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 that only want to require all-electric construction may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring 275
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
2 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 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]. 276
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Introduction
3 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 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). 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 (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 costeffective 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. 277 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
4 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 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 2022.1.0.
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 (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 CBECCRes 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, replacements, 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 for measures with lifetimes less than the 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.
278
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
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 (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 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 − 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 Equation 2
𝐵𝐵 − − 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐
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
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 = �(𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 )𝑡𝑡
(1 + )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
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
279
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
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.
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 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 PV generation, the approved NEM2 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. Future changes to the NEM tariffs are likely and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has issued a proposed decision with suggested changes that is expected to be finalized in 2022. 2 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 Natural Gas IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E / PG&E E-TOU Option C G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU Option C GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCalGas TOU-D Option 4-9 GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E / SDG&E TOU-DR-1 GR
POUs
4 CPAU / CPAU E-1 G-2
12 SMUD / PG&E R-TOD (RT02) G1
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 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 2 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nemrevisit 280
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones. 3 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year building lifetime.
2.3 Energy Design Rating
The 2019 Title 24 Code introduced California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code for single family buildings. This EDR was based on the hourly TDV energy use from a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the Reference Building. The Reference Building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero. While the Reference Building is used to set the scale for the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the Title 24 prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance.
In the 2022 Title 24 Code a second new EDR metric was introduced based on hourly source energy. The two EDR metrics are described below:
• EDR1 is calculated based on source energy.
• EDR2 is calculated based on TDV energy.
Furthermore, EDR2 is composed of two components for compliance purposes. The Efficiency EDR2 which represents the energy efficiency features of a home. The PV/Flexibility EDR2 includes the effects of PV and battery storage systems. Total EDR2 combines both the Efficiency and PV/Flexibility impacts. While the Efficiency EDR2 does not include the full impact of a battery system, it can include a self-utilization credit for batteries if certain conditions are met.
For a new, single family building to comply with the 2022 Title 24 Code, three criteria are required:
1. The Proposed EDR1 must be equal to or less than the EDR1 of the Standard Design, and
2. The Proposed Efficiency EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR2 of the Standard Design, and
3. The Proposed Total EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Total EDR2 of the Standard Design.
This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR2 before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR2. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity necessary to achieve the required Total EDR2.
However, it may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures.
Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design.
EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. Referencing the margin results in similar requirements across a variety of designs. This approach aligns with how compliance is reported for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 Code. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 5.
Equation 5
𝐸𝐸 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸 − 𝑃𝑃 𝐸𝐸
3 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (Southern California). 281
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
8 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis drawing from previous 2019 Reach Code research where necessary.
3.1 Prior Reach Code Research
In 2019, the Reach Codes Team analyzed the cost-effectiveness of residential single family new construction projects for mixed-fuel and all-electric packages (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019). Using this analysis, several cities and counties in California adopted local energy code amendments encouraging or requiring that low-rise residential new construction be all-electric. As there were few changes to the single family requirements, this analysis for the 2022 code cycle leveraged the work completed for the 2019 reports. Initial efficiency packages were based on the final packages from the 2019 research and were revised to reflect measure specifications and costs based on new data.
3.2 Prototype Characteristics
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. For the 2022 code cycle the Energy Commission used two single family prototypes, both of which were used in this analysis. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018).
Additionally, a detached new construction ADU prototype was developed to reflect recent trends in California construction related to the high cost of housing (TRC, 2021). ADUs are additional dwelling units typically built on the property of an existing single-family parcel. ADUs are defined as new construction in the energy code when they are ground-up developments, do not convert an existing space to livable space, and are not attached to the primary dwelling. The evaluated prototype is not representative of an attached ADU constructed as an addition to an existing home.
The Reach Codes Team leveraged prior research to define the detached ADU baseline and measure packages. The house size and number of bedrooms were based on data from a survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, 2021). The survey found that the average square footage for new ADUs statewide is 615 square feet and that the majority (61 percent) of new ADUs have one bedroom.
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.
Table 2: Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story ADU
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 625 ft2
Num. of Stories 1 2 1
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 20%
The Energy Commission’s protocol for the two single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide. This study assumed 50 percent single-story and 50 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,400-square foot (ft2) house. 4 ADU results are presented separately. 42,400 ft2 = (50% x 2,100 ft2) + (50% x 2,700 ft2) 282
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2022 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2022 Standards (California Energy Commission, 2021a) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2022), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each prototype building has the following features:
• Slab-on-grade foundation.
