 2.8 EDR1 margin (also the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, but a mixed fuel home would likely be able to comply with only a suite of above-code efficiency measures (no battery). Alternatively, a higher EDR1 margin target of 5 would incentivize more energy efficiency or additional PV for all - electric construction, and mixed fuel construction would likely need to incorporate a battery system to comply.
o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 16 may want to set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 20.5 (the EDR1 margin for the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package). This would establish a target that a mixed fuel home could cost-effectively meet, likely only after incorporating a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system, and that an all-electric home could easily meet. • The 2022 Title 24 code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage all - electric construction, providing an incentive that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off, still meeting minimum code compliance. 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
2 Refer to Section 2.1.3 for discussion on NBT and NEM
3 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking 122
148
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
3 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25 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 a reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR1 margins at minimum consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 27.
• The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype; code compliance and cost-effectiveness can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units.
As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend EDR1 targets above those reported for the all - electric Code Minimum package in Table 28.
This report presents measures or measure packages that local jurisdictions may consider adopting to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023.
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 may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring review and approval by the Building Standards Commission (BSC) but not the California Energy Commission (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. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, this study provides valuable context for jurisdictions pursuing other ordinance paths to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.
Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected]. In addition, jurisdictions in a CCA territory with rates or rate structures that are significantly different than IOU rates may email the program at [email protected] to request a custom analysis.
123
149
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Introduction
4 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed single family buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Codes Team.
The analysis considers traditional detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs).4 Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.
This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded from the Local Energy Codes Resources5 webpage. Results alongside policy options and the potential citywide impacts for specific jurisdictions can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/.
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2021a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10- 106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost - effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require — herein referred to as federal preemption — the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment.
High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.
4 See Appendix 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations. 5 https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources/?q=newly%20constructed%20buildings:%20efficiency%20and%20electrification 124
150
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
2 Methodology and Assumptions
2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.
2.1.1 Modeling
The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using software approved for 2022 Title 24 Code compliance analysis, CBECC-Res 2022.3.0.
The general approach applied in this analysis is to evaluate performance and determine cost-effectiveness of various energy efficiency upgrade measures, individually and as packages, in single family buildings. Using the 2022 baseline as the starting point, prospective measures and packages were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy use (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that met or exceeded minimum code performance. The analysis utilized a Python based parametric tool to automate and manage the generation of CBECC- Res input files. This allowed for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improved quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res was utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once.
2.1.2 Cost-effectiveness
2.1.2.1 Benefits
This analysis used two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use:
Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Total savings are estimated over a 30-year duration and include discounting of future costs and energy cost inflation.
Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand, and other societal costs, such as projected costs for carbon emissions as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (natural gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. For example, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off -peak periods due to the less inefficient energy generation sources providing peak electricity (Horii, Cutter, Kapur, Arent, & Conotyannis, 2014) . This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
2.1.2.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs of the measures and packages over a 30-year lifecycle.
Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. Present value of replacement cost is included only for measures with lifetimes less than the 30-year evaluation period.
In calculating On-Bill cost-effectiveness, incremental first costs were assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan with a 30-year loan term and four percent interest rate. Financing was not applied to future replacement or maintenance costs. In calculating TDV cost-effectiveness, incremental first costs were not assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan.
125
151
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
2.1.2.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics.
NPV Savings: The lifetime NPV savings is reported as a cost-effectiveness metric; Equation 1 demonstrates how this is calculated. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. Negative savings represent net costs.
B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (present value of benefits divided by present value of costs). The criteria benchmark for cost-effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than one. A value of one indicates the present value of the savings over the analysis period is equivalent to the present value of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 2.
Equation 1
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 − 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 Equation 2
𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 − 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜 − 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜 = 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost is represented by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost.’ In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”.
The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 3.
Equation 3
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 = � (𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣 𝑆𝑆𝑣𝑣 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃)𝑡𝑡 (1 + 𝑃𝑃)𝑡𝑡
𝑛𝑛
𝑡𝑡=0
Where: n = analysis term in years
• r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30 years
• Real discount rate of three percent
TDV is a normalized monetary format and there is a unique procedure for calculating the present value benefit of TDV energy savings. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV savings (reported by the CBECC-Res simulation software) by a NPV factor developed by the Energy Commission (see (Energy + Environmental Economics, 2020)). The 30-year residential NPV factor is $0.173/kTDV kBtu for the 2022 code cycle.
Equation 4
• 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃 𝑏𝑏𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑁𝑁 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃 126
152
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
2.1.3 Utility Rates
In coordination with the CA IOU rate team (comprised of representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) (Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)), the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone in order to calculate utility costs and determine On- Bill cost- effectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the most prevalent active rate in each territory. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone, with a few climate zones evaluated multiple times under different utility scenarios. Climate Zones 10 and 14 were evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two POU or municipal utility rates were also evaluated: SMUD in Climate Zone 12 and CPAU in Climate Zone 4.
Some community choice aggregations (CCAs) have utility rates that are very similar to IOU rates, often within $0.02 per kWh. For these CCA customers, total utility costs will be very similar to those calculated in this study and the results from this study will generally apply. The study results cannot be easily applied to CCAs with rates that do not closely track the IOU rates or municipal utilities outside of SMUD and CPAU.
First-year utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and natural gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 1. Annual costs were also estimated for IOU customers eligible for the CARE tariff discounts on both electricity and natural gas bills. Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules includes details of each utility tariff. For cases with onsite generation (i.e. solar photovoltaics (PV)), the approved Net Billing Tariff (NBT) was applied along with monthly service fees and hourly export compensation rates for 2024
6. In December 2022, the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision adopting NBT as a successor to prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0) that went into effect April of 2023.7 The ADU was assumed to have separate electric and gas meters from the main house.
Table 1: Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone
Climate
Zones
Electric / Gas
Utility Electricity Tariff Natural Gas
Tariff
IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E / PG&E E-ELEC G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-ELEC GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCalGas TOU-D-PRIME GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E / SDG&E EV-TOU-5 (TOU-ELEC for ADU
cases without PV systems8) GR
POUs
4 CPAU / CPAU E-1 G1
12 SMUD / PG&E R-TOD G1
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time according to 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. A second set of escalation rates were also evaluated to demonstrate the impact that utility cost changes over time have on cost-effectiveness. This utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis, presented in Section 4.6.3, was based on those used within the 2025 Long-
6 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/net-energy-metering-nem/nemrevisit/nbt- model--12142022.xlsb
7 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nemrevisit
8 See Section 3.2 Prototype Characteristics for a description of ADU cases that don’t require solar PV prescriptively. 127
153
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
8 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
term System Cost (LSC) factors (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 code cycle) which assumed steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. See Appendix 7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions for details.
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis reports the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates based on assumptions within CBECC-Res. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time-dependent energy use and carbon based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. There are two strings of multipliers —one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones. 9 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year measure analysis period.
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.
EDR1 has only one component, “Total EDR1” which represents source energy use for the entire building. EDR2 is composed of two components for compliance purposes: the “Efficiency EDR2”, which represents the energy efficiency features of a home, and the PV/Flexibility EDR2, which includes the effects of PV and battery storage systems. “Total EDR2” combines all energy use of the building including 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 must be met:
1. T he Proposed Total EDR1 must be equal to or less than the Total EDR1 of the Standard Design, and
2. T he Proposed Efficiency EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR2 of the Standard Design, and
3. T he 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 to 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 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. 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
𝐸𝐸𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 − 𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅
9 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).
128
154
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis drawing from previous research where necessary, including the 2019 low-rise residential single family reach code study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019).
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 4 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 19.2%
The Energy Commission’s protocol for the two single family prototypes is to weigh the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide. Consistent with this protocol, this study assumed 50 percent single-story and 50 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are 129
155
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
characterized and presented according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,400- square foot (ft2) house.10 ADU results are presented separately.
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. See Appendix 7.4 for a list of prescriptive values relevant to the measures explored in this analysis.
Table 3 describes additional characteristics as they were applied to the base case, or baseline, energy model in this analysis. In a shift from the 2019 Standards, the 2022 Standards apply a prescriptive fuel source for space heating and water, where one is gas-fueled and one is a heat pump depending on climate zone. This establishes a prescriptive heat pump baseline. 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 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages.
10 2,400 ft2 = (50% x 2,100 ft2) + (50% x 2,700 ft2)
130
156
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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, 14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2
CZs 3-4,13-14: Split heat pump – 7.5 HSPF2,
14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2
Same as single family
Air Distribution Ductwork located in vented attic 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 outside
and exhaust air ducted to
outside.3
Hot Water
Distribution
Code minimum
CZs 1,16: Basic compact distribution credit
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 5.21 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 1.73 kW to
2.51 kW, see Table 4.4
Foundation Slab-on-grade Same as single family
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(I)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.
131
157
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
Base Package
Single
Family ADU
CZ01 3.57 0
CZ02 3.03 0
CZ03 2.83 0
CZ04 2.91 0
CZ05 2.64 0
CZ06 2.65 0
CZ07 2.83 0
CZ08 3.11 0
CZ09 2.96 0
CZ10 3.17 1.73
CZ11 3.90 2.06
CZ12 3.14 0
CZ13 4.05 2.09
CZ14 3.15 0
CZ15 5.21 2.51
CZ16 2.93 0
3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs
Measures evaluated in this study fall into two categories: those associated with general efficiency — onsite generation (solar PV), and demand flexibility (batteries) — and those associated with building electrification. Furthermore, general efficiency measures are broken into those that are federally preempted and those that are not ; see Section 1 for background information on preemption and Section 3.4 for details of measure packages evaluated in this study. 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.11 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’s best estimates 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
The 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, including how they compare to the current prescriptive requirements. Throughout this report, “Efficiency” measures refer specifically to the following non-preempted
11 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.
132
158
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25 measures. These measures are in addition to or in place of the relevant 2022 base case prototype characteristics outlined in Table 3, and their applicability to measure packages are summarized in Table 39 through Table 41. Table 5 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for each of these measures.
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)12 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 climate zones.
Higher SHGC Fenestration: Increase solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.50 in climate zones where heating loads dominate (1, 3, 5 and 16). The baseline SHGC applied in the Standard Design is 0.35 in these climate zones.
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 prescriptive ASR is 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15.
Increased Ceiling Insulation: Increase ceiling level insulation in a vented attic to R-38, 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 (compared to the prescriptively required 0.45 W/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). This applies to the single family prototype only.
Buried Radial Duct Design: Bury all ductwork in ceiling insulation by laying the ducts across the ceiling joists or in- between 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.
13 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 prototype only.
Ductless Mini-Split Heat Pump: In the ADU prototype install 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. This measure is non-preempted because it does not require the installation of equipment with efficiencies above federal minimum requirements.
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. This is prescriptively required in Climate Zones 1 and 16 only.
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. In all cases, 12 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 13 The duct systems in the Central Valley Research Homes Project Final Project Report are illustrative of this approach (Proctor, Wilcox, & Chitwood, 2018).
133
159
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) 1 assumptions. To meet CFI eligibility, the requirements of 2022 Reference Appendices JA11.2.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b) must be met.
The Reach Codes Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system. 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 14. For the PV packages, the second option, “Specify PV System Scaling”, was used. In these cases, a scaling of 100 was applied, indicating that the PV system be sized to offset 100% 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 kW. 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 10 kWh battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Basic” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. 10kWh battery capacity is representative of systems installed in single family homes based on the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) participant data. The “Basic” control option charges the battery system anytime PV generation is greater than the house load and discharges the battery whenever the house load exceeds PV generation. The battery does not discharge to the grid, maximizing on- site utilization of the PV system and in turn utility bill benefits under NBT. To qualify for the battery storage compliance credit the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA12 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). Batteries are not prescriptively required in any climate zone.
Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions: Efficiency, PV, and Battery Measures Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
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 $4 per linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research.
Assumes 16in depth.
14 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking. 134
160
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
15 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Low
Pressure
Drop Ducts
0.35 vs 0.45
W/cfm $99 n/a
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).
Ductless
Mini-Split
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 All-Electric 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 obtained 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 System
First Cost $3.11/
W
$3.11/
W
First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2022 (Barbose, Galen; Darghouth, Naim; O'Shaughnessy, Eric; Forrester, Sydney, 2022) and represent median costs in California in 2022 of $3.78/WDC for residential systems. The first cost was reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.
2 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
Replacement
cost
$648/
kWh
$648/
kWh
135
161
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
16 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Battery (10
kWh) First cost $782/
kWh
$782/
kWh
First costs of $1,101/kWh are from SGIP residential participant cost data for single family projects between 2020 and 2023. The first cost is reduced by 30% due to the Investment Tax Credit2 and also by $0.15/Wh due to the base SGIP incentive3. The SGIP incentive is only accounted for in IOU territories and not for SMUD and CPAU analyses.
Replacement cost at years 10 and 20 was calculated based on the first cost reduced by 7% annually over the next 10 years for a future value cost of $533/kWh. The 7% reduction is based on SDG&E’s Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020). For projects constructed in 2024 or 2025, the first replacement at year 10 would occur in 2034 or 2035. This replacement cost includes an average Investment Tax Credit of 22% in 2034 and 0% in 2035
2. 1All 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 3SGIP incentives vary by ‘steps’ which reflect utility-specific funding across program implementation years. See:
https://www.selfgenca.com/home/program_metrics/
136
162
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
17 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
3.3.2 Electrification
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. The associated costs included 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. 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.
3.3.2.1 Utility Infrastructure
This section addresses utility infrastructure costs during construction; appliance-specific infrastructure costs are addressed in Section 0. Table 6 presents total costs for natural gas infrastructure for a single family building within CA gas IOU territory, including distribution and service line extensions, meter installation, and plan review . 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, as they 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 on cost data provided by PG&E.
Extension of service lines from a main distribution line to the home were provided separately for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area ($1,300) as well as an infill development ($6,750). 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. In the case of distribution line extensions, the estimated cost is for new greenfield development.
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.
Table 6: Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Distribution Line Extension $1,020
Service Line Extension $2,390
Meter $300
Plan Review Costs $850
Total $4,560
CPAU provides gas service to its customers and therefore separate costs were evaluated based on CPAU gas service connection fees.15 Table 7 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.
15 CPAU Schedule G-5 effective 09-01-2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/utilities-engineering/general- specifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf
137
163
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
18 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25 Table 7: Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Service Extension $5,892
Meter $1,012
Plan Review Costs $924
Total $7,828
El
ectricity infrastructure costs for single family homes were not estimated as part of this work as they are expected to be the same for both all-electric and mixed fuel construction. This will change in July 2024 based on the CPUC’s recent decision to eliminate electric line extension subsidies for new construction projects that use natural gas and/or propane.16 This will increase the utility infrastructure costs for mixed fuel homes, relative to all-electric homes, improving the cost-effectiveness of all-electric construction. The Reach Codes Team intends to quantify this impact in future studies.
Table 8 presents utility infrastructure costs for the detached ADU, both mixed fuel and all-electric designs. These costs are directly from the 2019 detached ADU reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b) and were obtained from stakeholder interviews and RS Means. For the ADU scenario it’s assumed that natural gas infrastructure 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, on the other hand, will need to be slightly upgraded for the all-electric design.
Table 8: ADU Utility Infrastructure Total and Incremental Costs Mixed Fuel Measure Mixed Fuel
Total Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric
Total 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 $5,6 52 ($1,512)
3.3 .2.2 Equipment
This section provides descriptions and costs of the equipment applied to electrify mixed fuel homes in the all-electric packages. The equipment meets but does not exceed federal efficiency requirements to avoid federal preemption concerns.
16 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-eliminates-last-remaining-utility-subsidies-for-new-construction-of- buildings-using-gas-2023
138
164
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
19 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
For the water heating and space conditioning equipment analyzed, cost analyses incorporated the equipment’s effective useful lifetime (EUL), which are summarized in Table 9. The EUL for the heat pump, furnace, and air conditioner are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). Water heating equipment lifetimes are based on DOE’s recent water heater rulemaking (Department of Energy, 2022). Replacement costs are applied when equipment reaches its EUL within the 30-year evaluation period, and in such cases are included in the total lifetime costs. Residual value of the gas furnace and gas tankless at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment.
In this analysis, replacement costs assume a like-for-like replacement of equipment type and fuel (as listed in Table 9).
However, this may be precluded in the future due to efforts to prohibit the sale of gas equipment currently being considered or undertaken by air districts (ex. BAAQMD, SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (ex. zero NOx appliance rules).
Table 9: Effective Useful Lifetime (EUL) of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measure EUL (Years)
Gas Furnace 20
Air Conditioner 15
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Space Conditioning: This measure covers replacing a prescriptive air conditioner and gas furnace with a minimum efficiency heat pump in applicable climate zones (1, 2, 5 to 12, 15 and 16; see Table 3). Typical incremental costs for this equipment were based on contractor feedback and price variation by system capacity from the AC Wholesalers website and the RS Means cost database (RSMeans, 2022). Costs were applied based on the system capacity from heating and cooling load calculations in CBECC-Res as presented in Table 10. Air conditioner nominal capacity was calculated as the CBECC-Res cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. Heat pump nominal capacity was calculated as the maximum of either the CBECC-Res heating or cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. In both cases a minimum capacity of 1.5-ton was applied as this represents the typical smallest available split system heat pump equipment. Load calculations demonstrated that Climate Zones 2, 5 to 12, and 15 were cooling-dominated while Climate Zones 1 and 16 were heating-dominated. In the heating dominated climate zones the heat pump for the single family home needs to be upsized relative to an air conditioner that only provides cooling.
Replacement costs were estimated based on a contractor survey conducted by the Statewide Reach Codes Team in 2023 (Statewide Reach Codes Team, tbd), less any gas and electric infrastructure costs, and the equipment lifetimes listed in Table 9. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 11.
This measure, and thus the incremental cost, does not apply to climate zones where heat pump space conditioning is already prescriptively required (Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14). 139
165
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
20 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 10: Space Conditioning System Nominal Capacities
Climate
Zone
Single Family ADU
Air Conditioner
Capacity (tons)
Heat Pump
Capacity (tons)
Air Conditioner
Capacity (tons)
Heat Pump
Capacity (tons)
1 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
2 3 3 1.5 1.5
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 3 3 1.5 1.5
6 3 3 1.5 1.5
7 3 3 1.5 1.5
8 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
9 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
10 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
11 3 3 1.5 1.5
12 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 4 4 1.5 1.5
16 2 3.5 1.5 1.5
Table 11: Space Conditioning System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) Climate
Zone
Single Family ADU
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost (Financed)
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost (Financed)
1 $803 $2,705 ($2,120) ($1,717)
2 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
6 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
7 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
8 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
9 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
10 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
11 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
12 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 ($1,032) $368 ($2,120) ($1,717)
16 $2,331 $5,123 ($2,120) ($1,717)
140
166
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
21 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Water Heater: This measure covers replacing a prescriptive gas tankless water heater with a minimum efficiency HPWH in applicable climate zones (3, 4, 13, and 14; see Table 3). Typical incremental costs were based on costs from prior reach code work and recent contractor feedback. Incremental first costs assume a 65-gal HPWH and incremental replacement costs account for equipment lifetimes listed in Table 9. Replacement costs assume no change in cost from the first cost estimates before accounting for inflation, less any gas and electric infrastructure costs. For the ADU analysis the water heater is evaluated within the conditioned space with the supply air ducted from the outside and exhaust air ducted to the outside. A mechanical contractor provided a cost estimate of $943 for ducting through the attic in an ADU where the water heater is in an interior room. This cost is included in the equipment and installation total for the ADU. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 12.
Table 12: Heat Pump Water Heating System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) Item
ADU Single Family
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost
(Financed)
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost
(Financed)
Equipment & Installation $2,243 $3,930 $1,300 $2,267 Electric Service Upgrade $43 $48 $45 $51
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651) ($580) ($651)
Total $1,706 $3,327 $765 $1,666
For this electrification analysis, a HPWH that just meets the federal minimum efficiency standards 17 of close to 2.0 Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) was evaluated in order to satisfy preemption requirements. However, the Reach Codes Team is not aware of any 2.0 UEF products that are available on the market. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) established its own rating system for high efficiency HPWHs18 and maintains a database of qualified products.