• Vented attic.
• High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2022 Standards.) • Ductwork located in the attic.
Table 3 describes additional characteristics as they were applied to the base case energy model in this analysis. In a shift from the 2019 Standards, the 2022 Standards define a prescriptive fuel source for space heating and water heating establishing a heat pump baseline. In each climate zone one heat pump is prescriptively required. In most climate zones the prescriptive base case includes a heat pump water heater and a natural gas furnace for space heating. In Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 this is reversed, where the base case has a heat pump space heater and natural gas tankless water heater.
Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes
Characteristic Single Family ADU
Space
Heating/Cooling1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Natural gas furnace, split
AC 80 AFUE, 14 SEER, 11.7 EER
CZs 3-4,13-14: Split heat pump – 8.2 HSPF,
14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Same as single family
Water Heater1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Heat pump water heater
(HPWH) UEF = 2.0 located in the garage
CZs 3-4,13-14: Natural gas tankless –
UEF = 0.81
Same equipment type as SF
except HPWH is located inside
the conditioned space with the
supply air ducted from outside3
Hot Water
Distribution
Code minimum, all hot water lines insulated
CZs 1,16: Basic compact distribution credit Same as single family Drain Water Heat
Recovery Efficiency CZ 16: 65%, equal flow to shower & water heater Same as single family Cooking Natural Gas Same as single family
Clothes Drying Natural Gas Same as single family
PV System
Sized to offset 100% of electricity use for space
cooling, ventilation, lighting, appliance, & other
miscellaneous electric loads. Size differs by
climate zone ranging from 2.64 kW to 5.33 kW,
see Table 4.
PV is not required when the PV
system size required based on the
prescriptive calculations is less
than 1.8 kW, as is the case in
Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and
16. In the other climate zones the
PV size ranges from 1.74 kW to
2.56 kW, see Table 4.
4 1 Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2 AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency. SEER = seasonal energy efficiency ratio. EER = energy efficiency ratio.
HSPF = heating seasonal performance factor. UEF = uniform energy factor. 3 This version of CBECC-Res used in this analysis did not have the capability to directly model ducted HPWHs even though this configuration is called out as the Standard Design in the 2022 ACM (California Energy Commission, 2022). This was modeled by indicating that the tank is located within the conditioned space with the compressor unit located outside. 4 Exception 2 to Section 150.1(c)14 states that “no PV system is required when the minimum PV system size specified by section 150.1(c)14 is less than 1.8 kWdc.” In this analysis this exception is applied based on the sizes calculated per Equation150.1-C of Section 150.1(c)14. The performance software sizes the PV system based on the estimated energy use, which differs slightly from the prescriptive sizing. As a result, the baseline PV capacity from the performance software for Climate Zone 10 is less than 1.8 kWdc.
283
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages.
Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
Base Package
Single
Family ADU
CZ01 3.54 0
CZ02 2.99 0
CZ03 2.81 0
CZ04 2.90 0
CZ05 2.62 0
CZ06 2.64 0
CZ07 2.84 0
CZ08 3.13 0
CZ09 2.97 0
CZ10 3.19 1.74
CZ11 3.91 2.07
CZ12 3.12 0
CZ13 4.08 2.11
CZ14 3.16 0
CZ15 5.33 2.56
CZ16 2.90 0
3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs
Measures evaluated in this study fall into two categories: those associated with general efficiency, onsite generation, and demand flexibility and those associated with building electrification. The Reach Codes Team selected measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative consumer acceptance of many measures.
The following sections describe the details and incremental cost assumptions for each of the measures. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case. 5 Replacement costs are applied for roofs, mechanical equipment, PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. Maintenance costs are estimated for PV systems, but not any other measures.
Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. All costs are provided as present value in 2023 (2023 PV$).
The Reach Codes Team obtained measure costs from distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Contractor markups are incorporated. These are the Reach Codes Team best estimate of average costs statewide. However, it's recognized that local costs may differ, and that inflation and supply chain issues may also impact costs.
3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries
Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency, PV, and battery measures evaluated under this analysis and applied in at least one of the packages presented in this report. Table 5 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for each of these measures.
5 All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs. See Section 2.1.2 for details. 284
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50) 6 by 40 percent to 3 ACH50. HERS rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).
Lower U-Factor Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates.
Higher SHGC Fenestration: Increase solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.50 in climate zones where heating loads dominate. The baseline solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) applied in the Standard Design is 0.35 in Climate Zones 1, 3, 5, and 16.
Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. The 2022 Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15.
Increased Ceiling Insulation: Increase ceiling level insulation in a vented attic to R-49 or R-60 insulation.
Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. This measure doesn’t apply to Climate Zone 16 where slab insulation is required prescriptively.
Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).
Buried Radial Duct Design: Bury all ductwork in ceiling insulation by laying the ducts across the ceiling joists or inbetween ceiling joists directly on the ceiling drywall. Duct design is based on a radial design where individual ducts are run to each supply register. This allows for smaller diameter ducts, reducing duct losses and more easily meeting fully or deeply buried conditions. 7 Duct burial and duct system design must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.5 and RA3.1.4.1.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This applies to the single family prototypes only.
R-8 Duct Insulation: Increase duct insulation to R-8 in the climate zones where R-6 insulation is prescriptive.
Ductless Mini-Split Heat Pump: In the ADU prototype replace the ducted split system with a ductless mini-split heat pump with three indoor heads. The system is evaluated as meeting the criteria for the variable capacity heat pump (VCHP) credit, introduced in the 2019 code cycle, which must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.4.4.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This credit requires verification of refrigerant charge, that all equipment is entirely within conditioned space, that airflow is directly supplied to all habitable space and that wall mounted thermostats serve any zones greater than 150 square feet.
Compact Hot Water Distribution: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit.
Solar PV: Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2022 residential code unless an exception is met. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would 6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 7 The duct systems in the Central Valley Research Homes Project Final Project Report are illustrative of this approach (Proctor, Wilcox, & Chitwood, 2018). 285
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 violate net energy metering (NEM) rules. 8 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions.
The Reach Codes Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below.
The first option, “Standard Design PV”, was applied in the base case simulations and packages where the PV system size was not changed from the minimum system size required. For the PV packages, the second option was used with a scaling of 100 percent. The Reach Codes Team evaluated an all-electric single family and ADU home with a PV system sized to offset 100 and 90 percent of the total calculated electricity use. Sizing to 100 percent proved to be more cost-effective based on customer utility bills in most cases. As a result, the PV packages were sized to offset 100 percent of electricity use.
• Standard Design PV – the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case9 • Specify PV System Scaling – a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case
One exception to the PV requirement is when the minimum PV system size required is less than 1.8 kWh. This exception applies to the ADU models in Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and 16. For these cases no PV system is required by code and no PV system was modeled in the base case simulations.
Battery Energy Storage: A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Advanced Demand Response Control” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Advanced Demand Response Control” option assumes the battery system will charge or discharge depending on the needs of the grid. To qualify for the Advanced Demand Response Control the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA13.3.3.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). 8 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
9 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking. 286 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Non-Preempted Measures
Reduced
Infiltration
3.0 vs 5.0
ACH50 $591 $362 $0.115/ft2 based on NREL’s BEopt cost database plus $250 HERS rater verification.
Window U-factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,280 $285 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).
Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0 Based on feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017).
Cool Roof
0.25 vs 0.20
aged solar
reflectance
$219 $53
$0.07per ft2 of roof area first incremental cost for asphalt shingle product based on the 2022 Nonresidential High Performance Envelope CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a).
Total costs assume present value of replacement at year 20 and residual cost for remaining product life at end of 30-year analysis period. Higher reflectance values for lower cost are achievable for tile roof products
Attic Insulation
R-49 vs R-30 $872 n/a
Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).
R-60 vs R-30 $1,420 n/a
R-60 vs R-38 $1,096 n/a
Slab Edge
Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $651 $449 $4 per linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth.
Low Pressure
Drop Ducts
0.35 vs 0.45
W/cfm $99 $49
Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour for the ADU. Labor rate of $88 per hour is from 2022 RS Means for sheet metal workers and includes a weighted average City Cost Index for labor for California.