The lowest UEF currently reported in the database is 2.73. In fact, of the four rating tiers offered by NEEA, those meeting Tier 3 or Tier 4 are the dominant products on the market today. According to NEEA all major HPWH manufacturers are represented in NEEA’s qualified product list 19 and there are fewer than 10 integrated products certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2, all of which have UEFs greater than 3.0. 20 NEEA Tier 3 water heaters were included in the high-efficiency measure packages (see Section 3.4).
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 similar. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 13. Note that while induction stoves may be a more likely installation option in many homes, CBECC-Res does not currently differentiate between electric technologies for stoves and therefore they were not considered in this analysis. Relative to electric resistance, induction stoves use less energy and improve performance and user satisfaction, at an additional cost.
Electric Service Upgrade (appliance-specific): 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 — shown in Table 13 — 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
17 The Department of Energy establishes minimum energy conservation standards for consumer products, as directed in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-430/subpart-C/section- 430.32.
18 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. 19 https://neea.org/success-stories/heat-pump-water-heaters 20 As of 3/8/2024: https://neea.org/img/documents/residential-unitary-HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf 141
167
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
22 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
comparable gas appliance. Incremental costs are applied for the space conditioner, 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 conditioner 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, as shown in Table 13. 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.
Table 13: Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs Item
ADU & Single Family
First
Cost
Total Lifetime Cost
(Financed)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651)
Total ($480) ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651)
Total ($580) ($651)
3.4 Measure Packages
The Reach Codes Team evaluated two 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 applied the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code and replaced gas equipment with minimum efficiency electric equipment.
2. Efficiency Only, all-electric: This package used only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. For ADUs, this also included ductless variable capacity heat pumps (VCHPs). This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only.
3. Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment, all-electric and mixed fuel: This package builds off the Efficiency Only package, adding water heating and space conditioning equipment that is more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. This package was evaluated to compare compliance results against the other non- preempted packages (see Table 27 and Table 28), however cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for this package since it cannot serve as the basis for adoption of a local ordinance. Specifically, it applied:
a. Water heating, all-electric: Heat pump water heaters with a NEEA Tier 3 rating (3.45 UEF). b. Water heating, mixed fuel: High efficiency (0.95 UEF) gas tankless. 142
168
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
23 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
c. Space conditioning, single family: High efficiency (16 SEER2/8 HSPF2) heat pumps. In mixed fuel packages, for climate zones with prescriptive gas heating, high efficiency (16 SEER2/95 AFUE) units were applied.
4. Efficiency + PV, all-electric: This package also builds on the Efficiency Only package, excluding preempted equipment. Instead, PV capacity was added to offset all of the estimated annual electricity use. This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only.
5. Efficiency + PV + Battery, all-electric and mixed fuel: Using the Efficiency + PV package as a starting point for the all-electric analysis, a battery system was added. For mixed fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the all-electric homes in some climate zones to arrive at a cost-effective solution.
To reiterate previous statements, the non-preempted measures used in all of the above packages (except for the All- Electric Code Minimum package) are referred to as “Efficiency measures”. As noted above, these measures may differ by prototype (single family vs. ADU) and by package. See Table 40 and Table 41 for the details of these measures. 143
169
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
24 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4 Results
Section 4.1 presents compliance results for all-electric versus mixed fuel code minimum packages to provide a broad overview of how these different approaches impact code compliance. Sections 4.2 to 4.5 present EDR results along with other savings data for packages of particular interest, as well as cost-effectiveness results for all packages.
Section 4.5 presents results for sensitivity analyses. All results reflect savings over a 30-year analysis period and are compared against the 2022 prescriptive baseline.
4.1 Compliance Results: All-Electric vs. Mixed Fuel Code Minimum 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 which, by definition, has a compliance margin of zero in all climate zones. The impacts for the all-electric single family home and the ADU are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The all-electric single family and ADU home prototypes are code compliant with both EDR1 (source energy) and efficiency EDR2 (TDV energy) in all climate zones, though the compliance margin is highly variable across climate zones. The four gas appliance single family home is presented in Figure 3. This case is not code compliant in any climate zone.
Figure 1: Single family all-electric home compliance impacts. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 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)
144
170
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
25 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Figure 2: ADU all-electric home compliance impacts.
Figure 3: Single family four gas appliance home compliance impacts.
This analysis illustrates a couple of interesting points:
1. The 2022 compliance metrics are important drivers encouraging electrification. The compliance penalties associated with the four gas appliance home scenarios are significant and will require deep efficiency measures to overcome.
2. The 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage all - electric construction, providing a compliance benefit that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off and still comply when using the performance method. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
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)
145
171
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results
Table 14 shows results for the single family all-electric Code Minimum measure package. Utility cost savings are negative, indicating an increase in utility costs for the all-electric building, everywhere except in CPAU and SMUD territories. In all cases the incremental cost is negative, which reflects cost savings for the all -electric building due to elimination of gas infrastructure costs. The package is cost-effective based on TDV in all cases but one (Climate Zone 16); it’s not cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.
Table 15 shows the all-electric Code Minimum package results for the ADU. Utility savings and incremental costs reflect the same general trend as single family homes. Cost-effectiveness is less favorable than the single family application, with TDV cost-effectiveness not met in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14, and On-Bill cost-effectiveness met only in Climate Zones 4 in CPAU territory, 10 in SCE/SCG territory, 12 in SMUD/PG&E territory, 11 and 15. Cost- effectiveness in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 is worse than in the other climate zones due to the higher cost of converting from a gas tankless to a ducted HPWH (see Table 3) which isn’t offset enough by the energy savings. Cost savings due to elimination of gas infrastructure costs are also lower for the ADU relative to the single family home.
146
172
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25 Tab
le 14: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum 1 Though uncommon, incremental costs can be negative, reflecting initial construction cost savings. When paired with increased energy costs (negative benefits), the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost,’ which may yield positive cost effectiveness. See Section 2.1.2.3 for more information.
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost1 On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 25.8 12.4 -4,308 398 ($431) ($3,873) ($4,816) ($3,605) 0.9 ($268) >1 $5,702 CZ02 PGE 14.0 8.3 -2,888 246 ($327) ($4,000) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 CZ03 PGE 9.1 7.7 -2,433 171 ($303) ($4,734) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.98 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 CZ04 PGE 8.8 5.0 -2,232 163 ($251) ($3,665) ($4,854) ($4,644) 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 CZ04 CPAU 8.8 5.0 -2,232 163 ($36) $2,123 ($8,122) ($8,314) >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 CZ05 PGE 6.5 4.0 -1,960 133 ($292) ($4,981) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 CZ05 PGE/SCG 6.5 4.0 -1,960 133 ($277) ($4,532) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 CZ06 SCE/SCG 4.2 3.5 -1,432 84 ($231) ($4,015) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 CZ07 SDGE 2.8 3.2 -1,293 69 ($266) ($5,731) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 CZ08 SCE/SCG 2.1 1.1 -1,293 67 ($228) ($4,192) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 CZ09 SCE 3.6 1.9 -1,453 84 ($237) ($4,153) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 CZ10 SCE/SCG 4.8 2.3 -1,683 107 ($258) ($4,342) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 CZ10 SDGE 4.8 2.3 -1,683 107 ($265) ($5,158) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 CZ11 PGE 11.4 4.9 -2,712 226 ($306) ($3,803) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 CZ12 PGE 11.5 5.6 -2,554 212 ($294) ($3,773) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.5 5.6 -2,554 212 $79 $4,731 ($7,065) ($6,983) >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 CZ13 PGE 8.3 3.2 -2,095 154 ($224) ($3,164) ($4,854) ($4,644) 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 CZ14 SCE/SCG 8.8 3.3 -2,291 159 ($322) ($5,166) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 CZ14 SDGE 8.8 3.3 -2,291 159 ($344) ($6,361) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.9 1.0 -1,167 53 ($217) ($4,152) ($6,652) ($5,942) 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 CZ16 PG&E 21.3 0.7 -4,729 403 ($548) ($6,581) ($3,289) ($1,187) 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) 147
173
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 15: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum
1 Though uncommon, incremental costs can be negative, reflecting initial construction cost savings. When paired with increased energy costs (negative benefits), the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost,’ which may yield positive cost effectiveness. See Section 2.1.2.3 for more information.
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas
Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost1 On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 11.9 6.1 -1,641 114 ($353) ($6,682) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($2,077) 3.9 $2,986 CZ02 PGE 5.7 3.4 -1,245 75 ($312) ($6,347) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,742) 2.7 $2,515 CZ03 PGE 2.9 2.3 -1,672 123 ($377) ($7,138) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($1,489) CZ04 PGE 2.4 1.4 -1,612 118 ($366) ($6,964) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($801) CZ04 CPAU 2.4 1.4 -1,612 118 $25 $3,035 ($863) $442 6.9 $2,592 0.0 ($801) CZ05 PGE 1.8 0.8 -1,026 49 ($302) ($6,517) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,912) 2.0 $2,021 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.8 0.8 -1,026 49 ($257) ($5,178) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($574) 2.0 $2,021 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.5 0.2 -904 38 ($243) ($4,923) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($318) 2.1 $2,135 CZ07 SDGE 0.1 0.1 -884 37 ($337) ($7,903) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.6 ($3,298) 2.2 $2,205 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.1 0.1 -878 36 ($241) ($4,894) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($289) 2.3 $2,274 CZ09 SCE 0.4 0.1 -903 38 ($243) ($4,914) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($310) 2.4 $2,321 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 0.4 -952 43 ($189) ($3,629) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.3 $976 2.8 $2,577 CZ10 SDGE 1.0 0.4 -952 43 ($249) ($5,689) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.8 ($1,084) 2.8 $2,577 CZ11 PGE 4.6 2.1 -1,209 71 ($224) ($4,405) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.0 $200 3.5 $2,870 CZ12 PGE 4.6 2.3 -1,183 69 ($306) ($6,315) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,710) 3.0 $2,684 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.6 2.3 -1,183 69 ($65) ($808) ($4,692) ($4,605) 5.7 $3,797 3.0 $2,684 CZ13 PGE 3.1 1.3 -1,611 112 ($218) ($3,689) ($863) $442 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($858) CZ14 SCE/SCG 3.5 1.2 -1,714 115 ($375) ($6,933) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($1,089) CZ14 SDGE 3.5 1.2 -1,714 115 ($483) ($10,348) ($863) $442 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($1,089) CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.0 0.0 -864 36 ($172) ($3,359) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.4 $1,246 2.6 $2,477 CZ16 PG&E 11.2 0.1 -1,781 122 ($379) ($7,167) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.6 ($2,562) 2.1 $2,133 148
174
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.3 All-Electric Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results
Table 16 and Table 17 compare cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively, with the exception of the all-electric Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment package (cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for this package but see Table 27 and Table 28 for a comparison of compliance impacts). In almost all cases the packages are cost-effective based on TDV. On-Bill cost-effectiveness generally improves with the addition of efficiency measures, further improves with an upsized PV system, and improves even more once batteries are added. 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 all-electric package to meet minimum code requirements are described in Table 39 and Table 41.
Table 16: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Comparison of All-Electric Efficiency Only, PV, and Battery Packages Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Code Minimum All-Electric Efficiency Only 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 0.9 ($268) >1 $5,702 >1 $2,945 >1 $8,168 0.9 ($1,313) 1.8 $9,817 1.0 $1,012 1.2 $4,391 CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 8.9 $3,870 >1 $9,325 1.5 $2,242 4.2 $12,452 1.3 $4,962 1.5 $8,190 CZ03 PGE 1.0 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 1.1 $168 >1 $3,939 0.8 ($903) 2.8 $6,465 1.1 $2,114 1.1 $1,347 CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 1.7 $1,054 >1 $4,849 1.1 $204 3.5 $7,893 1.2 $3,709 1.3 $4,506 CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,021 >1 $8,117 >1 $14,776 >1 $11,161 0.9 ($1,076) 1.5 $6,724 CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 1.6 $1,975 >1 $4,985 2.2 $1,457 8.5 $7,927 1.4 $6,203 1.3 $3,876 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 1.9 $2,424 >1 $4,985 2.6 $1,907 8.5 $7,927 1.4 $6,652 1.3 $3,876 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 1.6 $1,813 >1 $4,119 109.5 $2,638 152.4 $6,727 1.5 $7,153 1.2 $2,276 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 1.2 $839 8.3 $4,070 5.7 $469 >1 $6,079 2.0 $13,798 1.1 $1,186 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 1.8 $2,574 17.7 $4,642 >1 $3,329 >1 $7,492 1.7 $8,899 1.2 $2,085 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 1.9 $2,699 >1 $5,087 >1 $3,634 >1 $8,007 1.7 $9,151 1.3 $3,630 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 2.0 $2,668 >1 $5,376 >1 $3,765 >1 $8,347 1.7 $10,088 1.3 $3,901 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 1.8 $2,438 >1 $5,376 >1 $2,539 >1 $8,347 2.4 $19,463 1.3 $3,901 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 >1 $4,159 >1 $8,524 1.8 $2,984 4.6 $11,310 1.4 $7,781 1.5 $8,757 CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 4.6 $3,742 >1 $8,084 1.9 $2,561 5.5 $11,063 1.3 $6,021 1.5 $8,216 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 >1 $10,665 >1 $8,084 5.8 $13,407 5.5 $11,063 0.9 ($1,237) 1.4 $7,166 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 >1 $2,876 >1 $5,773 1.7 $2,334 3.7 $8,341 1.4 $7,848 1.4 $7,005 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 1.8 $811 >1 $5,461 1.6 $2,558 3.6 $9,965 1.6 $10,569 1.4 $6,204 CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 1.5 $643 >1 $5,461 1.2 $922 3.6 $9,965 2.1 $20,099 1.4 $6,204 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 8.0 $3,267 >1 $4,669 >1 $3,940 >1 $6,120 2.0 $13,576 0.99 ($80) CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) 0.2 ($1,946) 1.7 $1,894 0.8 ($3,199) 1.6 $6,711 1.0 $206 1.1 $1,690
149
175
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 17: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Code Minimum All-Electric Efficiency Only 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 ($2,077) 3.9 $2,986 0.7 ($1,341) >1 $3,243 1.2 $2,389 1.5 $5,353 1.0 ($216) 1.0 ($366) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($1,742) 2.7 $2,515 0.5 ($2,155) >1 $2,289 1.5 $3,918 1.9 $6,704 1.1 $2,456 1.3 $5,648 CZ03 PGE 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($1,489) 0.0 ($8,481) 0.0 ($2,235) 0.83 ($1,988) 1.2 $1,882 0.86 ($3,653) 1.0 ($492) CZ04 PGE 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($801) 0.0 ($8,319) 0.4 ($1,419) 0.9 ($1,094) 1.4 $3,933 0.9 ($2,801) 1.1 $1,875 CZ04 CPAU 6.9 $2,592 0.0 ($801) 1.5 $1,330 0.4 ($1,419) 1.7 $8,884 1.4 $3,933 0.7 ($8,335) 1.0 $825 CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($1,912) 2.0 $2,021 0.5 ($2,810) 1.7 $1,095 1.7 $4,515 2.1 $5,881 1.2 $3,324 1.1 $2,563 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.9 ($574) 2.0 $2,021 0.7 ($1,472) 1.7 $1,095 2.0 $5,853 2.1 $5,881 1.2 $4,662 1.1 $2,563 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($318) 2.1 $2,135 0.7 ($1,078) 2.5 $1,548 2.1 $6,366 2.4 $6,996 1.2 $3,195 1.3 $4,863 CZ07 SDGE 0.6 ($3,298) 2.2 $2,205 0.4 ($4,038) 2.2 $1,386 2.0 $6,167 2.1 $5,939 1.5 $11,261 1.1 $2,674 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($289) 2.3 $2,274 0.7 ($1,046) 2.5 $1,523 2.1 $6,750 2.5 $8,280 1.2 $4,320 1.4 $6,678 CZ09 SCE 0.9 ($310) 2.4 $2,321 0.7 ($1,108) 2.7 $1,624 2.2 $6,954 2.5 $8,052 1.2 $4,600 1.4 $8,273 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $976 2.8 $2,577 1.1 $280 4.3 $1,936 5.7 $1,120 15.1 $3,840 1.0 ($593) 1.1 $940 CZ10 SDGE 0.8 ($1,084) 2.8 $2,577 0.7 ($1,401) 4.3 $1,936 0.0 ($1,079) 15.1 $3,840 1.4 $6,523 1.1 $940 CZ11 PGE 1.0 $200 3.5 $2,870 1.1 $290 >1 $2,875 0.9 ($216) 3.9 $4,381 1.0 ($600) 1.2 $2,983 CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,710) 3.0 $2,684 0.5 ($2,152) >1 $2,222 1.6 $5,030 2.0 $7,018 1.2 $3,451 1.3 $5,859 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 5.7 $3,797 3.0 $2,684 15.3 $2,366 >1 $2,222 1.8 $6,123 2.0 $7,018 0.6 ($8,899) 1.2 $4,809 CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($858) 0.0 ($4,116) 0.6 ($879) 0.3 ($4,374) 1.1 $649 0.8 ($3,872) 1.0 $456 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($1,089) 0.0 ($7,543) 0.5 ($1,340) 1.2 $1,941 1.6 $6,279 1.1 $1,496 1.2 $4,644 CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($1,089) 0.0 ($10,889) 0.5 ($1,340) 1.3 $3,342 1.6 $6,279 1.4 $11,396 1.2 $4,644 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,246 2.6 $2,477 2.8 $1,629 >1 $2,686 >1 $2,115 >1 $3,904 1.2 $2,922 1.2 $2,135 CZ16 PG&E 0.6 ($2,562) 2.1 $2,133 0.6 ($1,707) >1 $2,879 1.7 $5,819 2.1 $8,219 1.2 $4,345 1.3 $6,454 150
176
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.4 Mixed Fuel Results
Table 18 and Table 19 show results for the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package for Single Family and ADU prototypes, respectively. On a TDV basis, this package is cost-effective only in Climate Zone 1 for single family and in no cases for ADUs. However, this package is cost-effective On-Bill for the single family home in all climate zones except 4 in CPAU territory and 12 in SMUD/PG&E territory. On-Bill cost-effectiveness for the ADU home, on the other hand, is seen only in Climate Zones 2, 5, 7 through 9, 10 in SDG&E territory, 14, and 16.