Buried Ducts Buried, radial
design $281 n/a
No cost for laying ducts on attic floor versus suspending, in some cases there will be cost savings. Neutral cost for radiant design versus trunk and branch design. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is included.
Duct Insulation R-8 vs R-6 $201 n/a Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).
287
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Ductless MiniSplit Heat Pump
Ductless system
meeting the
VCHP credit vs.
ducted split heat
pump
n/a $1,571
Costs were developed based on data from E3’s 2019 report Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and the 2022 AllElectric Multifamily CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c). Equipment costs are from the CASE Report for the 10-story multifamily prototype assuming similar sized equipment between the multifamily dwelling unit and the ADU. Thermostat, wiring, electrical, and ducting costs are from the E3 study. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is also included.
Where this measure is applied to the mixed fuel home with a gas furnace, this cost is in addition to the cost difference for a heat pump versus a gas furnace/split AC reported in Section 3.3.2.
Compact Hot
Water
Distribution
Basic credit –
homes with gas
tankless
$196 $0
For single family homes with a gas tankless water heater (mixed fuel homes in Climate Zones 3,4,13,14) assumes adding 20-feet venting at $14.69 per linear foot to locate water heater on interior garage wall, less 20-feet savings for PEX and pipe insulation at $5.98 per linear foot. Costs from online retailers. For single family homes with a HPWH there is an incremental cost savings from less pipe being required. For the ADU it is assumed the credit can be met without any changes to design and there is no cost impact.
Basic credit –
homes with
HPWH
$-134 $0
PV + Battery
PV System
First Cost $3.21/W $3.21/W
First costs from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2021 costs (Barbose, Darghouth, O'Shaughnessy, & Forrester, 2021) and represent median costs in California in 2020 of $3.90/WDC for residential systems. The first cost was reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2 Costs are presented as the average of 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).
System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assume $0.02/WDC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).
Inverter
replacement $0.14/W $0.14/W
Maintenance $0.31/W $0.31/W
288
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
15 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Battery
First cost $617/kWh $617/kWh
Costs are based on research conducted for the 2021 Batteries in Single Family Homes reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021a). $1,000/kWh first cost in 2020 based on Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) residential participant cost data. To estimate the first cost in future years this was reduced by 7% annually based on SDG&E’s Behind-theMeter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020). The first cost is reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2 Costs are presented as the average of 2023, 2024, and 2025. No SGIP incentives are included.
Replacement cost at year 10 and 20 was calculated based on the 2023 cost reduced by 7% annually over the next 10 years for a future value cost of $389 (present value of $290 in year 10 and $216 in year 20).
Replacement
cost $505/kWh $505/kWh
1 All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs. See Section 2.1.2 for details.
Interest costs were not included for calculating TDV cost-effectiveness. 2As part of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022 the Section 25D Investment Tax Credit was extended and raised to 30% through 2032 with a step-down beginning in 2033. https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/Inflation%20Reduction%20Act%20Summary%20PDF%20FINAL.pdf 289
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
16 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
3.3.2 All-Electric
This analysis compared a code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses natural gas for three appliances (cooking, clothes drying and either space heating or water heating), with a code compliant all-electric prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and natural gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing natural gas to the building were included.
To estimate costs the Reach Codes Team leveraged costs from the 2019 reach code cost-effectiveness studies for residential new construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and detached accessory dwelling units (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b), 2022 RS Means, PG&E data, published utility schedules and rules, and online research.
Incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure to a single family building are presented in Table 6 through Table 11.
These costs are applied as cost savings for an all-electric home when compared to a mixed fuel home. This is the component with the highest degree of variability for all-electric homes. These costs are project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest natural gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The CA IOU costs for single family homes presented are based primarily on cost data provided by PG&E.