Table 18: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 22.6 18.8 1,571 116 $1,084 $26,667 $11,160 $20,166 1.3 $6,501 1.0 $500 CZ02 PGE 14.1 7.4 1,257 34 $913 $21,353 $10,268 $18,868 1.1 $2,486 0.9 ($1,282) CZ03 PGE 12.8 4.3 858 7 $785 $18,003 $8,708 $16,900 1.1 $1,104 0.7 ($4,777) CZ04 PGE 13.2 4.3 790 6 $803 $18,394 $9,623 $17,938 1.0 $456 0.8 ($3,925) CZ04 CPAU 13.2 4.3 790 6 $123 $2,877 $10,673 $19,172 0.2 ($16,295) 0.7 ($4,975) CZ05 PGE 14.8 4.9 1,178 13 $905 $20,821 $10,021 $18,536 1.1 $2,285 0.8 ($4,048) CZ05 PGE/SCG 14.8 4.9 1,178 13 $900 $20,690 $10,021 $18,536 1.1 $2,154 0.8 ($4,048) CZ06 SCE/SCG 18.3 5.5 888 6 $864 $19,539 $9,266 $17,587 1.1 $1,951 0.8 ($3,941) CZ07 SDGE 18.7 4.8 832 4 $1,134 $27,505 $9,302 $17,636 1.6 $9,869 0.7 ($4,905) CZ08 SCE/SCG 17.1 3.0 777 2 $920 $20,754 $9,134 $17,410 1.2 $3,344 0.7 ($4,341) CZ09 SCE 16.2 3.1 833 3 $922 $20,804 $9,152 $17,435 1.2 $3,369 0.8 ($3,839) CZ10 SCE/SCG 14.4 2.7 846 2 $958 $21,608 $8,828 $17,062 1.3 $4,546 0.7 ($4,146) CZ10 SDGE 14.4 2.7 846 2 $1,288 $31,210 $8,828 $17,062 1.8 $14,148 0.7 ($4,146) CZ11 PGE 12.9 5.1 1,025 26 $1,031 $23,949 $9,099 $17,426 1.4 $6,523 0.98 ($285) CZ12 PGE 13.2 4.8 1,098 23 $923 $21,415 $9,485 $17,964 1.2 $3,451 0.96 ($614) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 13.2 4.8 1,098 23 $253 $6,133 $10,535 $19,199 0.3 ($13,066) 0.9 ($1,664) CZ13 PGE 12.3 4.2 1,006 5 $1,016 $23,250 $9,251 $17,585 1.3 $5,665 0.9 ($1,774) CZ14 SCE/SCG 13.4 5.4 1,514 6 $1,093 $24,697 $10,214 $18,751 1.3 $5,945 0.9 ($1,383) CZ14 SDGE 13.4 5.4 1,514 6 $1,421 $34,477 $10,214 $18,751 1.8 $15,726 0.9 ($1,383) CZ15 SCE/SCG 13.5 3.8 531 2 $1,140 $25,708 $8,586 $16,630 1.5 $9,078 0.6 ($5,490) CZ16 PG&E 20.4 14.2 1,228 114 $1,070 $26,218 $12,086 $20,964 1.3 $5,254 0.98 ($444) 151
177
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 19: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 18.5 7.7 3,666 20 $1,078 $24,880 $15,088 $25,533 1.0 ($654) 0.7 ($6,375) CZ02 PGE 16.6 3.5 3,472 11 $1,042 $23,928 $13,502 $23,404 1.0 $524 0.8 ($3,785) CZ03 PGE 11.8 1.2 2,679 0 $781 $17,816 $11,433 $20,715 0.9 ($2,899) 0.7 ($6,381) CZ04 PGE 13.3 1.6 2,799 0 $859 $19,588 $11,869 $21,212 0.9 ($1,625) 0.7 ($4,962) CZ04 CPAU 13.3 1.6 2,799 0 $391 $8,911 $12,919 $22,447 0.4 ($13,536) 0.7 ($6,012) CZ05 PGE 16.9 1.1 3,309 2 $1,031 $23,539 $12,222 $21,774 1.1 $1,765 0.8 ($4,320) CZ05 PGE/SCG 16.9 1.1 3,309 2 $1,031 $23,520 $12,222 $21,774 1.1 $1,746 0.8 ($4,320) CZ06 SCE/SCG 19.8 1.2 3,285 1 $953 $21,468 $12,050 $21,543 1.0 ($75) 0.8 ($3,431) CZ07 SDGE 20.3 1.2 3,278 0 $1,296 $31,370 $12,424 $22,045 1.4 $9,325 0.8 ($4,187) CZ08 SCE/SCG 20.4 0.5 3,505 0 $1,040 $23,434 $12,609 $22,292 1.1 $1,141 0.8 ($3,179) CZ09 SCE 19.6 0.5 3,497 0 $1,030 $23,213 $12,347 $21,941 1.1 $1,272 0.8 ($2,974) CZ10 SCE/SCG 19.0 0.6 729 0 $537 $12,107 $8,092 $16,220 0.7 ($4,113) 0.5 ($7,000) CZ10 SDGE 19.0 0.6 729 0 $813 $19,671 $8,092 $16,220 1.2 $3,451 0.5 ($7,000) CZ11 PGE 17.6 3.0 871 10 $663 $15,273 $8,874 $17,182 0.9 ($1,909) 0.7 ($5,184) CZ12 PGE 16.7 2.7 3,594 9 $1,112 $25,496 $13,450 $23,324 1.1 $2,172 0.9 ($2,978) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 16.7 2.7 3,594 9 $537 $12,380 $14,500 $24,558 0.5 ($12,178) 0.8 ($4,028) CZ13 PGE 14.5 2.2 273 0 $551 $12,569 $7,635 $15,518 0.8 ($2,949) 0.5 ($6,560) CZ14 SCE/SCG 14.5 3.2 3,499 0 $1,006 $22,671 $12,471 $21,939 1.0 $732 0.8 ($3,079) CZ14 SDGE 14.5 3.2 3,499 0 $1,351 $32,711 $12,471 $21,939 1.5 $10,772 0.8 ($3,079) CZ15 SCE/SCG 19.2 1.8 551 0 $683 $15,387 $8,134 $16,188 1.0 ($801) 0.5 ($6,677) CZ16 PG&E 18.3 6.3 3,680 24 $1,117 $25,838 $13,274 $23,130 1.1 $2,708 0.8 ($3,161) 152
178
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Table 20 and Table 21 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 through 13, and 16—showcasing the benefit of all-electric construction over even the most ambitious of mixed fuel construction packages evaluated in this study. 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. In most of the climate zones (1, 2, 5 through 12, 15, and 16) the all- electric ADU involves electrification of space heating, cooking, and clothes drying. The space heating loads for the ADU are very low, even in the colder climates, and as a result the greenhouse gas savings from efficiency measures, PV and battery are greater than just code minimum electrification. This is also the case for single family homes in Climate Zones 5 through 10, and 15 where space heating loads are low.
Table 20: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
Single Family All-Electric Single Family Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency +
PV
Efficiency +
PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency +
PV +
Battery
CZ01 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.3 0.8 1.1
CZ02 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.7
CZ03 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.5
CZ04 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.5
CZ05 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.6
CZ06 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.5
CZ07 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ08 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ09 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.5
CZ10 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.5
CZ11 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.4 0.7
CZ12 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.6
CZ13 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.6
CZ14 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.6
CZ15 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5
CZ16 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.0 1.1
153
179
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 21: ADU Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
ADU All-Electric ADU Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency + High Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.5
CZ02 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ03 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.3
CZ04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.4
CZ05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4
CZ06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ07 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.5
CZ09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.5
CZ10 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4
CZ12 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5
CZ13 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3
CZ14 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.5
CZ15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ16 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.6
154
180
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis
In response to jurisdictional interest, several cases were evaluated under circumstances different than those presented above in order to assess their impact on cost-effectiveness. Altered circumstances include:
1. CARE versus standard tariffs. This comparison is presented for the all-electric Code Minimum and the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV+ Battery packages and shows the impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness for income qualified utility customers.
2. Infill versus new subdivision single family developments. This comparison applied to the all-electric Code Minimum package demonstrates how cost- effectiveness is impacted due to the magnitude of cost savings for all-electric construction from elimination of the natural gas infrastructure.
3. U tility rate escalation factors. The impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness is presented for the all-electric Code Minimum package from varying the assumptions for escalation of electricity and natural gas utility rates over the 30-year analysis period.
155
181
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.6.1 CARE Rate Comparison
Table 22 and Table 23 present a comparison of On-Bill cost-effectiveness results for CARE tariffs relative to standard IOU tariffs for the all-electric Code Minimum package for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. Applying the CARE rates lowers both electric and gas utility bills for the consumer . In the case of the all-electric home, the net impact of CARE rates is improved cost-effectiveness relative to the standard tariffs. This is because the discount on electricity is greater than that for natural gas. The opposite trend occurs for the mixed fuel packages , where the lower CARE rates result in lower utility cost savings and subsequently lower benefit-to-cost ratios.
Table 22: 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 0.9 ($268) >1 $3,886 0.7 ($2,077) 1.2 $696
CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 5.1 $5,107 0.7 ($1,742) 1.1 $580
CZ03 PGE 1.0 ($90) 1.7 $1,968 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($4,596) CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 2.3 $2,619 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($4,526) CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 2.2 $3,467 0.7 ($1,912) 1.1 $237
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 2.5 $3,841 0.9 ($574) 1.4 $1,321 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 2.3 $3,535 0.9 ($318) 1.4 $1,225 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 2.1 $3,309 0.6 ($3,298) 0.9 ($627) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 2.3 $3,945 0.9 ($289) 1.4 $1,231 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 2.4 $4,074 0.9 ($310) 1.4 $1,230
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 2.4 $4,083 1.3 $976 1.7 $1,923 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 3.0 $4,642 0.8 ($1,084) 1.3 $1,114 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 5.0 $5,077 1.0 $200 1.6 $1,634
CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 5.0 $5,587 0.7 ($1,710) 1.1 $545
CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 2.7 $2,924 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($2,754) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) 1.3 $1,191 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($4,754) CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) 2.0 $2,295 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($6,496) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 1.9 $2,831 1.4 $1,246 1.8 $2,031 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.8 ($351) 0.6 ($2,562) 1.1 $453
156
182
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 23: 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 1.3 $6,501 0.9 ($2,072) 0.97 ($654) 0.7 ($8,623) CZ02 PGE 1.1 $2,486 0.7 ($5,286) 1.0 $524 0.7 ($7,297) CZ03 PGE 1.1 $1,104 0.6 ($5,980) 0.9 ($2,899) 0.6 ($8,788) CZ04 PGE 1.0 $456 0.6 ($6,790) 0.9 ($1,625) 0.6 ($8,200) CZ05 PGE 1.1 $2,285 0.7 ($5,646) 1.1 $1,765 0.7 ($6,142) CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 $2,154 0.7 ($5,751) 1.1 $1,746 0.7 ($6,157) CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.1 $1,951 0.7 ($5,232) 0.997 ($75) 0.7 ($5,476) CZ07 SDGE 1.6 $9,869 1.1 $1,502 1.4 $9,325 0.9 ($1,935) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.2 $3,344 0.7 ($4,574) 1.1 $1,141 0.8 ($4,945) CZ09 SCE 1.2 $3,369 0.7 ($4,547) 1.1 $1,272 0.8 ($4,812) CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $4,546 0.8 ($3,683) 0.7 ($4,113) 0.5 ($7,624) CZ10 SDGE 1.8 $14,148 1.3 $4,461 1.2 $3,451 0.8 ($2,615) CZ11 PGE 1.4 $6,523 0.9 ($2,487) 0.9 ($1,909) 0.6 ($7,688) CZ12 PGE 1.2 $3,451 0.7 ($4,560) 1.1 $2,172 0.7 ($6,267) CZ13 PGE 1.3 $5,665 0.8 ($3,372) 0.8 ($2,949) 0.5 ($8,111) CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $5,945 0.8 ($3,074) 1.0 $732 0.8 ($5,341) CZ14 SDGE 1.8 $15,726 1.3 $4,718 1.5 $10,772 1.0 ($1,007) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.5 $9,078 0.9 ($877) 0.95 ($801) 0.6 ($6,322) CZ16 PG&E 1.3 $5,254 0.8 ($3,523) 1.1 $2,708 0.8 ($5,611)
157
183
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.6.2 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity
Table 24 compares cost-effectiveness results for the natural gas service line extension cost scenarios that inform the average values presented in Table 8. The average cost scenario reflects the cost-effectiveness results for the single family all-electric Code Minimum package presented in Table 16. Relative to a new subdivision, gas infrastructure cost savings are higher for the infill development case, which translates to higher cost-effectiveness. This is shown by positive cost- effectiveness in all metrics except one – On-Bill for Climate Zone 16 – for infill development. Compared to the average cost scenario, there are two cases – On- Bill for Climate Zone 4 in PG&E territory and Climate Zone 7 – where the all-electric Code Minimum package is no longer cost-effective based on the new subdivision costs.
Table 24: 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 0.9 ($268) >1 $5,702 0.6 ($1,492) >1 $4,612 2.2 $4,628 >1 $10,062 CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 1.3 $1,131 >1 $6,621 2.8 $7,250 >1 $12,071 CZ03 PGE 0.98 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 0.7 ($1,314) 18.5 $2,797 2.0 $4,806 52.6 $8,247 CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 0.9 ($245) >1 $3,404 2.6 $5,875 >1 $8,854 CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 1.0 $149 4.9 $3,543 2.3 $6,269 11.0 $8,993 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 1.1 $599 4.9 $3,543 2.5 $6,719 11.0 $8,993 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 1.3 $1,115 3.8 $3,263 2.8 $7,235 8.4 $8,713 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 0.9 ($600) 3.4 $3,121 2.0 $5,519 7.5 $8,571 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 1.4 $1,568 3.5 $3,584 2.8 $7,687 7.3 $9,034 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 1.4 $1,607 4.6 $3,923 2.9 $7,726 9.5 $9,373 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 1.3 $1,418 6.1 $4,197 2.7 $7,537 12.6 $9,647 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 1.1 $601 6.1 $4,197 2.3 $6,721 12.6 $9,647 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 1.3 $1,328 >1 $6,063 3.0 $7,448 >1 $11,513 CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 1.5 $1,986 >1 $6,414 3.1 $8,106 >1 $11,864 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 >1 $10,490 >1 $6,414 >1 $16,610 >1 $11,864 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 1.1 $256 >1 $3,400 3.0 $6,376 >1 $8,850 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 0.7 ($1,746) >1 $3,015 1.8 $4,374 >1 $8,465 CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 0.5 ($2,941) >1 $3,015 1.5 $3,179 >1 $8,465 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 1.1 $567 2.4 $2,349 2.6 $6,687 5.6 $7,799 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) 0.0 ($6,618) 0.0 ($2,429) 0.9 ($498) 2.4 $3,021
158
184
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
4.6.3 Utility Rate Escalation
In this sensitivity analysis, an alternative set of annual utility escalation rates was applied to the gas and electricity savings in select measure packages to show the impact that utility cost changes over time have on cost-effectiveness. This set of rates, detailed in Section 7.2.7, reflects those used by the Energy Commission in their development of the LSC factors for the 2025 code cycle (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 code cycle). The rates assume steep increases in gas rates starting in 2030. Increased gas rates range from 2% to 6.7% higher than annual rates used in the 2022 code cycle; electricity rates are only marginally (about 0.5%) higher each year.
On-Bill cost-effectiveness results are shown for in Table 25 for the all-electric Code Minimum scenario and Table 26 for the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery measure package. The alternative rates described above (“2025 LSC”) are shown alongside those reported elsewhere in this report (“CPUC / 2022 TDV”, described in Section 2.1.3) for comparison. In all cases, the 2025 LSC escalation rates improve cost-effectiveness. In some cases, this improvement is enough to change the result from not cost-effective to cost-effective, these cases are summarized below:
• All-Electric Code Minimum package
o Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16 for the single family home o Climate Zones 1, 5 in PG&E/SCG territory, 6, 8, 9, 10 in SDG&E territory, and 16 for the ADU home • Mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package
o Climate Zones 1, 6, and 15 for the ADU home
159
185
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 25: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.9 ($268) >1 $13,867 0.7 ($2,077) 1.2 $833
CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $10,458 0.7 ($1,742) 0.95 ($228) CZ03 PGE 0.98 ($90) >1 $4,883 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($4,465) CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $5,728 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($4,466) CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $17,647 6.9 $2,592 20.7 $8,704 CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 5.3 $5,148 0.7 ($1,912) 0.8 ($1,386) CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 13.5 $5,884 0.9 ($574) 1.2 $807 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.0 $4,751 0.9 ($318) 1.2 $630 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 1.9 $3,008 0.6 ($3,298) 0.7 ($2,394) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 3.0 $4,650 0.9 ($289) 1.1 $591 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 4.0 $5,233 0.9 ($310) 1.2 $634
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 5.4 $5,700 1.3 $976 1.9 $2,147 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $6,038 0.8 ($1,084) 1.0 $102 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $9,997 1.0 $200 1.6 $1,669
CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $10,077 0.7 ($1,710) 0.9 ($430) CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $19,028 5.7 $3,797 >1 $5,367 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $5,987 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($1,228) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) 6.0 $3,876 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($4,363) CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,799 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($6,285) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 2.2 $3,214 1.4 $1,246 1.9 $2,210 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) >1 $8,516 0.6 ($2,562) 1.2 $629
160
186
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 26: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.3 $6,501 1.6 $12,598 1.0 ($654) 1.1 $1,379 CZ02 PGE 1.1 $2,486 1.3 $4,914 1.0 $524 1.1 $2,202
CZ03 PGE 1.1 $1,104 1.1 $2,287 0.9 ($2,899) 0.9 ($1,962) CZ04 PGE 1.0 $456 1.1 $1,645 0.9 ($1,625) 0.97 ($594) CZ04 CPAU 0.2 ($16,295) 0.2 ($15,990) 0.4 ($13,536) 0.4 ($13,067) CZ05 PGE 1.1 $2,285 1.2 $3,855 1.1 $1,765 1.1 $3,074 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 $2,154 1.2 $3,639 1.1 $1,746 1.1 $3,043 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.1 $1,951 1.2 $3,420 1.0 ($75) 1.1 $1,347 CZ07 SDGE 1.6 $9,869 1.6 $9,831 1.4 $9,325 1.4 $9,070 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.2 $3,344 1.3 $4,750 1.1 $1,141 1.1 $2,674 CZ09 SCE 1.2 $3,369 1.3 $4,812 1.1 $1,272 1.1 $2,793 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $4,546 1.4 $6,006 0.7 ($4,113) 0.8 ($3,317) CZ10 SDGE 1.8 $14,148 1.8 $13,960 1.2 $3,451 1.2 $3,290 CZ11 PGE 1.4 $6,523 1.5 $8,837 0.9 ($1,909) 0.96 ($740) CZ12 PGE 1.2 $3,451 1.3 $5,457 1.1 $2,172 1.2 $3,844 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.3 ($13,066) 0.4 ($11,864) 0.5 ($12,178) 0.5 ($11,196) CZ13 PGE 1.3 $5,665 1.4 $7,099 0.8 ($2,949) 0.9 ($2,288) CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $5,945 1.4 $7,729 1.0 $732 1.1 $2,213 CZ14 SDGE 1.8 $15,726 1.8 $15,707 1.5 $10,772 1.5 $10,493 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.5 $9,078 1.7 $10,819 1.0 ($801) 1.0 $204 CZ16 PG&E 1.3 $5,254 1.5 $10,999 1.1 $2,708 1.2 $4,956 161
187
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
5 Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine and document the code compliance and cost-effectiveness impacts of improving performance among single family new construction – both standard sized homes and ADUs. To this end, the Reach Codes Team evaluated 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 27 (single family) and Table 28 (ADU) summarize results for each prototype and depict the EDR1 compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the energy code (i.e., have a positive compliance margin in the performance approach) 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. • Cells highlighted in grey depict the high efficiency equipment packages where cost-effectiveness was not evaluated.
The following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis.
Conclusions and Discussion:
• All-electric buildings have lower GHG emissions than mixed fuel buildings, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers as well as accounting for increased penetration of renewables in the future. Almost all the all-electric packages evaluated resulted in greater GHG emission savings than the mixed fuel packages, with the exception of the mixed fuel package with battery storage in climate zones with low heating loads. The Reach Codes Team found code-compliant, all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on TDV for single family homes in all cases except Climate Zone 16.
• All-electric single family new construction was On-Bill cost-effective in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.
• The all-electric ADU home was cost-effective based on TDV in all cases except in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 where the higher cost of installing a ducted HPWH instead of the prescriptively required gas tankless water heater outweigh the resulting energy cost savings. In the other climate zones there were first cost savings for installing a heat pump space heater instead of gas furnace, contributing to an overall TDV cost -effective result. • Few cases were cost-effective On-Bill for the ADU.
• A ll-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in first year utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home, except for CPAU and SMUD where electricity rates are much lower than for the IOUs . The addition of efficiency measures, market dominant HPWHs that meet NEEA’s Advanced Water Heating Specification, high efficiency heat pumps, increased PV, and batteries all reduce utility costs, and a combination of these options was found to reduce annual utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home in all cases. • Under NBT, utility cost savings for increasing PV system size beyond code minimum are substantially less than under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill cost- effective in all climate zones for the all-electric single family home. Coupling PV with battery systems increases utility cost savings as a result of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid. 162
188
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
• Applying CARE rates in the IOU territories increases improves On-Bill cost-effectiveness for all-electric buildings, as compared to the same case under standard rates, due to higher utility cost savings compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building also on a CARE rate, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas. • If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in-line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, all-electric new construction was found to be On-Bill cost-effective in almost all scenarios over the 30-year analysis period. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates will increase, how much and how quickly is not known.
Electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the CPUC has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low-income customers and supports electrification measures.21 The CPUC will make a decision in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits including incentivizing electrification, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings.
Recommendations:
• A reach code with a single performance target based on source energy (EDR1) can be structured to strongly encourage electrification. This approach requires equivalent performance for all buildings and allows mixed fuel buildings which minimizes the risk of violating federal preemption. Below are examples of how a reach code for single family homes could be setup based on the results summarized in Table 27. o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 12 could set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 11.5 (the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, and a mixed fuel home would likely need to incorporate a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system to comply. o Similarly, a jurisdiction in Climate Zone 7 may consider setting a performance target of 2.8 EDR1 margin (also the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, but a mixed fuel home would likely be able to comply with only a suite of above-code efficiency measures (no battery). Alternatively, a higher EDR1 margin target of 5 would incentivize more energy efficiency or additional PV for all- electric construction, and mixed fuel construction would likely need to incorporate a battery system to comply.
o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 16 may want to set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 20.5 (the EDR1 margin for the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package). This would establish a target that a mixed fuel home could cost-effectively meet, likely only after incorporating a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system, and that an all-electric home could easily meet. • The 2022 Title 24 code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage all - electric construction, providing an incentive that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off, still meeting minimum code compliance. 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 a reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR1 margins at minimum consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 27.
21 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking 163
189
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
• T he code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype; code compliance and cost-effectiveness can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units.
As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend EDR1 targets above those reported for the all- electric Code Minimum package in Table 28.
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 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.
This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/.
Table 27: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 PGE 25.8 29.1 31.4 32.6 41.4 14.8 22.6
CZ02 PGE 14.0 16.3 18.0 18.9 28.3 9.1 14.1
CZ03 PGE 9.1 10.6 12.2 13.1 24.2 3.6 12.8
CZ04 PGE 8.8 10.4 11.9 12.8 24.6 3.8 13.2
CZ04 CPAU 8.8 10.4 11.9 12.8 24.6 3.8 13.2
CZ05 PGE 6.5 7.9 10.2 10.8 23.3 5.2 14.8
CZ05 PGE/SCG 6.5 7.9 10.2 10.8 23.3 5.2 14.8
CZ06 SCE/SCG 4.2 5.3 6.6 8.4 24.6 4.0 18.3
CZ07 SDGE 2.8 3.6 4.8 6.9 23.6 3.2 18.7
CZ08 SCE/SCG 2.1 2.9 4.2 5.6 21.3 2.7 17.1
CZ09 SCE/SCG 3.6 4.4 5.7 7.1 21.8 3.2 16.2
CZ10 SCE/SCG 4.8 5.8 7.2 8.5 21.9 3.9 14.4
CZ10 SDGE 4.8 5.8 7.2 8.5 21.9 3.9 14.4
CZ11 PGE 11.4 13.4 15.0 15.6 24.5 7.7 12.9
CZ12 PGE 11.5 13.3 14.8 15.5 25.2 7.2 13.2
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.5 13.3 14.8 15.5 25.2 7.2 13.2
CZ13 PGE 8.3 10.3 11.9 12.3 22.3 4.1 12.3
CZ14 SCE/SCG 8.8 11.5 13.2 14.3 24.7 4.6 13.4
CZ14 SDGE 8.8 11.5 13.2 14.3 24.7 4.6 13.4
CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.9 2.4 3.7 3.8 15.7 3.5 13.5
CZ16 PG&E 21.3 25.6 27.0 29.1 37.5 16.3 20.4
164
190
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 28: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 PGE 11.9 15.7 18.5 19.3 33.7 2.9 18.5
CZ02 PGE 5.7 7.9 9.7 10.8 25.6 -4.7 16.6
CZ03 PGE 2.9 4.0 5.9 7.1 23.2 4.0 11.8
CZ04 PGE 2.4 3.9 5.5 6.8 23.6 4.2 13.3
CZ04 CPAU 2.4 3.9 5.5 6.8 23.6 4.2 13.3
CZ05 PGE 1.8 2.9 4.8 6.4 24.0 -12.1 16.9
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.8 2.9 4.8 6.4 24.0 -12.1 16.9
CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.5 1.3 2.6 5.0 25.7 -15.6 19.8
CZ07 SDGE 0.1 0.9 2.1 5.0 26.4 -16.5 20.3
CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.1 0.7 1.8 4.2 25.1 -15.3 20.4
CZ09 SCE 0.4 1.1 2.3 4.5 25.0 -14.4 19.6
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 2.0 3.5 5.4 25.3 -11.9 19.0
CZ10 SDGE 1.0 2.0 3.5 5.4 25.3 -11.9 19.0
CZ11 PGE 4.6 7.0 8.6 9.6 25.1 -3.5 17.6
CZ12 PGE 4.6 6.6 8.3 9.3 24.5 -5.6 16.7
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.6 6.6 8.3 9.3 24.5 -5.6 16.7
CZ13 PGE 3.1 5.5 6.9 7.8 25.2 4.4 14.5
CZ14 SCE/SCG 3.5 6.3 8.0 9.6 26.9 5.1 14.5
CZ14 SDGE 3.5 6.3 8.0 9.6 26.9 5.1 14.5
CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.0 2.2 2.6 4.4 25.3 -9.3 19.2
CZ16 PG&E 11.2 14.7 15.7 18.3 33.7 2.9 18.3
165
191
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 References
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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
Barbose, Galen; Darghouth, Naim; O'Shaughnessy, Eric; Forrester, Sydney. (2022). Tracking the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2022 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-alternative- calculation-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-residential- alternative-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-affairs- division/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.
Department of Energy. (2022). Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018 E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/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/cgi- bin/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/wp-
content/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 166
192
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 References
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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
RSMeans. (2022). Cost data obtained from the 2022 RSMeans online database.
Statewide CASE Team. (2017). Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2019 California Energy Code. Retrieved from http://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2018). Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savings- potential-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-CASE- Report.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-and- Alterations_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%20Cost- eff%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
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (tbd). 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades.
Prepared by Frontier Energy. Not yet published.
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.
167
193
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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.
168
194
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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 2023 credits shows below.22 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts.
Electricity rates reflect the most recently approved tariffs. Monthly gas rates were estimated based on recent gas rates (November 2023) and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from monthly residential tariffs between 2014 and 2023 (between 2017 and 2023 for CPAU). 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years (seven years for CPAU).
These annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. This was conducted separately for baseline and excess energy rates. Costs used in this analysis were then derived by establishing the most recent baseline and excess rate from the latest tariff as a reference point (November 2023), and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the reference point rate .
22 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/california-climate-credit 169
195
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.1 P acific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 29 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.07051/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one- year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.
Table 29: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
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 for G-1 in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table
30. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Corresponding CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff.
Table 30: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.05 $2.43
February $2.08 $2.46
March $1.92 $2.31
April $1.80 $2.20
May $1.77 $2.18
June $1.78 $2.18
July $1.80 $2.20
August $1.85 $2.26
September $1.92 $2.33
October $1.99 $2.40
November $2.06 $2.46
December $2.05 $2.44
170
196
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
171
197
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
172
198
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
173
199
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
174
200
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
175
201
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
176
202
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.2 S outhern California Edison
The following pages provide details on the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 31 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.06030/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.
Table 31: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
177
203
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
178
204
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
179
205
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
180
206
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.3 S outhern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 32 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 32: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 33.
These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges. 23 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2023 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.
Table 33: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
January $0.72 $0.86 $1.31 $1.92 $2.36
February $0.50 $0.86 $1.31 $1.57 $2.02
March $0.44 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.93
April $0.39 $0.86 $1.31 $1.39 $1.84
May $0.41 $0.86 $1.31 $1.43 $1.87
June $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.49 $1.93
July $0.47 $0.86 $1.31 $1.51 $1.96
August $0.51 $0.86 $1.31 $1.58 $2.03
September $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.52 $1.96
October $0.45 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.92
November $0.48 $0.86 $1.31 $1.54 $1.99
December $0.57 $0.86 $1.31 $1.63 $2.08
23 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your- business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) 181
207
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.4 S an Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 34 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.04542/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.
Table 34: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table
35. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.
Table 35: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.34 $2.63
February $2.28 $2.57
March $2.21 $2.51
April $2.14 $2.45
May $2.18 $2.48
June $2.23 $2.55
July $2.26 $2.57
August $2.32 $2.62
September $2.26 $2.59
October $2.21 $2.55
November $2.24 $2.57
December $2.38 $2.70
182
208
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
183
209
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
184
210
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
185
211
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 66 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
186
212
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 67 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
187
213
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 68 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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 according to the rates shown in Table 36. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the October 2023 tariff based on seven years of historical gas data. The monthly service charge applied was $14.01 per month per the November 2023 G-1 tariff.
Table 36: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month G1
Volumetric
Total
Baseline
G1
Volumetric
Total
Excess
January $1.83532 $3.35639
February $1.38055 $2.59947
March $1.32506 $2.47695
April $1.29680 $2.44038
May $1.29511 $2.43804
June $1.32034 $2.45406
July $1.35688 $2.61519
August $1.40696 $2.67944
September $1.42130 $2.70301
October $1.42310 $2.48300
November $1.46286 $2.45547
December $1.62415 $2.62128
188
214
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 69 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
189
215
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 70 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.6 S acramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used. 190
216
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 71 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
191
217
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 72 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 37 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 38 presents the average annual escalation rates used in the utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis shown in Section 4.6.3. Rates were applied for the same 30-year period and are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2027 through 2053.24 These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for years 2024, 2025, and 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation.
Table 37: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis
24 https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3.
Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Electric Residential Average Rate
(%/year, real)
PG&E SCE SDG&E
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%
2053 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
192
218
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 73 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 38: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis
Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Statewide
Electricity
Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
2024 4.6% 2.1%
2025 4.6% 2.1%
2026 4.6% 2.1%
2027 4.2% 0.6%
2028 3.2% 1.9%
2029 3.6% 1.6%
2030 6.6% 1.3%
2031 6.7% 1.0%
2032 7.7% 1.2%
2033 8.2% 1.1%
2034 8.2% 1.1%
2035 8.2% 0.9%
2036 8.2% 1.1%
2037 8.2% 1.1%
2038 8.2% 1.0%
2039 8.2% 1.1%
2040 8.2% 1.1%
2041 8.2% 1.1%
2042 8.2% 1.1%
2043 8.2% 1.1%
2044 8.2% 1.1%
2045 8.2% 1.1%
2046 8.2% 1.1%
2047 3.1% 1.1%
2048 -0.5% 1.1%
2049 -0.6% 1.1%
2050 -0.5% 1.1%
2051 -0.6% 1.1%
2052 -0.6% 1.1%
2053 -0.6% 1.1%
193
219
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 74 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.3 Summary of Efficiency Measures
Table 39 provides the details of the efficiency (non-preempted) measures, by climate zone, included in the following packages for the single family prototype:
• Efficiency Only
• Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment
• Efficiency + PV
• Efficiency + PV + Battery (all-electric only)
The efficiency measures for the single family mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package is presented in Table 40, and Table 41 presents the efficiency measures for all the ADU packages. In all tables, the lack of an “X” indicates that the prescriptive values for that climate zone were not changed. See Appendix 7.4 for a list of prescriptive values by climate zone. Efficiency measures are described in Section 3.3.1.
Table 39: All-Electric Single Family Efficiency Measures, Various Packages Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab
Attic Ceiling
Insulation
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 X
2 X R-60 X X X
3 R-60 X X X
4 X R-60 X X X
5 R-49 X X X
6 R-60 X X X
7 R-49 X X
8 R-60 X X X
9 R-60 X X X
10 R-60 X X X X
11 X R-60 X X X X
12 X R-60 X X X X
13 X R-60 X X X X
14 X X R-60 X X X X
15 X R-60 X X X X
16 R-60 X X X
194
220
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 75 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 40: Mixed Fuel Single Family Measures, Efficiency + PV + Battery Package25
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic
0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 U-
Factor / 0.50
SHGC
Windows
0.30 U-
Factor / 0.50
SHGC
Windows
0.35 W/cfm
Buried
Ducts
Basic
Compact
Hot Water
Credit
1 X X X
2 X R-49 X X X
3 R-38 X X X
4 X R-49 X X X
5 X R-49 X X X
6 R-49 X X X
7 R-49 X X X
8 R-49 X X X
9 R-49 X X X
10 R-49 X X X
11 R-49 X X X
12 R-49 X X X X
13 R-49 X X X X
14 X R-49 X X X X
15 X R-49 X X X X
16 R-49 X X X
Table 41: Efficiency Measures for All ADU Packages
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab
0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 U-Factor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
Ductless
VCHP1
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit1
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
1 The ductless VCHP and compact hot water measures are only applied to the all-electric packages and not the mixed fuel packages.
25 The efficiency measures for the all-electric version of this package follow those listed in Table 39. 195
221
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 76 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
7.4 Summary of Applicable Prescriptive Base Case Measures This appendix lists the prescriptive values, by climate zone, of building components relevant to the measures included in this analysis. Table 42 outlines envelope, PV, and battery values; 196
222
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 77 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 43 outlines space conditioning values, and Table 44 outlines domestic water heating (DHW) values.
Table 42 Prescriptive Envelope, PV, and Battery Measures by Climate Zone CZ Air
Infiltration1 Foundation Wall
Insulation2
Attic
Insulation3
Roof Aged
Solar
Reflectivity
Window
U-Factor /
SHGC
PV4 Battery
1 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 2 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 3 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 4 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 5 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 6 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-15 + R-4 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 7 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-15 + R-4 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 8 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 9 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 10 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 11 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 12 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 13 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 14 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 15 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 16 5 ACH50 R-7, 16" slab
insulation R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 1 5 ACH50 is prescriptively required however verification is not required. 2 Cavity wall insulation + continuous rigid insulation. 3 Ceiling/attic insulation R-value. R-38 + R-19 reflect High Performance Attics (HPAs) as defined by Option B in Table 150.1-A. 4 Prescriptive PV capacities (kW-DC) by climate zone are summarized in Table 4.
197
223
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 78 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
Table 43 Prescriptive HVAC Measures by Climate Zone
CZ Heating
Type AC Type Heating
Efficiency1
HVAC
Efficiency
(SEER2/EER2)
HVAC Fan
Efficacy
(W/cfm)
Ducts2
1 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 2 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 3 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 4 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 5 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 6 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 7 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 8 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 9 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 10 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 11 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 12 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 13 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 14 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 15 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 16 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 1 AFUE for gas furnaces, HSPF2 for heat pumps.
2 Duct insulation R-value, duct leakage, duct location.
Table 44 Prescriptive Water Heating Measures by Climate Zone CZ DHW Type
DHW Location DHW:
Basic
Compact
Distribution
Credit
Single
Family ADU
1 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside Yes 2 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 3 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 4 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 5 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 6 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 7 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 8 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 9 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 10 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 11 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 12 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 13 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 14 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 15 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 16 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside Yes 198
224
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 79 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-03-25
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 LinkedIn
199
225
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
Prepared by:
Avani Goyal, Farhad Farahmand
TRC Companies Inc.
Prepared for:
Jay Madden
Codes and Standards Program Southern California Edison
Last modified: 2023/03/24
Revision: 1.3
2 0 2 2 C o d e :
Nonresidential New
Construction Reach Code
Cost-effectiveness Study
200
226
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2023, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy, or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately- owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
Acronym List
AC – Air Conditioner
ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BOD – Basis of Design
BSC – Building Standards Commission
Btu – British thermal unit
CAV – Constant Air Volume
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBECS - Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CZ – Climate Zone
DCKV – Demand-Controlled Kitchen Ventilation
DHW – Domestic Hot Water
DEER – Database for Energy Efficient Resources
DOE – U.S. Department of Energy
E3 – Energy and Environmental Economics
EUI – Energy Use Index
FDD – Fault Detection and Diagnostics
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GPM – Gallons Per Minute
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
201
227
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
LPD – Lighting Power Density
NPV – Net Present Value
QSR – Quick-Service Restaurant
PNNL – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PTHP – Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
PTAC – Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
SHW – Service Hot Water
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SZ – Single Zone
TDV – Time Dependent Valuation
VAV – Variable Air Volume
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 TOU – Time of Use
202
228
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
11/16/2022 Original Release -
01/31/2023 Minor changes to reflect efficiency compliance margin calculation updates in workbook and report
tables
Section 5
03/24/2023 Minor changes in narrative of quick service
restaurant in reach code considerations
Section 5
203
229
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Cost-effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Energy Simulations ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.4 GHG Emissions .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Limitations and Further Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 8 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs .......................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Prototype Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Load Flexibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
3.2.4 Additional Solar PV and Battery Storage .................................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 4 Cost-Effectiveness Results .................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Medium Office ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Medium Retail ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR) ........................................................................................................................................ 35
4.4 Small Hotel .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 5 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations ................................................................ 37
5.1 Medium Office ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Medium Retail ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42
5.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR) ........................................................................................................................................ 44
5.4 Small Hotel .......................................................................................................................................................................... 46 6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 7 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 8 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
8.1 Map of California CZs ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
8.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
8.2.1 PG&E .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54
8.2.2 SCE............................................................................................................................................................................. 57
8.2.3 SCG ............................................................................................................................................................................ 60
8.2.4 SDG&E ....................................................................................................................................................................... 62
8.2.5 CPAU .......................................................................................................................................................................... 68
8.2.6 SMUD (Electric Only) .................................................................................................................................................. 70
8.2.7 Escalation Rates ......................................................................................................................................................... 71 204
230
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
8.3 HVAC and SHW System Cost Scalers ............................................................................................................................... 71
8.4 Mixed Fuel Baseline Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 72
8.5 GHG Savings Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 76
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on CZ (October 2022) .................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Baseline Prototype Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary ............................................................................................................ 14 Table 4. Medium Office Average Mechanical System Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Table 5. Medium Retail Average Mechanical System Costs ............................................................................................................... 16 Table 6. Quick-Service Restaurant Average Mechanical System Costs - HS Package ...................................................................... 16 Table 7. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 8. Quick-Service Restaurant Cooking Equipment Costs ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. Small Hotel Clothes Dryer Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 10. Electrical Infrastructure Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 11. Gas Infrastructure Costs by Component ............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 12. Total Gas Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Building Type .................................................................................................. 21 Table 13. Efficiency Measures Applicability, Costs, and Sources ....................................................................................................... 26 Table 14. Load Flexibility Measure Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 15. Additional Solar PV Measure Summary .............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 16. Reach Code Pathway Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 39 Table 17. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Office ........................................................................................ 41 Table 18. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Retail......................................................................................... 42 Table 19. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (without cooking electrification) ..................... 44 Table 20. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (with cooking electrification) .......................... 45 Table 21. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel. ............................................................................................ 46 Table 22. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel (PTHP) ................................................................................ 47 Table 23. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on CZ – Detailed View ......................................................................................................... 53 Table 24. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Above Inflation .......................................................................................... 71 Table 25. Materials and Labor Adjustment Factors by Climate Zone ................................................................................................. 71 Table 26. Contractor Markup Values .................................................................................................................................................. 72 Table 27. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Medium Office ...................................................................................................................... 72 205
231
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings Table 28. All-electric Baseline Model – Medium Retail ....................................................................................................................... 73 Table 29. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Quick-Service Restaurant .................................................................................................... 74 Table 30. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Small Hotel ........................................................................................................................... 75
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary....................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2. Medium Retail Cost-effectiveness Summary ....................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3. QSR Cost-effectiveness Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4. Small Hotel Cost-effectiveness Summary ............................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 5. Map of California CZs .......................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 6. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 7. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-10 ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 8. PG&E Gas Schedule – G-NR1 ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 9. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-1 .................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 10. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-2 .................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 11. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-3 .................................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 12. SCG Gas Schedule – G-10................................................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 13. SDG&E Electric Schedule – AL-TOU ................................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 14. SDG&E Electric Schedule - EECC .................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 15. SDG&E Gas Schedule – GN-3 .......................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 16. CPAU Electric Schedule – E-2........................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 17. CPAU Gas Schedule – G-2 ............................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 18. SMUD Electric Schedule – CITS-0/CITS-1 ........................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 19. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Office ...................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 20. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Retail ....................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 21. Percentage GHG Savings – Quick Service Restaurant ..................................................................................................... 77 Figure 22. Percentage GHG Savings – Small Hotel ........................................................................................................................... 77
206
232
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 1 Executive Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governm ents considering adopting a local ordinance, also known as a reach code, intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates the adoption and implementation of reach codes when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost -effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
The Reach Code Team (the Team) provides this report and accompanying Reach Code Results Workbook to present measures and measure packages that local jurisdictions can adopt to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing the minimum state requirements according to the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023. This report documents a variety of above-code electrification, energy efficiency, load flexibility, and solar photovoltaic (PV) packages applied to a set of four nonresidential building prototypes: Medium Office, Standalone Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel.
The Team evaluated energy simulation results and code compliance using the CBECC v1.0 software version released in June 2022. Results may change with future software versions. Results across all prototypes indicate the efficiency measures included in the analysis, both On-Bill and TDV, are cost-effective across all climate zones when added to the prescriptive baseline prototype. In all cases all-electric packages are capable of achieving the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reductions as compared to mixed-fuel buildings.
These results, including the attached Reach Code Results Workbook, indicate that all -electric packages can achieve the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reductions as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. Results align with the decarbonization objectives set by California Energy Commission (Energy Commission), and several new construction new construction ordinances focusing on all-electric design. The results of this study by prototype are summarized below:
Medium Office: Due to the lack of a prescriptive compliance pathway and performance modeling approach in CBECC, all-electric space heating is simulated as electric-resistance variable-air-volume reheat. This system selection limits operational benefits, energy code compliance, and cost-effectiveness. All-electric packages are cost-effective with energy efficiency and load flexibility measures in many climate zones, but do not achieve code compliance across all three metrics—with efficiency TDV margin being the most challenging. Results will be updated in the first half of 2023 when central heat pump boilers can be simulated in CBECC. Jurisdictions may adopt reach codes that exempt building systems that do not have a prescriptive pathway in the energy code and cannot be modeled to comply using the performance approach. Efficiency packages over the mixed- fuel baseline are cost-effective and compliant across all climate zones.
Medium Retail: All-electric is prescriptively required in most scenarios in Retail buildings. The Team identified cost-effective and code compliant packages with energy efficiency measures over an all-electric baseline in most climate zones. This study analyzed mixed-fuel retail buildings with large (>240 kBtuh) gas furnace packaged units replacing the smaller (<240 kBtuh) packaged heat pumps. The mixed-fuel building is neither cost-effective nor code compliant in most climate zones.
Quick-Service Restaurant: The Team identified cost-effective, nearly cost-effective, and code compliant packages in several climate zones for all-electric space conditioning and service water heating when including energy efficiency and solar PV measures. The Team could not identify cost-effective packages including all- electric commercial cooking equipment except for City of Palo Alto Utility (CPAU) territory. Also, when including energy efficiency measures, restaurants with all-electric cooking achieve compliance and are nearly On-Bill cost-effective in Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) territory as well. Jurisdictions may adopt All- Electric reach codes that exempt commercial cooking equipment or require energy efficiency for either mixed- fuel and/or all-electric buildings, in many climate zones. 207
233
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 2 Executive Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Small Hotel: All-electric packages are cost-effective and code-compliant in most climate zones. The remaining climate zones are very close to meeting the TDV Efficiency compliance criteria and may achieve compliance by re-evaluating nonresidential-area modeling using central heat pump boiler instead of electric resistance VAV systems. In addition to electrification packages that include single-zone packaged heat pumps, the Team analyzed an alternative scenario with packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) that improved all-electric code minimum cost-effectiveness due to high first-cost savings, but PTHPs do not achieve TDV Efficiency compliance. Mixed-fuel plus energy efficiency is code compliant and cost-effective across all climate zones.
Jurisdictions may use these results for amending Part 6, Part 11, other parts of the California building code, or their municipal code as determined appropriate for the given jurisdiction. A cost-effectiveness study is required to amend Part 6 of the California building code or when adopting energy efficiency or energy conservation measures, including solar PV or batteries. The Energy Commission has previously concluded that all-electric requirements do not constitute an energy efficiency or energy conservation standard and are outside the scope of Public Resources Code s ection 25402.1(h)(2).1 Jurisdictions may adopt an All-Electric reach code when amending Part 11 or their municipal code.
Even reach code policies that only require electrification, and do not require energy efficiency or conservation, will benefit from findings in this study to inform potential economic impacts of a policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and GHG emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.
Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at www.localenergycodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance are encouraged to contact the program for further technical support at [email protected] .
1 CEC Letter to South San Francisco 2021: https://bayareareachcodes.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CEC-Letter-to-SSF- Signed.pdf
208
234
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 3 Introduction
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 20 22 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC 2022), effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed nonresidential buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team (or “the Team” for short). The objectives of this report are to inform discourse for local reach code adoption and, where applicable, support approval of local energy code amendments from the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission).
The Reach Code Team performed cost-effectiveness analysis for the following scenarios above prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements in all 16 California climate zones (CZs):
▪ Fuel substitution with federal code-minimum efficiency appliances, compared to a prescriptive minimum design compliance pathway.
• For the retail building type, the prescriptive code minimum is all-electric. Fuel substitution packages revert to mixed-fuel appliances.
• For all other building types, the prescriptive code minimum is mixed-fuel. Fuel substitution packages switch to all-electric appliances.
▪ Energy efficiency measures
▪ Load flexibility measures
▪ Solar PV and Battery
The Reach Code Team analyzed four prototypes—Medium Office, Medium Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel—to represent common nonresidential new construction buildings in the California. The selected building types align with the requests received from dozens of jurisdictions seeking to adopt reach codes. The results of this cost-effectiveness study could potentially be extrapolated to other building types that have sim ilar properties such as occupancy pattern, HVAC design and layout. These results were attained using the first version of California Building Energy Compliance Calculator (CBECC) software that is approved by CEC for 2022 code compliance. There are a few gaps in functionalities and standard design assumptions in this software version, described in Section 2.5, the Reach Code team has been actively coordinating with the CBECC software team to inform future software updates.
Title 24 is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the Energy Commission and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards).
When adopting local energy efficiency or conservation ordinances, local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain formal approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. Local jurisdictions do not require Energy Commission approval when adopting ordinances that do not require efficiency or conservation, such as only electrification-required ordinances.
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water hea ting equipment (E-CFR 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum equipment efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost -effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits 209
235
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 4 Introduction
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.
This study references the statewide reach code study performed in 2019 for new ly constructed nonresidential buildings as a starting point for additional measure definitions. Importantly, the current 2022 cost-effectiveness report introduced a new restaurant building type and updated the modeling and cost assumptions. 210
236
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 5 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Code Team analyzed four prototypes—Medium Office, Medium Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel—using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below.
2.1 Cost-effectiveness
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.
2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both On-Bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness. Both On-Bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between On-Bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
▪ On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer On-Bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 15-year duration accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 8.2. ▪ TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy, including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy uses differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This refers to the “Total TDV” that includes all the energy end uses such as space-conditioning, mechanical ventilation, service water heating indoor lighting, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and covered process loads.
2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over a 15 year lifecycle.
Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained baseline and measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as RS Means.
For heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and water heating baseline and measure costs, including gas and electrical infrastructure, the Reach Code Team contracted two different firms, one mechanical contractor (Western Allied Mechanical, based in Menlo Park) and one mechanical designer (P2S Engineering, based in Irvine) to provide cost data. The Reach Code Team developed a basis of design for all prototypes described in section 3.1 and worked with the mechanical contractor and designer to get cost estimates. The Reach Code Team determined HVAC design heating and cooling loads and capacities by climate zone from the energy models. For each HVAC system type, the Reach Code Team requested costs for the smallest capacity unit required and the largest capacity unit required and specified federal minimum equipment efficiency.
The mechanical contractor and mechanical designer collected equipment costs and labor assumptions from their vendors and manufacturers’ representatives, as well as through their own recent projects. The mechanical contractor and designer provided material and labor cost estimates for the entire HVAC and DHW systems, disaggregated by the HVAC and DHW equipment itself; refrigerant piping; structural; electrical supply; gas supply; controls; commissioning and startup; general conditions and overhead; design and engineering; permit, te sting, and inspection; and a contractor profit or market factor. The mechanical contractor and designer provided costs for each of the system capacities, based on which the Reach Code Team developed a relationship between HVAC system capacity and cost to calculate the cost for each building in each climate zone. In most cases, the analysis uses the average of the costs provided by 211
237
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 6 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
the contractor and the costs provided by the designer. In some limited cases where costs provided by one source were unlikely to be representative of the measure, costs from only the other source were used. The Reach Code Team added taxes, contractor markups, maintenance costs, and replacement costs where needed, and adjusted material and labor costs for each climate zone based on weighting factors from RS Means (presented in Appendix 8.3).
Actual project costs vary widely based on a range of real-building considerations. The costs that the Reach Code Team determined through contractors are likely costs for the given prototypes and are not representative of all projects.
2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. ▪ NPV: Net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs). If the net savings of a measure or package is positive over a lifetime of 15 years, it is considered cost-effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer.
A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost-effective if the incremental costs to implement the measure (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings) outweigh the negative energy cost impacts.
▪ B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.
Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial capital investment, though in some cases an energy measure may be cost neutral or have a lower cost. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost.
In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., shows positive upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.
2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the IOU and POU rate teams the Reach Code Team determined appropriate utility rates for each CZ and package as of October 2022. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype and the corresponding package, the most prevalent rate in each utility territory, and information indicating that the rates were unlikely to be phased out during the code cycle.
A time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to most cases, some POUs may not have TOU rates. In addition to energy consumption charges, there are kW demand charges for monthly peak loads. Utilities calculate the peak load by the highest kW of the 15-minute interval readings in the month. However, the energy modeling software pro duces results on hourly intervals; hence, the Team calculated the demand charges by multiplying the highest load of all hourly loads in a month with the corresponding demand charge per kW. The utility rates applicable to a prototype may vary by package and CZ especially between a mixed fuel and all-electric package if the monthly peak demand loads exceed the applicable threshold.
The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile of each specific prototype, climate zone, and measure package and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness.
Utility rate updates can affect cost-effectiveness results. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected, refer to Appendix 8.2.
212
238
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 7 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
For packages with PV generation, the approved Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases, annual electric production was always less than the modeled annual electricity consumption; therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary.
The analysis assumes that utility rates escalate over time for commercial buildings, as described in Appendix 8.2.
Escalation rates above inflation for electricity beyond 2023 are assumed to be between 0.2% and 0.7%, before dropping to a steady 0.6% escalation per year in 2030. Natural gas is assumed to escalate at a relatively higher rate, peaking at 7.7% in 2024, then escalating more slowly to a rate of approximately 2% in the latter years of the analysis period.
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on CZ (October 2022) CZs Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Investor-Owned Utilities
1-5,11-13,16 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) B-1 / B-10 G-NR1 6, 8-10, 14,
15 Southern California Edison (SCE) / Southern
California Gas (SCG)
TOU-GS-1 / TOU-GS-2
/TOU-GS-3 G-10 (GN-10)
7, 10, 14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) AL-TOU + EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3
Publicly Owned Utilities
4 City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) E-2 G-2
12 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) CI-TOD 1 (CITS-0 /CITS-1) G-NR1
2.2 Energy Simulations
The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software CBECC 2022.1.0 (1250) with ruleset version BEMCmpMgr 2022.1.0 (7361) (California Building Energy Code Compliance 2022).2 This is the first 2022 Title 24 code compliance software approved by Energy Commission for compliance of nonresidential buildings on June 8, 2022. The CBECC software combined the capabilities of CBECC- Com and CBECC-Res software into one to model both nonresidential and multifamily building prototypes in one interface.
The Reach Code Team set up parametric simulations using Modelkit software to run thousands of measure packages for each prototype in all California’s CZs. Individual measures were simulated separately and combined into cost- effective measure packages for each CZ. Where necessary, the Reach Code Team employed minor ruleset changes, such as load flexibility measures that alter thermostat setpoint schedules, to improve the cost-effectiveness of measure packages. While these measures produce operational savings, they may not be used to achieve code compliance without further software upgrades.
2.3 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics
2022 Title 24 Section 140.1 defines the energy budget of the building based on source energy and TDV energy for space-conditioning, indoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems , and service
2 Prior to the CBECC software, the Reach Code Team used CBECC-Com 2022 and CBECC 2022.0.8 Beta to model nonresidential prototypes for the 2022 reach code analysis. The Reach Code Team noted the changes in results due to updates in functionalities and standard design assumptions.
213
239
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 8 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
water heating and covered process loads. CEC has introduced two new compliance metrics in addition to Total Compliance TDV Margin for 2022 code cycle. A building needs to comply with all three compliance metrics below:
▪ Efficiency TDV. Efficiency TDV accounts for all regulated end-uses but does not include the impacts of PV and battery storage.
▪ Total TDV. Total TDV Compliance metric includes regulated end-uses accounting for PV and battery storage contributions.
▪ Source Energy. Source energy is based on fuel used for power generation, assuming utilities meet all Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and other obligations projected over 15-year lifecycle.
2.4 GHG Emissions
The analysis uses the GHG emissions estimates built into CBECC. The GHG emission multipliers were developed by Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) to support development of compliance metrics for use in the 2022 California energy code (E3 2021). There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including RPS projections. For the 2022 code cycle, the multipliers incorporate GHG from methane and refrigerant leakage, which are two significant sources of GHG emissions (NORESCO 2020).
There are 32 strings of multipliers, with a different string for each California CZ and each fuel type (metric tons of CO 2 per kWh for electricity and metric tons of CO2 per therm for natural gas).
2.5 Limitations and Further Considerations
The Team encountered some modeling limitations, outside of the Team’s control that should be noted while using these results to inform reach code policies,
▪ CBECC Software:
• The Reach Code Team coordinated with the CBECC software development team on potential differences in our understanding of 2022 code requirements and its implementation in standard design such as battery controls. The version of 2022 CBECC software v1.0, described in Section 2.2, available to the Reach Code Team at the time of the analysis has limited functionalities and could not model heat pump hydronic system or other measures like drain water heat recovery. As the software evolves, some results may look different.
• The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of the writing of this report. The Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly.
• The team identified some apparent anomalies in software-reported compliance margins when they became available in June 2022. The Reach Code Team is in the midst of discussing outputs and ramifications with software development team specifically related to ventilation such as fan power and heat recovery, among other modeling methods. Results may change with future software versions. In the interim, the Reach Code Team manually calculated the compliance margins using the mixed fuel baseline model created in this study based on our best understanding. ▪ Prototype Building: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on standard prototypical buildings, which may differ from actual buildings being constructed. Jurisdictions should keep this in mind while extrapolating to the buildings in their territory.
214
240
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 9 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
▪ System Cost Assumptions: The incremental electrification and additional measure costs are based on specific system selection and assumptions made by experienced professionals. These costs can vary based on contractor, system design and specifications, and regional variation.
The Team will re-evaluate packages with central heat pump boiler system in Medium Office and Small Hotel in early 2023. In addition to the packages assessed in the report, there are other future potential enhancements that can be considered for more cost-effective or compliant packages:
▪ Adding more solar PV than already analyzed if the building has more roof space to accommodate. ▪ Adding battery at higher levels than prescriptively required in 2022 Title 24 with more advanced controls. ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures as software capability evolves such as drain water heat re covery. ▪ Applying federally pre-emptive (high) efficiency energy systems or appliances. 215
241
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 10 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototype characteristics and the scope of analysis including measures and their corresponding costs. The Reach Code Team used versions of the following four DOE building prototypes to evaluate cost-effectiveness of measure packages in the occupancy types listed below:
▪ Medium Office
▪ Medium Retail
▪ Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
▪ Small Hotel
The Reach Code Team designed the baseline prototypes to be mixed fuel based on 2022 Title 24 Final Express Terms requirements. The Reach Code Team reviewed the 2022 T24 ACM HVAC system map to ensure alignment as applicable for most cases, differences if any are discussed in subsequent sections. The Team built new construction prototypes to have compliance margins as close to zero as possible to reflect a prescriptively compliant new construction building in each CZ. The code compliance is based on the first publicly available CBECC v1.0 compliance software as described in Section 2.2. Misalignments have been reported back to the software team for future software iterations, as described in Section 2.5.
3.1 Prototype Characteristics
The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2022 Title 24 requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of efficiency measures (U.S. Department of Energy 2022 A). These prototypes have historically been used by the Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements. The selection of four building types for this analysis is based on the priority suggested by a group of California cities. The cost-effectiveness results of this study could potentially be extrapolated to other building types that have similar properties such as occupancy pattern, HVAC design and layout.
Water heating includes both service hot water (SHW) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot water for hotel guest rooms. In this report, water heating or SHW is used to refer to both. The compliance software assumes a Standard Design, where HVAC and SHW systems are based on the system maps included in 2022 Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. However, the Reach Code Team applied both 2022 Title 24 prescriptive requirements and 2022 ACM system map for baseline mixed fuel model, HVAC and SHW system characteristics as described below. ▪ Medium Office
• The HVAC design is a variable air volume (VAV) reheat system with two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units (one serving each floor), and VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils. • The SHW design includes one 8.7 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 5-gallon storage tank. ▪ Medium Retail
• For CZs 2 to 15, the 2022 Title 24 ACM System Map Standard Design informed the baseline model to have three packaged Single Zone Heat Pump (SZHP) systems for the smaller capacity (<240 kBtuh) thermal zones, in alignment with 2022 Title 24 prescriptive code requirements.3 The large (>240 kBtuh) core thermal zone has two smaller (<240 kBtuh) SZHPs with VAV fans instead of one large SZHP, since larger rooftop packaged heat pumps are not available in the market. The 2022 Title24 ACM Standard Design assumes a large SZHP for larger zones as well, however this deviation does not impact the results considerably.3
3 https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-nonresidential-and-multifamily-alternative-calculation-method-reference 216
242
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 11 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
• For CZs 1 and 16, the baseline model assumed all-electric packaged single zone heat pumps similar to CZs 2-15. The assumption deviates from 2022 Title24 ACM System Map that suggests a single zone dual fuel heat pump. Presumably this will not impact results significantly because the dual fuel system will be in heat-pump mode most times.
• The SHW design includes one 8.7 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 5-gallon storage tank. ▪ Quick-Service Restaurant
• HVAC includes two SZAC (VAV or constant volume, depending on capacity) with gas furnace, one for kitchen and another for dining area. An exhaust fan is applied for kitchens in all climates based on prescriptive requirements in 2022 Title 24 code.
• The SHW design includes a gas storage water heater with a 100-gallon storage tank. ▪ Small Hotel
• The nonresidential HVAC design is a VAV reheat system with two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units (one serving each floor), and VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils. The SHW design includes a small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank. • The guest room HVAC design includes one packaged SZAC unit with gas furnace serving each guest room. The water heating design includes a central gas water heater with a 250-gallon storage tank and recirculation pump, serving all guest rooms.
Table 2 summarizes the baseline mixed-fuel prototype characteristics, based on prescriptive 2022 Title 24 new construction requirements.