Table 6 presents assumed gas main distribution line extension costs within gas CA IOU territory. Total distribution line extension costs are based on cost data provided by PG&E for new greenfield development. Total costs are reduced to account for deductions per the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules. 10 These rules categorize distribution line extensions as “refundable” costs, which are offset or subsidized by all other ratepayers. Refundable costs are first subsidized by appliance allowances, which are defined in Table 7. If there are additional costs in excess of the allowances, the developer has the option to either be refunded for the remaining amount over ten years or receive a 50 percent discount at time of application. The latter discount option is assumed in this analysis and is more commonly used by developers (California Public Utilities Commission, 2022). Two scenarios are presented in Table 6 since the appliance allowances differ by type of appliance. One is for the base case home with a prescriptive heat pump space heater which assumes a gas water heater, gas cooking, and gas clothes dryer (Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14). The second is for the base case home with a prescriptive heat pump water heater which assumes a gas furnace, gas cooking, and gas clothes dryer. and a natural gas furnace for space heating (Climate Zones 1, 2, 5 through 12, 15, and 16).
The costs less the deductions were applied under the On-Bill cost-effectiveness methodology. The total costs before the deductions were applied under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology to better reflect the full cost of gas main extensions since the deductions are subsidized by ratepayers and recovered via revenue from customers. This follows the analysis approach in the 2019 reach code study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and was based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Codes technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology.
The CPUC issued a Proposed Decision in August 2022 that recommends eliminating the subsidies effective July 1, 2023. At the time of publishing this report there had been no ruling on this decision and therefore this analysis assumes the existing rules will remain in place through the 2022 code cycle. A sensitivity analysis of how the results would change if the Proposed Decision were adopted is included in the results of this report. 10 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/GAS_RULES_15.pdf.
SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf.
SDG&E Rule 15: https://tariff.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf. 290 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
17 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 6. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Main Distribution Line Extension Costs Total
Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions1
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Gas Water Heater Base $1,020 $0 $13 $0
Gas Space Heater Base $0 $0 $0
1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.
Table 7. Residential IOU Gas Line Extension Appliance Allowances Appliance PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Water Heating $1,391 $682 $1,138
Space Heating $987 $818 $987
Oven/Range $84 $152 $201
Dryer Stub $24 $160 $289
Total - Gas Water Heater Base $1,499 $994 $1,628
Total – Gas Space Heater Base $1,095 $1,130 $1,477
Table 8 presents costs for the extension of service lines from a main distribution line to the home within gas CA IOU territory. These costs are based on data provided by PG&E excluding trenching. Costs are presented separately for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area as well as an infill development. The service extension is typically more costly in an infill scenario due to the disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures. For this analysis an average of the new subdivision and infill development costs was used, representing 80 percent of the new subdivision and 20 percent infill.
Table 8. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Service Line Extension Costs New
Subdivision
Infill
Development
Average
(80% New, 20% Infill)
$1,300 $6,750 $2,390
Table 9 presents other relative costs within gas CA IOU territory including gas meter installation and IOU plan review.
These costs are based on data provided by PG&E.
Table 9. Single Family IOU Other Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Meter $300
Plan Review $850
Table 10 presents total costs including distribution and service line extensions, meter installation and plan review for the three gas CA IOUs for the two base case scenarios. Costs are based on the average service line extension costs from Table 8. For the single family analysis, based on the Reach Codes Team's conversations with the industry it is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric homes.
291
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
18 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 10. Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs1 Total Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions2
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Total - Gas Water Heater Base $4,560 $3,540 $3,553 $3,540 Total - Gas Space Heater Base $3,540 $3,540 $3,540
1Based on average service line extension costs from Table 8. 1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.
CPAU provides gas service to its customers and therefore separate costs were evaluated based on CPAU gas service connection fees. 11 Table 11 presents the breakdown of gas infrastructure costs used in this analysis for CPAU. There is no main distribution line component since Palo Alto has little greenfield space remaining and most of the development is infill.