Table 2. Baseline Prototype Characteristics
Medium Office
Medium Retail
Quick-Service Restaurant
Small Hotel
Conditioned floor
area (ft2) 53,628 24,563 2,501
42,554
(77 guest rooms)
(Nonresidential area:
15,282 (36%))
Number of stories 3 1 1 4
Window-to-Wall
Area ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.14
Window U-
factor/SHGC
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Nonresidential:
U-factor:
CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 –0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Guest Rooms:
U-factor: 0.36
SHGC: 0.25
Solar PV size 123 kW – 204 kW
Depending on CZ
64 kW – 87 kW
Depending on CZ None 17 kW – 25 kW
Depending on CZ
Battery Storage 217 kWh – 360 kWh
Depending on CZ
70 kWh – 94 kWh
Depending on CZ None 16 kWh – 24 kWh
Depending on CZ
217
243
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 12 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Medium Office
Medium Retail
Quick-Service Restaurant
Small Hotel
HVAC System
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units,
gas boilers, VAV terminal
units with hot water
reheat
CZ 1
Heat recovery for Core
Retail space only
< 65 kBtu/h: SZHP
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
> 240 kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
< 65 kBtu/h:
SZAC + gas furnace
> 65 kBtu/h:
SZAC VAV
Nonresidential and Laundry:
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units, gas
boilers, VAV terminal units with
hot water reheat
Guest Rooms: SZAC with gas
furnaces
SHW System 5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
100-gallon gas water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon
electric resistance water heater
Laundry Room: 120-gal gas
storage water heater
Guest rooms: Central gas water
heater, 250 gallons storage,
recirculation loop
3.2 Measure Definitions and Costs
The measures evaluated in the analysis fall into four different categories:
Fuel Substitution
▪ Heat pump or electric
space heating or gas
furnace
▪ Heat pump or electric
water heaters
▪ Electric cooking
▪ Electric clothes dryer
▪ Electrical panel capacity
▪ Natural gas infrastructure
Energy Efficiency
▪ Envelope
▪ Mechanical equipment
(HVAC and SHW)
▪ Lighting
Load Flexibility
▪ Peak Load
shedding
▪ Load shift
Additional solar PV
and/or battery
storage.
These measures are detailed further in this section.
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution
The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs associated with changing the mixed-fuel baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment for all prototypes except Medium Retail where the baseline is already an all-electric design.
For Medium Office, Quick Service Restaurant and Small Hotel, the fuel substitution measure entails electrification including heat pump space heating, electric resistance re-heat coils, electric water heaters with storage tank, heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction.
218
244
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 13 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
For Medium Retail with all-electric baseline, the fuel substitution measure entails mixed-fuel space conditioning system including single zone packaged AC with gas furnace, dual fuel heat pump, adding gas infrastructure costs and eliminating any additional electric infrastructure.
3.2.1.1 HVAC and Water Heating
The 2022 T24 nonresidential standards analysis uses a mixed-fuel baseline for most of the Standard Design mechanical equipment, primarily gas for space heating, except for some heat pump scenarios in Retail prototype (see Table 2). Quick-Service Restaurant has a gas storage water heater in baseline, and heat pump water heater in all- electric scenario. The Small Hotel has a central gas water heating system serving the guest rooms and a separate gas storage water heater for laundry room. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving HVAC and water heating end-uses is replaced with electric equipment. Full details of HVAC and water heating systems in baseline and proposed fuel substitution measure package are described in Table 3.
Regions of California covered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have emissions restrictions imposed on mechanical equipment. The Reach Code Team investigated the potential cost implications of meeting these requirements for gas furnaces and boilers but found that costs are minimal for mechanical systems under 2,000,000 Btu/h, and therefore did not include them. All gas-fired mechanical systems in this study are under 2,000,000 Btu/h and are subject to only an initial permitting fee, while larger systems require additional permitting costs and annual renewals.
219
245
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 14 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 3. HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary
Medium Office
Medium Retail
Quick-Service
Restaurant
Small Hotel
HVAC
Baseline
Packaged DX +
VAV with hot
water reheat.
Central gas
boilers.
All zones and CZs: Single
zone packaged heat
pumps
Packaged SZAC +
gas furnace
Nonresidential: Packaged DX
+ VAV with hot water
reheat. Central gas boilers.
Guest Rooms: Packaged
SZAC +
gas furnaces
Proposed – Fuel
Substitution
Packaged DX +
VAV with electric
resistance reheat.
Core zone (>30 ton):
Packaged SZAC + VAV +
gas furnace
Other small zones: SZHP,
or dual fuel heat pump
for CZ 1 and 16
Single zone packaged
heat pumps
Nonresidential: Packaged DX
+ VAV with electric
resistance reheat
Guest Rooms: SZHPs
SHW
Baseline
Electric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance with
storage
Gas storage water
heater
Nonresidential: Electric
resistance storage
Guest Rooms: Central gas
storage with recirculation
Proposed – Fuel
Substitution
Unitary heat pump
water heater
Nonresidential: Electric
resistance storage
Guest Rooms: Central heat
pump water heater with
recirculation
The Reach Code Team received cost data for mechanical equipment from two experienced mechanical design firms including equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems), and contractor overhead.
3.2.1.1.1 Medium Office
For the Medium Office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential all-electric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume and temperature systems. The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of writing of this report. As such, Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. This modeling capability is anticipated by Q1 2023 according to discussions with the CBECC software development team, and the cost- effectiveness analysis should become available in the first half of 2023.
After seeking feedback from the design community and considering the software modeling constraints, the Reach Code Team determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system is a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box (PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat 220
246
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 15 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
would further improve efficiency due to reducing ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in compliance software.
The actual gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use. 4 If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated distribution loss), cost-effectiveness may be higher than presented.
The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for Medium Office designs are presented in Table 4. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other CZs.
Table 4. Medium Office Average Mechanical System Costs
Components (HVAC Only)
Baseline – Mixed Fuel
Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost
Description
Packaged units, boilers,
hot water piping, VAV
boxes, ductwork, grilles
Packaged units, electric
resistance VAV boxes,
electric circuitry,
ductwork, grilles
VAV Boxes, electric
infrastructure
Material $491,630 $438,555 $(53,075)
Labor $173,816 $102,120 $(71,696)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $112,340 $112,340
Gas Infrastructure $17,895 $0 $(17,895)
Overhead & CZ adjustment ** $267,052 $250,114 $(16,938) TOTAL $950,393 $903,129 $(47,264)
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.2 Medium Retail
The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone heat pumps. Based on fan control requirements in Section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. For the Medium Retail proposed fuel substitution scenario, the Reach Code Team assumed one large Single Zone Packaged ACs with gas furnaces to replace the two smaller packaged heat pumps in the large core thermal zone. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. In addition, according to the prescriptive requirement in Section 140.4 (q), the air system of Core Retail Zone in CZ1 meets the requirement in Table 140.4 J, which should include exhaust air heat recovery. Cost data for Medium Retail designs are presented in Table 5. Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems.
4 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx
221
247
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 16 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
For climate zones 2 to 15, the proposed fuel substitution HVAC design includes three SZHP units (VAV or constant volume, depending on capacity) based on prescriptive requirements and one large SZAC that is between 35-45 tons for the core zone.
For climate zones 1 and 16, the smaller capacity (<240 kBtuh) thermal zones may have either of dual-fuel SZHPs or SZACs, depending on capacity. The core zone with 35-to-45-ton cooling capacity is assumed to have one large SZAC.
CZ 1 also assumes an exhaust air heat recovery system for core zone based on prescriptive requirement in Title 24 Part 6 Section 140.4.
Table 5. Medium Retail Average Mechanical System Costs
Components (HVAC
Only)
Baseline – All-electric
Proposed – Mixed Fuel Incremental Cost
Description SZHPs
Single zone AC +
furnace, SZHP, or dual
fuel SZHP, depending
upon capacity and CZ
SZAC with gas furnace,
Added gas
infrastructure cost
HVAC – Material $189,160 $183,157 $(6,003)
HVAC – Labor $54,785 $52,886 $(1,899)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $0 -
Gas Infrastructure $0 $17,895 $17,895
Overhead & CZ
adjustment **
$94,600 $98,519 $3,919
TOTAL $338,546 $352,458 $13,912
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.3 Quick-Service Restaurant
The baseline HVAC system includes two packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan control requirements in Section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one central gas storage water heater with 150 kBtu/h input capacity and a 100-gallon storage tank. For the QSR all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps and an A.O. Smith CHP-120 heat pump water heater with a 120-gallon storage tank. Cost data for the QSR designs are presented in Table 6, which shows the costs for full electrification of the HVAC and water heating equipment.
The Team has not included costs of electrifying the cooking equipment because of the negative impact on cost- effectiveness, as demonstrated in a 2021 Restaurants cost-effectiveness study (TRC, P2S Engineers, and Western Allied Mechanical 2022). The HVAC and SHW electrification packages are referred to as the HS package to reflect all- electric HVAC and SHW.
Table 6. Quick-Service Restaurant Average Mechanical System Costs - HS Package Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel
Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost
Description Single zone AC + furnace, gas
storage water heater
SZHP, heat pump water
heater
HVAC +SHW
electrification
HVAC Material $50,065 $52,785 $2,719
HVAC Labor $6,748 $6,249 $(499)
SHW – Material $10,198 $13,720 $3,523
SHW – Labor $2,650 $2,529 $(121)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $12,960 $12,960
222
248
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 17 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Gas Infrastructure $17,895 $15,878 -$2,017
Overhead & CZ adjustment ** $41,633 $47,612 $5,979 TOTAL $150,838 $173,382 $22,544
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.4 Small Hotel
The Small Hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units, and twenty- eight VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small electric water heater with storage tank for nonresidential areas and gas storage water heater dedicated to laundry room. The guest rooms HVAC design includes one single-zone AC unit with gas furnace for each guest room, and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.
For the Small Hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system will remain a small electric resistance water heater. As described in Section 3.2.1.1.1 above, a central heat pump boiler may be the most commonly employed system type but was not evaluated in this study because of modeling limitations. For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the Team assumed SZHPs and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. For the laundry room, all-electric HVAC system is same as other nonresidential areas and all-electric water heating is a split heat pump water heater. The central heat pump water heater includes a temperature maintenance loop with an electric resistance backup heater.
Cost data for Small Hotel designs are presented in Table 7. The all-electric design presents substantial cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential spa ces. The incremental cost savings are further enhanced considerably if packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are used instead of SZHPs in guest rooms compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues. 223
249
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 18 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 7. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel
Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost
Description
Non-residential spaces: Packaged
units, boilers, hot water piping,
VAV boxes, ductwork, grilles, gas
water heater for laundry
Guest rooms: SZAC + furnace,
central gas water heater
Non-residential spaces:
Packaged units, electric
resistance VAV boxes, electric
circuitry, ductwork, grilles, heat
pump water heater for laundry
Guest rooms: SZHP, central
heat pump water heater
HVAC (NR and Guest Rooms)
Electrification
SHW (Laundry Room and
Guest Rooms)
HVAC - Material $802,004 $625,642 $(176,361)
HVAC - Labor $366,733 $282,394 $(84,339)
SHW - Material $55,829 $139,087 $83,258
SHW - Labor $11,780 $15,080 $3,300
Electric
Infrastructure
$- $119,625 $119,625
Gas Infrastructure $74,943 $- $(74,943)
Overhead & CZ
adjustment **
$518,741 $461,001 $(57,739)
TOTAL $1,830,029 $1,642,830 $(187,199)
TOTAL
HVAC (PTHP option) $1,830,029 $1,161,178 ($668,851)
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in 8.3.
3.2.1.2 Commercial Cooking Equipment
For Quick-Service Restaurant prototype, the Reach Code Team evaluated electrification of commercial cooking equipment extensively in 2019 Restaurants Cost Effectiveness analysis and leveraged it for cost and other specifications for the this study. It assumes a Type I exhaust hood and shows high incremental cost affecting the cost- effectiveness of this measure. Table 8 summarizes the quick-service restaurant cooking equipment costs for both mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios.
Table 8. Quick-Service Restaurant Cooking Equipment Costs Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel
Proposed – All-electric (non
“HS” scenario) Incremental Cost
Description Gas based appliances Electric cooking appliance Cooking appliance electrification
Cooking equipment
cost
$21,649 $43,534 $21,886
TOTAL $21,649 $43,534 $21,886
This measure also adds electric infrastructure cost as detailed in Table 10 below.
3.2.1.3 Commercial Clothes Dryer
For the all-electric measure, the Reach Code Team assumed electric resistance clothes dryers for Small Hotel prototype. Commercial-scale heat pump clothes dryers take significantly longer time to dry compared to a conventional 224
250
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 19 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24 gas or electric dryer and are not common in the United States On-Premise Laundry (OPL) market, where labor is relatively expensive and use of heat pump dryers implies hotels may need to require more than one shift to perform laundry duties. Most commercial clothes dryers are available in models that use either gas or electricity as the fuel source, so there is negligible incremental cost for electric resistance dryers. Table 9 summarizes the Small Hotel construction costs for both mixed-fuel and all-electric OPL scenarios.
Table 9. Small Hotel Clothes Dryer Costs
Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost Description Gas clothes dryer Electric resistance clothes dryer -
Clothes Dryer cost $29,342 $29,342 $0
TOTAL $29,342 $29,342 $(0)
This measure also adds electric infrastructure cost as detailed in Table 10 below.
3.2.1.4 Infrastructure Impacts
3.2.1.4.1 Electrical infrastructure
Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat. Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas appliances. This includes:
▪ Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small hotel . ▪ Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel.
Table 10 details the cost impact of additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric scenarios as compared to their corresponding mixed-fuel scenario The costs are based on estimates from one contractor. The Reach Code Team excluded costs associated with electrical service connection upgrades because these costs are very often rate-based and highly complex.
225
251
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 20 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 10. Electrical Infrastructure Costs
Mixed-Fuel Equipment All-electric Equipment Electrical Infrastructure Impact
Incremental
Cost
Medium
Office
Hot water reheat system
with gas boiler plant and
VAV boxes with hot water
reheat coils
VAV boxes with electric
resistance reheat coils
Upgraded transformers,
transformer feeders,
switchboards, and branch
circuits
$ 112,340
Medium
Retail
Mix of SZHPs and single zone
AC plus furnace serving all
zones
SZHPs serving all zones Electrical requirements are
driven by cooling capacity,
so no impact.
$0
Quick-Service
Restaurant
Gas water heater Heat pump water heater Upgraded switchboard, transformer feeder, and
branch circuits
$12,960
Gas Water heater, Gas
cooking
Heat pump water heater,
Electric cooking
Upgraded switchboard,
transformer feeder, and
branch circuits
$95,260
Small Hotel Guest rooms HVAC: Single
zone AC plus furnace
Non-residential spaces
HVAC: Hot water reheat
system with gas boiler plant
and VAV boxes with hot
water reheat coils.
Water heating: Gas water
heating serving both laundry
and guest rooms.
Process: Gas dryers.
Guest rooms HVAC: SZHPs
Non-residential spaces
HVAC: VAV boxes with
electric resistance reheat
coils.
Water heating: Heat pump
water heating serving both
laundry and guest rooms.
Process: Electric resistance
dryers.
Upgraded transformers,
transformer feeders,
switchboards, and branch
circuits
$119,625
3.2.1.4.2 Gas Piping
The Reach Code Team assumes that gas would not be supplied to the site in an all-electric new construction scenario.
Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly connection charges by the utility.
The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a service line (branch connection) from the natural gas main to the building meter. Table 11 gives a summary of the gas infrastructure costs by component, assuming 1-inch corrugated stainless-steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing distribution. The Reach Code Team assumes that the gas meter costs vary depending on the gas load.
Based on typical space heating loads for all building types, the Reach Code Team categorized CZs 1 and 16 as ‘High- load CZs’ and CZs 2-15 as ‘Low-load CZs’. The Reach Code Team assumed an interior plumbing distribution length based on the expected layout. Table 12 gives the total gas infrastructure cost by building type. The costs are based on estimates from one contractor.
226
252
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 21 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 11. Gas Infrastructure Costs by Component
Component Details Cost
Meter, including Pressure
Regulator, and Earthquake Valve
Low load CZ (CZ 2-15) $11,056
High load CZ (CZ 1,16) $15,756
Gas lateral Cost per linear foot of 1" CSST $40
Connection charges Includes street cut and plan review $1,015 Interior plumbing distribution Cost per linear foot of 1" CSST $40
Table 12. Total Gas Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Building Type Total gas infrastructure cost
Building Prototype Interior plumbing distribution length (ft) Low load CZ High load CZ Medium Office 100 $17,307 $22,007
Medium Retail 100 $17,307 $22,007
Quick-Service Restaurant 100 $2,017*
Small Hotel 1,412 $70,243 $74,943
*The Quick-Service Restaurant package includes gas cooking appliances, which will require a gas lateral and meter. These costs represent only the interior plumbing distribution costs that would have served the HVAC and SHW systems.
3.2.2 Efficiency
The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for the 2025 Title 24 energy code update by the Statewide Building Codes Advocacy program (CASE Team)5, which initially included over 500 options. Other options originated in previous energy code cycles or were drawn from other codes or standards (examples: ASHRAE 90.1 and International Energy Conservation Code [IECC]), literature reviews, or expert recommendations. The Reach Code Team leveraged the CASE Team's assessment tools for the 2025 Cycle, focusing on measures prioritized by the CASE Team. The Reach Code Team filtered the list of potential measures based on building type (to remove measures that applied to building types not covered in this study), measure category (to remove end-uses and loads that are not relevant to the prototypes) and impacts to new construction. Based on this filtering, the Team was left with around 100 measures to consider. The Reach Code Team ranked this list of potential measures based on applicability to the prototypes in this study, ability to model in simulat ion software, demonstrated energy savings potential, and market readiness.
Please note that the measures requiring a ruleset update cannot currently be modeled for compliance purposes. The modeling method for each efficiency measure is defined in their respective measure descriptions in Section 3.2.2.1 and if the ruleset amendment was applied. Please refer to Section 2.5 for further details.
The subsections below describe the energy efficiency measures that the Team analyzed, including description, modeling approach, and specification.
3.2.2.1 Envelope
1. Cool Roof: Requires higher reflectance and emittance values for the Medium Office building only. This measure was not shown to produce substantial savings in the other prototypes.
5 https://title24stakeholders.com/
227
253
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 22 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Modeling: Modeled cool roof measure in efficiency measures package by updating Aged Solar Reflectance (ASR) and/or Thermal Emittance (TE) in CBECC software.
Specification: Increased ASR from 0.63 to 0.70 with a TE of 0.85 in CZs 4 and 6-15.
2. Efficient Vertical Fenestration: Requires lower U-factor and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) for windows in select climate zones for three building types (Medium Office, Retail, and Small Hotel). The measure details and the climate zone selection are based on the proposition of 2022 NR CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team 2020 B).
Modeling: Modeled high performance windows in efficiency measures package by updating U-factor and SHGC inputs in CBECC software.
Specification: Reduced U-factor from 0.36 to 0.34 and SHGC from 0.25 to 0.22 in CZs 2, 6, 7 and 8 for Medium Office and Retail, Reduced U-factor from 0.36 to 0.34 and SHGC from 0.25 to 0.22 in all CZs for Small Hotel.
3. Vertical Fenestration as a Function of Orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation for the Medium Office. East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south-facing windows.
Modeling: Change z-coordinate input of windows in CBECC software for Medium Office to increase or decrease fenestration area for the Medium Office.
Specification: Decreased east-facing and west-facing fenestration area from 468 to 390 square feet.
Increased north-facing and south-facing fenestration area from 703 to 781 square feet.
3.2.2.2 Mechanical Equipment (SHW and HVAC)
4. Water Efficient Fixtures in Kitchen: Specifies commercial dishwashers that use 20% less water than ENERGY STAR® specifications. In addition, the dishwasher includes heat recovery function such that it only needs connection to cold water and reduces hot water demand and central SHW system capacity. For QSRs, which typically specify a three-compartment sink for dishwashing, this measure would replace or add a dishwasher to reduce total hot water load. The measure also adds 1.0 gallon per minute (GPM) faucet aerators to hand-washing sinks in the kitchen to reduce water usage. Title 20 requires kitchen sinks to have a flow rate of 1.8 GPM at most. The reduced hot water load from the water efficient fixtures above allows the heat pump water heater (HPWH) to operate without an electric resistance back-up.
Modeling: Reduced water usage in the ruleset based on calculations of expected water usage from literature review and fixture specifications. HPWH coefficient of performance (COP) is increased since there is no electric resistance back-up.
Specification: Decreased hot water usage by 26% in the software ruleset (13.4 gallons per person to 9.9 gallons per person) and increased HPWH COP from 3.1 to 4.2.