Table 11. Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Service Extension $5,892
Meter $1,012
Plan Review Costs $924
Total $7,828
Table 12 presents incremental costs for natural gas infrastructure for the detached ADU. These costs are directly from the 2019 detached ADU reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b) and were obtained from interviews and RS Means. For the ADU scenario it’s assumed that natural gas already exists on the lot and is being extended to the location of the ADU typically at the back of the lot. There are incremental cost savings for an all-electric ADU from not extending the natural gas service; however, there is also a small incremental cost for upgrading the electric service to accommodate the additional electrical load. The Reach Codes Team found that a new detached ADU would require that the building owner upgrade the service connection to the lot in both the mixed-fuel ADU design and the all-electric design. The most common size for this upgrade is to upsize the existing panel to 225A, which would not represent an incremental cost from the mixed-fuel project to the all-electric project. Feeder wiring to the ADU and the ADU subpanel will need to be slightly upgraded for the all-electric design. 11 CPAU Schedule G-5 effective 09-01-2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/utilitiesengineering/general-specifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf 292 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
19 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 12. ADU Utility Infrastructure Costs
Mixed Fuel Measure Mixed Fuel
Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric Cost
All-Electric
Incremental Cost
Site natural gas service
extension $1,998 No site natural gas service $0 ($1,998) Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500
Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500 $0
100A feeder to ADU with
breaker $933
125A feeder to ADU with
breaker $1,206 $273
100A ADU subpanel $733 125A ADU subpanel $946 $213
Totals $7,164 $5,652 ($1,512)
Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 13. The lifetime for the heat pump, furnace, and air conditioner are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). In DEER, heat pump and air conditioner measures are assigned an effective useful lifetime (EUL) of 15 years and a furnace an EUL of 20 years. The heating and cooling system components are typically replaced at the same time when one reaches the end of its life and the other is near it. Therefore, it is assumed that both the furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time at year 17.5, halfway between 15 and 20 years. For HVAC system costing, air-conditioning is included in all cases in both the base case and proposed models. Present value replacement costs are included in the total lifetime incremental costs.
Table 13: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 17.5
Air Conditioner 17.5
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Appliance incremental costs are shown in Table 14 and Table 15. Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment over the 30-year evaluation period. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. All costs are provided as present value in 2023 (2023 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for.
The Reach Codes Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is similar to that for natural gas appliances. Cost differences include equipment cost and installation, costs for natural gas piping from the meter to the appliance, and costs for electrical wiring to service the appliances.
Space Heater: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on material costs from the AC Wholesalers website and labor costs from 2022 RS Means. In most cases the Reach Codes Team found that the material costs were slightly higher for the heat pump, but the labor costs were slightly higher for the gas furnace/AC installation. Costs were calculated for capacities ranging from a 2-ton to a 5-ton and the incremental costs used in this study were based on a weighted average of the expected nominal capacities from CBECC-Res autosizing results for the 2,100 square foot prototype. Incremental replacement costs for the heat pump are based on a 17.5-year lifetime for the gas furnace and air conditioner and a 15-year lifetime for the heat pump. Residual value of the gas furnace/AC at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment. 293
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
20 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Water Heater: Various cost sources were reviewed and the Reach Codes Team determined that installed first costs for a garage installed tankless gas water heater and HPWH are very similar and no incremental cost was applied for the equipment and installation (see below for details on costs for gas piping and electrical wiring). This accounts for slightly higher equipment costs for the HPWH but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the combustion gas venting.
Incremental replacement costs account for a 15-year HPWH lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas tankless water heater. Residual value of the gas tankless at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment. For the ADU analysis the water heater is evaluated within the conditioned space with the supply air ducted from the outside. An HVAC contractor provided a cost estimate for supply air ducting through the wall in an ADU where the water heater is in an interior room adjacent to an exterior wall. The estimated total cost for this was $652.
A high efficiency HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 12 Tier 3 rating was also evaluated. HPWHs certified to meet NEEA Tier 3 or Tier 4 are the dominant product on the market today. According to NEEA all major HPWH manufacturers are represented in NEEA’s qualified product list 13 and there are only 11 listed products certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2. 14 While the Reach Codes Team evaluated a HPWH that just meets the federal minimum efficiency standards of close to 2.0 UEF to satisfy federal preemption requirements, the Reach Codes Team is not aware of any 2.0 UEF products that are available. The Reach Codes Team was unable to find any of the Tier 1 or Tier2 HPWHs for sale online and was unable to find any products for sale online that were not NEEA Tier 3 or Tier 4 certified. As a result, no incremental cost is assumed for a NEEA Tier 3 product versus a federal minimum efficiency product.
Clothes Dryer and Range: After review of various sources, the Reach Codes Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance equipment for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar.