5. Ozone Washing Machines: Adds an ozone system to the large on-premises washing machines. The ozone laundry system generates ozone, which helps clean fabrics by chemically reacting with soils in cold water. This measure saves energy by reducing hot water usage and by reducing cycle time for laundry systems. Refer to DEER Deemed measure SWAP005-01 for more information (California Public Utilites Commission 2022).
Modeling: Reduced the total runtime of each cycle and hot water hourly usage per person (gallons per hour per person) for laundry area in software ruleset.
Specification: Reduced hot water usage by 85%, from 48.4 to 7.3 gal/hour-person based on the deemed measure data from the California electronic Technical Reference Manual (California Technical Forum 2022).
228
254
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 23 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
6. Efficient Hot Water Distribution: Reduces domestic hot water (DHW) distribution system pipe heat losses in two ways. First, the Team used pipe sizing requirements in Appendix M of the California Plumbing Code instead of Appendix A. Appendix M reduces pipe diameters for the cold and hot water supply lines based on advancements made in water efficiency standards for plumbing fixtures found in hotel bathrooms. Second, the Team added more stringent pipe insulation thickness requirements for hotels to match that of single and multifamily dwellings using Title 24 Table 160.4-A Pipe Insulation Thickness Requirements for Multifamily DHW Systems instead of Table 120.3-A.
Modeling: The Team calculated the pipe heat loss savings for the Small Hotel prototype by following the modelling methodology applied to the low-rise loaded corridor multi-family building prototype in the 2022 CASE Multifamily Domestic Hot Water Distribution report (Statewide CASE Team 2020 A). The Team designed a riser distribution system for the Small Hotel prototype building using the baseline Appendix A and modern Appendix M pipe sizing tables. The pipe design and total pipe surface area of the supply and return lines for the Small Hotel closely matched the Low-Rise Loader Corridor Building prototype. The hotel insulated pipe heat loss for both Appendix A and M was approximated from the multifamily building heat loss modelling results for the 16 CZs and water heater energy savings calculated for the two sub-measures.
Specification: (a) Pipe diameter decreased from Appendix A requirements to Appendix M multifamily plumbing requirements (b) For pipe diameters at or above 1.5 inches, increase the insulation thickness from 1.5 to two inches thick for fluids operating in the 105-140⁰F temperature range. . The Team reduced the DHW energy consumption by 0.4 – 0.7% depending on CZ in a post- processing of the model.
7. Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) and Transfer Air: The California Energy Code requires kitchen exhaust to have DCV if the exhaust rate is greater than 5,000 cfm. This measure expands this requirement and applies DCV regardless of the exhaust rate for the QSR. Additionally, the kitchen makeup air supply is decreased by requiring at least 15% of replacement air to come from the transfer air in the dining space that would otherwise be exhausted.
Modeling: Changed exhaust fan from constant speed fan to variable speed and reduce kitchen ventilation airflow rate for the QSR.
Specification: Changed Kitchen Exhaust Fan Control Method to Variable Flow Variable Speed Drive, reduced kitchen ventilation from 2,730 cfm to 2,293 cfm.
8. Guest Room Ventilation and Fan Power: Uses the 2021 IECC fan power limitation requirements for ventilation fans under 1/12 horsepower, and approximates the ASHRAE 90.1 Small Hotel guestroom control requirements, which require shutting off ventilation within five minutes of all occupants leaving the room and changing the cooling setpoint to at least 80⁰F and heating setpoint to at most 60⁰F.
Modeling: Since variable occupancy cannot be modeled in CBECC, the Reach Code Team revised the software ruleset ventilation schedule and setpoints from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM—the time range where the CBECC software assumed occupancy to be less than half for all guestrooms.
Specification: Heating setpoint reduced from 68°F to 66°F, cooling setpoint increased from 78°F to 80°F PM, and ventilation shut off from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Guestroom ventilation fans have fan efficacy of 0.263 W/cfm.
9. Variable speed Fans: Require variable speed fans at lower capacities than required by Title 24 Part 6 Section 140.4(m), currently at 65,000 Btu/hr. This measure is based on the 2022 Title 24 Part 6, Section 140.4(m), 229
255
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 24 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
where direct expansion units greater than 65,000 Btu/hr that control the capacity of the mechanical cooling directly shall have a minimum of two stages of mechanical cooling capacity and variable speed fan control.
Modeling: Reduced the cooling capacity threshold from 65,000 Btu/hr to 48,000 Btu/hr. Changed the supply fan control from constant speed to variable speed for zones that have cooling capacity > 48,000 Btu/hr and < 65,000 Btu/hr in the Medium Retail and QSR.
Specification: Changed the supply fan control from Constant Volume to Variable Speed Drive for the Front Retail and Point-of-Sale thermal zones in Medium Retail prototype and the Dining Zone in the QSR prototype.
3.2.2.3 Lighting
10. Interior lighting reduced lighting power density: Update lighting power densities (LPD, measured as Watts/ft2) requirements based on technology advances (e.g., optical efficiency, thermal management, and improved bandgap materials). Identify spaces with opportunities for more savings from lowered LPDs—not all spaces are subject to LPD reductions. Take into consideration IES recommended practices and biological effectiveness metrics (such as WELL) when developing the proposed LPD values (WELL 2022).
The 2022 Indoor Lighting CASE Study (Statewide CASE Team 2021 D) provided a survey of 2x2 troffer products available in the Design Lights Consortium Qualified Products List (DLC -QPL) and the efficacy level each measured. This study indicated that at the time of the report approximately 20% of available DLC -QPL products exceeded the performance level of the ‘Standard’ DLC-QPL listing by approximately 15%, meeting the ‘Premium’ listing criteria. The Title 24 2022 CASE Report uses the ‘Standard’ designation performance level as the design baseline for all the LPD calculations in the code. This document proposes using the ‘Premium’ designation performance as the basis of the LPD allowances.
A DOE study on solid-state light sources (LEDs) provides projections of efficacy improvement for LED light sources that are in the range of 2.5 to 3% per year, continuing for the next five or ten years (U.S. Department of Energy 2019 B). So, the products offered for sale by the luminaire manufacturers are improving as older products are discontinued and newer ones are introduced. Even in just three years, the overall performance of the products available can improve by 7 to 9%.
A recent Navigant LED pricing study shows a slightly negative cost to efficacy correlation, indicating that higher performing products may be slightly lower in cost (Navigant Consulting 2018). This is likely to be in part caused by the decreasing cost of the LED chips with each subsequent generation produced. There is likely to be no cost associated with employing higher performing LED luminaires.
Modeling: Reduce LPDs by approximately 13% in each space listed below under regulated lighting below Title 24 prescriptive requirements.
Specification: Medium Office
• All spaces: 0.52 W/ft2
Medium Retail
• Storage: 0.36 W/ft2
• Retail sales: 0.86 W/ft2
• Main entry lobby: 0.63 W/ft2
QSR
• Dining: 0.41 W/ft2
• Kitchen: 0.86 W/ft2
Small Hotel
230
256
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 25 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Stairs: 0.54 W/ft2
Corridor: 0.36 W/ft2
Lounge: 0.50 W/ft2
The measures are summarized below by building type, including measure costs, in Table 13. 231
257
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 26 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 13. Efficiency Measures Applicability, Costs, and Sources Measure Applicability
• Included in packages with energy efficiency measures
- Not Applicable
Measure
Baseline T24
Requirement Proposed Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Quick-
Service
Restaurant
Small
Hotel:
Guest
Rooms
Small Hotel:
Nonresidential
Incremental
Cost Sources & Notes
Envelope
1. Cool Roof For low slope roofs:
ASR = 0.63
TE = 0.75
For low slope roofs:
ASR = 0.7
TE = 0.85 ● ─ ─ ─ ─ $0.04/ft2
Final Nonresidential High
Performance Envelope Case
Report (Statewide CASE Team
2020 B)
2. Efficient
Vertical
Fenestration
U-factor = 0.36
SHGC = 0.25
U-factor = 0.34
SHGC = 0.22 ● ● ─ ● ● $1.75/ft2
Final Nonresidential High
Performance Envelope Case
Report (Statewide CASE Team
2020 B)
3. Vertical
Fenestration
as a Function
of Orientation
40% window-to-wall
ratio in each
orientation per Title
24 Table 140.3-B.
Redistribute window
areas by orientation ● ─
─ ─ ─ $0
No additional cost. This
measure is a design
consideration.
HVAC and SHW
4. Water
Efficient
Fixtures in
Kitchen
Kitchen faucet max
flow rate is 1.8 GPM
(Title 20)
Kitchen faucet flow
rate is 1 GPM
─ ─ ● ─ ─
High efficiency,
door-type, high
temperature
dishwasher:
$7,633/unit
Faucet aerator:
$8/unit
Combination of literature
review, online sources such as
Home Depot and
manufacturer websites
5.Ozone
Washing
Machine
Not required Reduced hot water
use ─ ─ ─ ─ ● $25,469/unit
DEER Deemed measure
SWAP005-01 (California
Public Utilites Commission
2022)
232
258
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 27 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Measure Applicability
• Included in packages with energy efficiency measures
- Not Applicable
Measure
Baseline T24
Requirement Proposed Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail
Quick-
Service
Restaurant
Small
Hotel:
Guest
Rooms
Small Hotel:
Nonresidential
Incremental
Cost Sources & Notes
6. Efficient Hot
Water
Distribution
Appendix A Pipe
Sizing with standard
pipe insulation
thickness 1.5’’
Appendix M pipe
sizing with 2” pipe
insulation thickness ─ ─ ─ ● ─ $5,819
Multifamily Domestic Hot
Water Final CASE Report
7. DCV &
Transfer Air
DCV required in
kitchen for exhaust
air rate > 5000 cfm
DCV for all exhaust
fans ─ ─ ● ─ ─ $8,500
Mechanical contractor cost
estimate
8. Guest Room
Ventilation,
Temperature
Setback, and
Fan Power
Guest rooms
required to have
occupancy sensing
zone controls, but
no ventilation fan
power requirement.
Updated fan power
and HVAC schedules
─ ─ ─ ● ─ $0
No cost increase, as guest
rooms already have controls.
9. Variable
Speed Fans
Variable speed
required if cooling
capacity is greater
than 65,000 Btu/h
Variable speed
control for smaller
capacity systems ─ ● ● ─ ─ $6,390/unit
Mechanical contractor cost
estimate
Lighting
10. Interior
Lighting
Reduced LPD
Per Area Category
Method, varies by
Primary Function
Area.
Top 20% of market
products ● ● ● ─ ● $0
Industry report on LED pricing
analysis shows that costs are
not correlated with efficacy.
(Navigant Consulting 2018)
233
259
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 28 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
3.2.3 Load Flexibility
The Reach Code Team investigated a range of high-impact demand flexibility strategies potentially applicable to the four prototypes. The list of strategies is informed by DOE’s Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings efforts and the 2022 Nonresidential Grid Integration CASE report (U.S. Department of Energy 2021, Statewide CASE Team 2020). The Team selected the three measures based on their load flexibility potential, cost, compliance software modeling capabilities, savings potential and the ease of project implementation and field verification:
Please note that these measures require a ruleset update and cannot be modeled currently for compliance purposes.
11. Temperature Setback using Smart Thermostat: This measure leverages the existing mandatory requirement for HVAC zone thermostatic controls to pre-condition spaces prior to, and to shed demand during, peak period. This measure introduces a setback in temperature setpoint during peak period and incurs no additional cost because Occupant-Controlled Smart Thermostats (OCSTs) are already required for buildings similar to the Medium Office prototype.
Modeling: Instead of utilizing the demand responsive features, OCST would be used to change temperature setpoints and setpoint schedules. These changes were integrated by altering the setpoint schedules directly in the backend ruleset files of CBECC software.
Specification: In the base case, the Medium Office prototype HVAC equipment schedules dictate "on" hours (at desired temperature) from 6:00 AM through 12:00 AM on weekdays and 6:00 AM – 7:00 PM on Saturdays. All Sunday hours are "off." Cooling setpoints are 75°F during "on" and 85°F when "off" hours; heat setpoints are 70°F during "on" and 60°F during "off" hours. The Team modified this schedule such that the "on" setpoints are stepped back by 2°F from 4:00 PM through 12:00 AM on weekdays; and from 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM on Saturdays.
12. Demand Response Capable HPWH: The Reach Code Team modeled a measure intended to reduce the peak demand of the significant hot water loads in the QSR prototype. The measure increases costs due to adding a 100-gallon storage tank and plumbing hardware. The additional hot water storage enables pre- heating water ahead of demand by effectively increasing the HPWH’s thermal storage capacity. The extra plumbing hardware is needed to keep the stored hot water stratified to maintain efficient HPWH operations.
The Team did not directly address the issue of storage tank location but assumed floor plan design would be able to accommodate it.
Modeling: The measure uses the HPWH and additional storage tank capacity to produce and store hot water ahead of actual use during evening peak period. QSR hot water baseline schedule exhibits a low morning load (6:00 AM – 8:00 AM), moderate load near lunch time (11:00 AM), and a peak evening load (4:00 PM – 11:00 PM). These changes were made by changing the hot water load fraction in the ruleset.
Specification: Implements an early pre-heat that starts at 12:00 PM and finishes by 7:00 PM, avoiding the super peak hours of 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM.
13. Demand Response Lighting: This measure extends existing Title 24 mandatory requirements for demand responsive lighting by shedding demand during peak hours. There are no additional measure costs because demand responsive control capability is already required for nonresidential buildings with more than 4kW of total lighting load. This measure does not require additional commissioning.
Modeling: The baseline lighting schedule exhibits a plateau of 0.65 load fraction from 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM and trails off after 8:00 PM through the end of the day for weekdays. The Team altered the ruleset to reduce the load fraction during 4:00 PM – 9:00 PM.
Specification: The Team implemented a 10% setback during the 4-9pm peak hours. 234
260
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 29 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
The load flexibility measure applications to each prototype are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14. Load Flexibility Measure Summary
Measure Med
Office
Med
Retail QSR Small Hotel Incremental Cost Other Notes
11. Smart
Thermostat ● - - - $0 Capability already required
12. Demand Control
HPWH - - ● - $5,400
An additional 100-gallon tank,
plumbing hardware, and related
labor hours
13. Demand
Response Lighting ● - - - $0 Capability already required
None of the measures apply to the Medium Retail or Small Hotel prototypes. While the Small Hotel contains some office space and common areas, the Medium Office load flexibility measures were not applied to the Small Hotel spaces because of the potential for unpopular impacts, varying occupancy schedules, difficult field maintenance, and limited energy impacts. Team also explored the impact of load flexibility in all-electric clothes dryer scenario but did not see enough savings impact, hence the measure was not included in the package.
3.2.4 Additional Solar PV and Battery Storage
The Reach Code Team considered additional solar PV and battery storage measures that exceed the 2022 Title 24 prescriptive requirements to improve the cost-effectiveness of proposed scenarios. For Medium Office and Retail, the prescriptive solar PV sizes are large enough to occupy the entirety of the available roof space. Additional rooftop solar PV could not be considered for the two prototypes. For the Quick-Service Restaurant, solar PV is not prescriptively required since the prototype qualifies for the exception and the Reach Code Team considered adding solar PV to improve cost-effectiveness. For Small Hotel, the required PV size in the code-compliant models did not occupy the entire available roof space. Additional PV system capacity was considered as a measure to improve cost-effectiveness.
For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the Team evaluated additional solar PV for all-electric scenarios for the two building types, Quick Service Restaurant and Small Hotel. The additional PV size is calculated based on available roof space, assuming the maximum available space is 50% of total roof space and 15 Watt per square foot panel size.
Modeling: Updated PV capacity (kW) input in CBECC software.
Specification: Baseline requirement is 0 kW and 22-32.6 (depending on climate zone) kW for Quick-Service Restaurant and Small Hotel respectively. Proposed measure specification is 18.8 kW and 79.8 kW for Quick-Service Restaurant and Small Hotel respectively.
The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. A summary of incremental costs and sources is given in Table 15 below. 235
261
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 30 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 15. Additional Solar PV Measure Summary
Measure Med
Office
Med
Retail QSR Small
Hotel Incremental Cost Cost Source
Solar PV - - ● ●
First Cost: $3.20/W
Inverter replacement cost at 10-yr:
$0.15/W
Annual Maintenance Cost: $0.02/W
ITC Federal Incentive: 30%
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) Q1 2016
(National Renewable Energy
Laboratory 2016)
E3 Rooftop Solar PV System
Report (Energy and
Environmental Economics,
Inc. 2017)
Upfront solar PV system costs are lowered because of the federal income tax credit (ITC)—approximately 30 percent based on the passage of Inflation Reduction Act. PV energy output is built into CBECC and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long term performance degradation estimates.
A battery storage system is prescriptively required for three prototypes: Medium Office, Medium Retail, and Small Hotel. The current software, CBECC v1.0, applies the appropriate prescriptive battery size (kWh) and capacity (kW) in the standard design. However, the control assumed in standard design is “Basic Control”, which does not function for optimum battery use. The Team did not evaluate additional battery measures because the compliance software does not apply the “Time of Use” battery control method in standard design, which impacts the incremental energy costs and TDV benefits.
3.3 Measure Packages
The Reach Code Team compared a baseline Title 24 prescriptive package to mixed-fuel packages and two to four electrification packages depending on applicability of building type. Note that most QSR all-electric packages exclude kitchen electrification, while the Small Hotel all-electric package does include electric laundry cost and energy impacts. ▪ Mixed Fuel Code Minimum: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements. ▪ Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements, including additional efficiency measures.
▪ All-electric Code Minimum Efficiency: All-electric building to minimum Title 24 prescriptive standards and federal minimum efficiency standards. This package has the same PV size as mixed-fuel prescriptive baseline. ▪ All-electric Energy Efficiency: All-electric building with added energy efficiency measures related to HVAC, SHW, lighting or envelope.
▪ All-electric Energy Efficiency + Load Flexibility: All-electric building with added energy efficiency and load flexibility measures.
▪ All-electric Energy Efficiency + Solar PV: All-electric building with added energy efficiency and additional Solar PV. The added PV size is larger than prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements and accounts for roof space availability.
For QSR, the Reach Code Team has analyzed two scenarios for all-electric packages, one with electric cooking and the one with gas cooking (the latter of which is referred to as the “HS” package to reflect all-electric HVAC and SHW).
The results section includes results for both scenarios since all-electric package with electric cooking appliance can be cost-effective in POU territories. This study did not evaluate pre-empted package with all-electric HVAC and SHW to 236
262
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 31 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
have higher efficiency than required by federal regulations, that will potentially enhance cost-effectiveness and/or compliance margins.
For Small Hotel, the Reach Code Team also analyzed an alternative scenario with PTHP instead of SZHP in all-electric scenario. It is denoted by the “PTHP” in parenthesis in package name. 237
263
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 32 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
4 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Cost-effectiveness results are presented in this section and the attached workbook per prototype and measure packages described in Section 3. The TDV and On-Bill based cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV.
In the following figures, the result Both (shown in green shading) indicates that the result is cost-effective on both On- Bill and (Total) TDV basis. The result On-Bill or TDV (shown in yellow shading) indicates that the result is either cost - effective on On-Bill or (Total) TDV basis, respectively. The result “ - “ (results with no shading) indicates that the result is not cost-effective on either an On-Bill basis or (Total) TDV basis.
Across all prototypes and climate zones, efficiency measures improve cost-effectiveness when added to the mixed-fuel baseline prototype and all-electric federal code minimum designs.
All-electric cost-effectiveness results by prototype can be summarized as:
Medium Office (Figure 1): All-electric space heating is predominantly achieved through electric resistance due to modeling limitations, which limits operational benefits. Efficiency measures yield some On-Bill cost- effective all-electric packages in milder climate zones. Adding load flexibility measures increases the cost- effectiveness to most climates.
Medium Retail (Figure 2): All-electric packages are cost-effective in all climate zones with added efficiency measures over all-electric baseline. Proposed mixed-fuel packages are cost-effective too with added efficiency measures in most climate zones primarily driven by cost-equivalency in the all-electric package compared to a mixed-fuel package.