Electric Service Upgrade: The 2022 Title 24 Code requires electric readiness for gas appliances; as a result, the incremental costs to provide electrical service for electric appliances are minimal. The incremental costs accounted for in this study are calculated as the cost to install 220V service for the electric appliances less the cost for the electric ready requirements and for installing 110V service for the comparable gas appliance. Incremental costs are applied for the space heater, water heater, and cooking range. Based on builder surveys, it’s assumed that in a typical mixed fuel home both electric and gas service are provided to the dryer location and therefore no incremental costs for the dryer were applied. Costs assume 50A service for the range and 30A service for the space heater and water heater. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses.
In-House Natural Gas Infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a natural gas line from the meter to the appliance location was estimated at $580 per appliance. These costs were based on material costs from Home Depot and labor costs from 2022 RS Means. The material costs were about 1/3 higher in RS Means than Home Depot, so the Reach Codes Team used the lower costs from Home Depot. The Reach Codes Team conducted a pipe sizing analysis for the two single family and one ADU prototype homes to estimate the length and diameter of gas piping required assuming the home included a gas furnace, gas tankless water heater, gas range, and gas dryer. Total estimated costs were very similar for each of the three prototypes and an average cost per appliance of $580 was determined. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses. 12 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires products comply with ENERGY STAR and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating.
13 https://neea.org/success-stories/heat-pump-water-heaters 14 https://neea.org/img/documents/residential-unitary-HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf 294 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
21 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 14. Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs Measure
Incremental Cost (2023 PV$)
First Cost Replacement
Cost
Total Lifetime
Financed
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC
Equipment & Installation ($151) $703 $533
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($688) $703 ($69)
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless
Equipment & Installation $0 $652 $652
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($537) $652 $49
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH vs Federal Minimum HPWH
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $0 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($480) $0 ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($580) $0 ($651)
295
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
22 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 15. ADU All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs
Measure
Incremental Cost (2023 PV$)
First Cost Replacement
Cost
Total Lifetime
Financed
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC
Equipment & Installation ($151) $703 $533
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($688) $703 ($69)
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless
Equipment & Installation $652 $652 $1,384
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total $115 $652 $781
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH vs Federal Minimum HPWH
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $0 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($480) $0 ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($580) $0 ($651)
3.4 Measure Packages
The Reach Codes Team evaluated three packages for mixed fuel homes and five packages for all-electric homes for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.
1. All-Electric Code Minimum: This package meets all the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code. In some instances, the prescriptive minimum package did not comply with code and efficiency measures were added to meet minimum compliance requirements. The added efficiency measures can be found in Table 45 and Table 46.
2. Efficiency Only: This package uses only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope and water heating or duct distribution efficiency measures.
3. Efficiency + NEEA (Preempted): This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only and shows an alternative design that applies water heating equipment that is more efficient than federal standards meeting the NEEA Tier 3 rating. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice.
4. Efficiency + PV: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity was added to offset most of the estimated electricity use.
296
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
23 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
5. Efficiency + PV + Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, a battery system was added.
For mixed-fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the Efficiency Package in some climate zones to arrive at a cost effective solution.
297
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
24 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 4 Results
4.1 2022 Metrics and Compliance
The Reach Codes Team evaluated the compliance impacts of a prescriptive all-electric home as well as a traditional mixed fuel home with four gas appliances (space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying). Compliance is relative to the 2022 prescriptive base case home with three gas appliances. The impacts for the single family home and the ADU are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The all-electric single family home prototype is code compliant with both EDR1 (source energy) and efficiency EDR2 (TDV energy) in all climate zones except Climate Zones 15 and 16. In addition to this climate zone, the all-electric ADU is also not compliant in Climate Zones 4 through 10 and 13 through 15. The four gas appliance single family home is presented in Figure 3. This case is not code compliant in any climate zone.
This analysis illustrates a couple of interesting points. One is that the new 2022 compliance metrics are important drivers encouraging electrification. The compliance penalties assessed the four gas appliance home scenarios are significant and will require deep efficiency measures to overcome. Another is that the 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage all-electric construction, providing a compliance benefit, at least in larger homes, that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off and still comply when using the performance method.