Quick-Service Restaurant (Figure 3): All-electric package with and without cooking electrification is cost- effective in CPAU and SMUD territories only, On-Bill. All-electric HVAC and SHW package with added efficiency measures is On-Bill cost-effective in CZs 1, 3-5 and 12. Adding efficiency and solar PV is On-Bill cost-effective in CZs 1-5, 11-13, and 16. While not depicted in Figure 3, the Results Workbook indicates that all-electric HVAC and SHW plus efficiency packages are nearly cost-effective (greater than -$350/month) in all climate zones using On-Bill Net Present Values.
Small Hotel (Error! Reference source not found.): The all-electric hotel has tremendous cost savings compared to a mixed-fuel package, primarily due to the avoidance of gas infrastructure to each guest room.
All-electric packages achieve TDV cost-effectiveness in all CZs except 16. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is limited to CZs 2-5, 12 and 15 with single zone ducted heat pumps, but nearly all CZs with a packaged terminal heat pump.
238
264
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 33 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
4.1 Medium Office
In the all-electric Medium Office building, the upfront cost savings associated with avoiding boiler and gas infrastructure supports cost-effective packages in several climate zones, particularly with additional efficiency and load flexibility measures . ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. ▪ The all-electric code minimum efficiency package is cost-effective for CZs 4 (CPAU), 6-10, 12 (SMUD) and 15. ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures to the all-electric code minimum package extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZ 3 as well. ▪ All-electric energy efficiency along with load flexibility measure package is On-Bill cost-effective in most climate zones except 1, 11 and 16.
Figure 1. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary
CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility
Prototype Package
Both Both Both Both Both
Both Both Both Both Both
On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─ ─
On-Bill ─ On-Bill On-Bill ─
Both ─ Both ─ ─
Both ─ Both On-Bill ─
Both Both Both Both On-Bill
Both Both Both Both On-Bill
─
─
Medium Office
(MO)
Mixed Fuel + Efficiency
Measures Both Both Both
All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency
─ ─ Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
─
Climate Zone
PG&E PG&E PG&E
PG&E
CPAU
PG&E
─
SDG&E
SCE
SCE
PG&E
SMUD
PG&E
Both
PG&E
PG&E
SCG
SCE SDG&E PG&E SCE
SDG&E
SCE
Both
Both On-Bill
Both
Both
Both Both Both
─ ─
All-Electric Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
─ Both Both On-Bill Both Both
All Electric Energy
Efficiency
─ ─ Both ─ ─
Both
On-Bill Both
Both Both
Both Both
239
265
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 34 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
4.2 Medium Retail
2022 Title 24 code prescriptively requires heat pumps in most scenarios already. This report evaluates added energy efficiency measures over the baseline all- electric scenario and proposed mixed-fuel packages.
▪ The mixed-fuel code minimum is not cost-effective by itself in most climate zones. ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures to the mixed-fuel code minimum package is On-Bill and/or TDV cost-effective in most climate zones. ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures over prescriptive all-electric package is also cost-effective in most climate zones except CZ16 using TDV.
Figure 2. Medium Retail Cost-effectiveness Summary
240
266
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 35 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
4.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
High incremental cost for HVAC and SHW electrification (“HS” package) makes restaurant electrification challenging. Because cooking electrification packages are very expensive – both upfront and operationally in IOU territories – the Team evaluated HS packages that do not consider cooking equipment electrification.
This affects cost-effectiveness as gas infrastructure cost savings do not materialize. ▪ Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. ▪ All-electric HVAC and SHW “HS” package is On-Bill cost-effective in CZ4 (CPAU) and CZ12 (SMUD) territory only. ▪ Adding energy efficiency and load flexibility measures extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZs 1, 3 and 5. ▪ All-electric HVAC and SHW “HS” package with energy efficiency and solar PV measure is On-Bill cost-effective in climate zones 1-5, 11-13 and 16. ▪ All-electric package including cooking electrification is On-Bill cost-effective in CZ 4 (CPAU) territory only. ▪ The Results Workbook indicates that all-electric HVAC and SHW plus efficiency packages are nearly cost-effective (greater than -$350/month) in all climate zones using On-Bill Net Present Values.
Figure 3. QSR Cost-effectiveness Summary
CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility
Prototype Package
Both Both Both Both Both
Both Both Both Both Both
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
─ On-Bill ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
On-Bill On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─
On-Bill On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─
Quick-Service
Restaurant (QSR)
All Electric Energy
Efficiency
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill
On-Bill ─
─
─ ─
─
─
─ ─ ─
PG&E
SMUD
PG&E
SDG&E
SCE
SCE PG&E
─ ─ ─ ─ ──
PG&ESCE
SDG&E
SCE
Both
─
Both
─ ─ ─
Both Both Both Both
Climate Zone
PG&E PG&E PG&E
PG&E
CPAU
PG&E
SCG
SCE SDG&E PG&E
Both
All Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Solar PV
All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency
On-Bill
─
On-Bill On-Bill
Both
─
─
─
Mixed Fuel + Efficiency
Measures Both Both
All Electric HS Code
Minimum Efficiency
All-Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
On-Bill ─
All Electric HS Energy
Efficiency
On-Bill ─
─
Both
─
─ ─
On-Bill ─ On-Bill
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─ On-Bill
─
241
267
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 36 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
4.4 Small Hotel
The all-electric hotel has cost savings compared to a mixed-fuel package, primarily due to the avoidance of boilers and gas infrastructure to each guest room. The analysis assumes single zone ducted heat pump for all all-electric scenarios; however, the Team analyzed a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) scenario as well. PTHP shows higher incremental cost savings as compared to a baseline of mixed fuel single zone packaged system and hence are cost-effective in many climate zones.
▪ Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. ▪ All-electric code minimum packages with or without energy efficiency measure packages are TDV cost-effective in all climate zones except 16, and On- Bill cost-effective in CZ4 (CPAU) and CZ12 (SMUD) due to relatively lower electricity costs. ▪ Additional solar PV over all-electric energy efficiency package extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZs 2, 3, 4 (PG&E), 5 and 15. ▪ The alternative all-electric scenario with PTHP is cost-effective in all climates, On-Bill in most CZs except 7,10 and 14 SDG&E territories.
Figure 4. Small Hotel Cost-effectiveness Summary
242
268
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 37 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
5 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations This section combines the cost-effectiveness and 2022 Title 24 energy code compliance metric results — efficiency TDV, total TDV, and source energy, described in Section 2.3 — to highlight the viable reach code options for local jurisdictions. The Reach Code Team calculated metrics using both:
1. Software outputs using the ACM standard design and
2. Manually by subtraction against the baseline model because of software limitations that are beyond the Reach Code Team’s control.6
All Efficiency TDV margins presented in this section are the lower of the two approaches, Software output and Manual, to be conservative and inform the minimum compliance margins that can be met by a typical modeler. Full details of compliance margins and cost-effectiveness results are presented in the Final Results Workbook for reference.
Importantly, the workbook shows that for all prototypes, all-electric packages are capable of achieving greater greenhouse savings as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. Below is a summary of how compliance results as well as cost-effectiveness for each prototype and package could influence reach code options. The Reach Code Team outlines recommendations using the following framework, based on reach codes that were adopted across California under the 2019 building code cycle:
▪ Mixed fuel buildings are allowed, with efficiency. Local amendments governing efficiency and conservation must be performed in the Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and be approved by the Energy Commission.
• Energy Efficiency — Require energy efficiency for buildings regardless of fuel type. A jurisdiction can require different compliance thresholds for all-electric and/or mixed-fuel. The thresholds should be set considering how they may affect mixed-fuel or all-electric buildings. • Electric-Preferred — Allow mixed-fuel appliances but require a higher building performance via efficiency, total, or source compliance metric (for example, (Milpitas 2019), section 140.1).7 Applies only to mixed-fuel buildings.
▪ Mixed fuel buildings are not allowed. Local amendments governing green building requirements may be performed in the Title 24 Part 11 Green Building Standards Code and must be filed with the Building Standards Commission. Alternatively, the local amendment may be performed in a municipal code chapter of their respective jurisdictions.
• All-Electric — Require certain all-electric only appliances, with exceptions (for example (Menlo Park 2019). Does not involve efficiency or conservation measures, and cost-effectiveness is a not a legal requirement.8 Local amendments may be performed through other building code sections, such as Part 11. See discussion on Exceptions below.
• All-Electric + Efficiency — Require certain all-electric appliances, but with a higher building performance via efficiency, total, or source compliance metric. Also requires amendment to Title 24 Part 6 and approval by the Energy Commission.
6 The difference between the two methods of calculating TDV margins occurs due to various software limitations. The Team had challenges modeling a baseline showing zero-percent (exactly compliant) compliance margin, and differing interpretations of 2022 Title 24 code regarding fan power, exhaust fan, heat recovery, battery control, and other aspects. Most scenarios show similar trends between software calculated compliance margin and the Team’s manual subtraction against baseline model, with a difference in magnitude. For example, if the Total TDV Compliance margin as shown by software directly is negative, it is typically negative per manual calculation as well. Nonetheless, modeling limitations introduce error into the calculations, which may affect results. Many scenarios have very low negative compliance margin and are very close to being zero. While this uncertainty in error may lead to imprecision in results, relative performance across packages can yield information helpful for decision-making. 7 Note Milpitas has since adopted an All-electric with Exceptions code for the 2022 code cycle. 8 See letter from CEC to South San Francisco for reference.
Formatted: Left: 0.59", Bottom: 0.47", Width: 8.5",
Height: 11"
243
269
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 38 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Exceptions enable reach codes to broadly require electrification except for specific building systems. These systems may have uncertainty on energy code compliance, building industry electrification approaches, or other related impacts on economic development. During the 2019 code cycle, cities developed exemptions based on discussions with local stakeholders, resulting in a wide array of exemption types.9 For the four prototypes in this study, the Team has determined two exemptions that may be necessary for cities passing All-Electric reach codes. ▪ Building systems without a prescriptive compliance pathway in the energy code. This exemption considers that all-electric central space heating does not have a prescriptive pathway in Title 24, and central heat pump boilers cannot be currently modeled, which has impacted compliance results for the Medium Office and Small Hotel. This exemption has broad precedence and can apply to other large nonresidential buildings (e.g., (Berkeley 2019), section 12.80.040.A Exception 1). These exemptions typically state that the building is also not able to comply via the performance approach using commercially available technology. ▪ Commercial cooking. Cooking electrification does not considerably impact code compliance but is not nearly cost-effective against a mixed-fuel baseline. To account for this challenge, cities may wish to adopt reach codes that exempt commercial kitchen cooking appliances (e.g., (Menlo Park 2019) 100.0(e)2.A Exception 4).
9 See list of exemptions on Bay Area Reach Codes.
244
270
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 39 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Table 16. Reach Code Pathway Considerations
Prototype Compliance and Cost-Effectiveness Results Summary Energy Efficiency Electric- Preferred All-Electric All-Electric +
Efficiency
Medium
Office
The Team could not identify any all-electric package that complies with all three compliance metrics, with the Efficiency TDV Compliance margin being the most challenging.
Future iterations of this study will re-evaluate the Medium Office with a central heat pump boiler, an anticipated compliance software capability in early 2023, instead of electric resistance VAVs.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
All CZs. Exempt building
systems without a
prescriptive
pathway in the
energy code.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages
Medium
Retail
The Team identified cost-effective and code compliant packages of all-electric + energy efficiency measures across most CZs.
Mixed-fuel + efficiency was cost-effective but not code compliant in most CZs.
CZs 7 and 9. CZs 7 and 9. CZs 2-15. 2022
T24 prescriptive
baseline
CZs 1-10, 12-14.
Quick-
Service
Restaurant
The Mixed-fuel + efficiency package is cost-effective and compliant in many climate zones. Code compliance and cost-effectiveness results support reach code adoption for all-electric space conditioning and service water heating when adding efficiency and solar PV for CZs 1 and 3-5, many others are likely to be compliant with future modeling input updates. Cost-effectiveness is achieved or nearly achieved (Net Present Value is greater than -$350/month) On-Bill in all CZs.
Cooking electrification does not impact code compliance but is not cost-effective against a mixed-fuel baseline except for CPAU territory.
CZs 1, 3-7. CZs 1-7, 13. CZs 1, 3-7. Exempt
commercial kitchen
appliances, except
CZ4 (CPAU).
Nearly all remaining
CZs have a nearly
cost-effective
and/or nearly
compliant pathway
for HVAC and SHW
only.
CZs 1, 3-5.
Small Hotel
Results support Electric-Preferred reach code for all CZs. The all- electric packages are near compliant and TDV cost-effective for most CZs when including energy efficiency measures and additional solar PV. They are likely to be compliant with future modeling iterations.
Future iterations of this study will re-evaluate the nonresidential areas of the hotel with a central heat pump boiler, as mentioned for the Medium Office, which can potentially improve code compliance.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
All CZs. Exempt building
systems without a
prescriptive
pathway in the
energy code.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
245
271
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 40 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
The combined result of cost-effectiveness and code compliance across all climate zones and packages are detailed in Section 0 through 5.4 below. The tables are formatted to show:
▪ Cost-effectiveness results with color highlight:
• Green highlight — for scenarios that are cost-effective on both On-Bill and TDV metrics, may or may not be compliant.
• Yellow highlight — for scenarios that are cost-effective on either one of the On-Bill/TDV metrics, may or may not be compliant.
• Gray highlight — for scenarios that are not cost-effective on either metric, either compliant currently or likely to be compliant in future.
• White highlight — for scenarios that are not cost-effective on either metric and are not compliant. ▪ Compliance results with cell values:
• “EffTDV Margin” percentages — for scenarios that are compliant, across both Manual and CBECC software output, the reported value is the minimum of the two. • “-” for scenarios that do not comply across any one code compliance metric. “TBD” – for scenarios that are likely to be compliant with modeling updates or software versions in future, maybe compliant across either one of the Manual or CBECC software output approach or has a system type modeling limitation such as central heat pump boiler for Medium Office and Small Hotel. The package names in table results columns are as follows, as defined in Section 3.3:
▪ Mixed fuel — Code Min: Mixed Fuel Code Minimum Efficiency ▪ Mixed fuel — EE: Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures
▪ All-electric — Code Min: All-electric Code Minimum Efficiency ▪ All-electric — EE: All-electric Energy Efficiency
▪ All-electric — EE + LF: All-electric Energy Efficiency and Load Flexibility ▪ All-electric — EE + PV: All-electric Energy Efficiency and Solar PV The QSR has two electrification scenarios, with and without cooking appliance electrification, which is denoted by “HS” prefix.
The Small Hotel has an extra package that evaluates a different HVAC type in the all-electric Code Minimum Efficiency package, a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) instead of a Single Zone Heat Pump.
246
272
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 41 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
5.1 Medium Office
For Medium Office, the Reach Code Team analyzed EE measures over mixed fuel baseline model and three electrification packages: 1) Code Min, 2) EE and 3) EE + LF packages, results shown in Table 17.
The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a VAV reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of the writing of this report. As such, the Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. This modeling capability is anticipated in early 2023 according to discussions with the CBECC software development team, and the cost -effectiveness analysis should become available in the first half of 2023. Heat pump systems are multiple times more efficient, but may also be multiple times more costly, than the electric resistance reheat systems currently analyzed. ▪ Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel baseline, also known as the “Electric-Preferred”. A compliance margin of 4–5% is achievable depending on the climate zone. ▪ No all-electric package complies with all three-compliance metrics, with the efficiency compliance TDV margin being the most challenging. The Reach Code Team explored other efficiency measures that reduce the efficiency compliance TDV margin, but not enough to make the TDV margin positive. The compliance values are labeled as “TBD” for all-electric packages, as they are likely to be compliant with future modeling and/or software updates. Some climate zones are compliant currently on either one of the Software output or Manual compliance approaches.
Table 17. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Office CZ Utility
Mixed
Fuel All-electric
EE Code Min EE EE + LF
cz01 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz02 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz03 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz04 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz04-2 CPAU 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz05 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz05-2 SCG 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz06 SCE 6% TBD TBD TBD
cz07 SDG&E 7% TBD TBD TBD
cz08 SCE 6% TBD TBD TBD
cz09 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz10-2 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz11 PG&E 3% TBD TBD TBD
cz12 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz15 SCE 3% TBD TBD TBD
cz16 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
247
273
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 42 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
* These results will be re-evaluated with central heat pump boiler system instead of electric resistance VAV systems, which largely are unable to achieve energy code compliance.
5.2 Medium Retail
For Medium Retail, the Team analyzed EE measure package over an all-electric baseline model and two mixed fuel packages — Code Min and EE, with results in Table 18. ▪ Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum package, also known as “Electric-Preferred” or “Energy Efficiency” reach code pathways in climate zones 7 and 9. ▪ Results also support “All-Electric + Efficiency” reach code option, with compliance margins of 4-14% above the all-electric code minimum baseline in climate zones 1-10 and 12-14. ▪ For some scenarios in climate zone 6, 8, 11, 15 and 16, labeled as “TBD”, the package is cost-effective and likely to be compliant in future with modeling input and/or software version updates.
Table 18. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Retail CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All-
electric
Code Min EE EE
cz01 PG&E - - 6%
cz02 PG&E - - 4%
cz03 PG&E - - 12%
cz04 PG&E - - 11%
cz04-2 CPAU - - 11%
cz05 PG&E - - 12%
cz05-2 SCG - - 12%
cz06 SCE - TBD 9%
cz07 SDG&E - 12% 14%
cz08 SCE - TBD 8%
cz09 SCE - 11% 12%
cz10 SDG&E - - 3%
cz10-2 SCE - - 3%
cz11 PG&E - - TBD
cz12 PG&E - - 10%
cz12-2 SMUD - - 10%
cz13 PG&E - - 4%
cz14 SDG&E - - 7%
cz14-2 SCE - - 7%
cz15 SCE - - TBD
cz16 PG&E - - TBD
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
248
274
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 43 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
249
275
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 44 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
5.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
The Team analyzed efficiency measures over a mixed fuel baseline and electrification packages, with and without cooking appliance electrification. For the “HS” scenario including HVAC and SHW electrification only, packages with EE, EE + LF and EE + PV were analyzed, with results in Table 19. ▪ Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over a mixed fuel baseline, also known as “Electric-Preferred” in climate zones 1 to 7 and 13, or “Energy Efficiency” in CZs 1 and 3 to 7. ▪ All-electric “HS” HVAC and SHW electrification can be adopted in CZs 1 and 3-7 since it is code compliant and nearly cost effective on at least one metric when energy efficiency measures and/or load flexibility or solar PV measure is added, demonstrated by yellow or gray cells. ▪ All-electric “HS” HVAC and SHW option with additional efficiency measures can be adopted in CZs 1 and 3-5.
Adding solar PV makes the package on-bill cost-effective on at least one metric marked as yellow cells.. ▪ Packages labeled as “TBD” may or may not be cost-effective but are likely to be compliant in the future with modeling input and/or software updates.
Table 19. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (without cooking electrification)
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW)
EE Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV
cz01 PG&E 16% - 6% 16% 6%
cz02 PG&E 6% - TBD TBD TBD
cz03 PG&E 18% - 8% 13% 8%
cz04 PG&E 16% - 5% 8% 5%
cz04-2 CPAU 16% - 5% 8% 5%
cz05 PG&E 18% - 8% 15% 8%
cz05-2 SCG 18% - 8% 15% 8%
cz06 SCE 16% - 3% 6% 3%
cz07 SDG&E 21% - 9% 13% 9%
cz08 SCE TBD - - - -
cz09 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E TBD - - - -
cz10-2 SCE TBD - - - -
cz11 PG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz12 PG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E 7% - TBD TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz15 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz16 PG&E TBD - - TBD -
250
276
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 45 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-03-24
The Reach Code Team analyzed a completely all-electric package including cooking appliances, results shown in Table 20, which show compliance in many climate zones with added efficiency and load flexibility. Remaining CZs are “TBD”, except climate zone 16, which comply on either one of the Manual or Software output approaches currently and are likely to show compliance with future modeling updates. However, the all-electric package is cost- effective in CZ4 CPAU territory only and very close to being cost-effective in SMUD territory. Cooking electrification is expensive and challenging to show cost-effective.