Figure 1: Single Family All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts -5
0 5
10 15
20 25
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
298
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
25 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Figure 2: ADU All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts
Figure 3: Single Family Four Gas Appliance Home Compliance Impacts -6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
Mixed Fuel Prescrip�ve, 4 Gas Appliances
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
299
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results
Table 16 shows results for the single family all-electric code minimum case compared to the 2022 baseline. This package reflects the prescriptive minimum requirements except in Climate Zones 15 and 16, where efficiency measures were added to meet minimum code compliance. Utility cost savings are negative, indicating an increase in utility costs for the all-electric building, in all cases except in CPAU and SMUD territories. In all cases the incremental cost is negative, which reflects a cost savings for the all-electric building due to eliminating the gas infrastructure costs. The package is cost effective based on TDV in all cases; however, it’s only cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 4 in CPAU territory, 6, 8, 9, 12 in SMUD territory, and 15.
Table 17 shows the all-electric code minimum case results for the ADU. This package reflects the prescriptive minimum requirements except in Climate Zones 4 through 10 and 13 through 16, where efficiency measures were added to meet minimum code compliance. The conclusions related to cost-effectiveness are similar for the ADU as for the single family analysis.
A summary of measures included in each package is provided in Appendix 7.3 Summary of Measures by Package. The efficiency measures added to the allelectric package to meet minimum code requirements are described in Table 45 and Table 46. 300
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 16. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 8.3 -4,628 400 1.5 ($721) ($10,848) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,614) >1 $5,566 CZ02 PGE 5.7 -3,170 247 0.8 ($581) ($10,060) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($4,826) >1 $5,390 CZ03 PGE 4.7 -2,413 171 0.7 ($510) ($9,954) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.5 ($4,838) 63.5 $4,414 CZ04 PGE 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 ($455) ($8,756) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.6 ($3,641) >1 $4,929 CZ04 CPAU 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 $21 $3,274 ($9,424) ($9,931) >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 CZ05 PGE 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($452) ($8,930) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,696) 2.5 $2,776 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($455) ($9,027) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,793) 2.5 $2,776 CZ06 SCE/SCG 2.5 -1,481 84 0.3 ($269) ($5,120) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $115 3.2 $3,142 CZ07 SDGE 2.3 -1,328 69 0.2 ($456) ($10,904) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,670) 3.1 $3,081 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -1,331 67 0.2 ($249) ($4,864) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.1 $371 2.8 $2,951 CZ09 SCE 1.2 -1,513 85 0.3 ($269) ($5,109) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $126 3.3 $3,179 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($307) ($5,720) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.9 ($486) 3.5 $3,285 CZ10 SDGE 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($657) ($15,474) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.3 ($10,239) 3.5 $3,285 CZ11 PGE 3.5 -2,934 227 0.7 ($444) ($7,106) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,872) >1 $5,135 CZ12 PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 ($437) ($7,213) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,979) >1 $5,002 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 $58 $4,526 ($5,288) ($5,234) >1 $9,761 >1 $5,002 CZ13 PGE 2.1 -2,099 154 0.6 ($383) ($7,136) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,021) >1 $4,904 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($411) ($7,590) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,475) >1 $4,493 CZ14 SDGE 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($914) ($21,350) ($5,149) ($5,130) 0.2 ($16,219) >1 $4,506 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.6 -944 53 0.2 ($165) ($3,084) ($5,407) ($5,369) 1.7 $2,285 10.3 $4,247 CZ16 PG&E 6.0 -4,314 404 1.5 ($545) ($6,642) ($3,257) ($2,954) 0.4 ($3,687) >1 $3,139 301
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 17. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.0 -1,832 114 0.4 ($346) ($6,791) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($3,834) 1.2 $489 CZ02 PGE 0.4 -1,380 75 0.2 ($353) ($7,539) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,582) 1.2 $403 CZ03 PGE 0.0 -1,665 123 0.5 ($384) ($7,667) ($2,457) ($2,106) 0.3 ($5,560) 2.0 $888 CZ04 PGE 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 ($351) ($6,970) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,013) 15.9 $2,395 CZ04 CPAU 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 $42 $3,285 ($3,260) ($2,957) >1 $6,242 15.9 $2,395 CZ05 PGE 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($268) ($5,966) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,009) 1.2 $460 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($226) ($4,656) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.6 ($1,699) 1.2 $460 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.2 -909 38 0.1 ($215) ($4,435) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.7 ($1,478) 1.4 $666 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 -879 37 0.1 ($384) ($9,528) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.3 ($6,571) 1.4 $771 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -864 36 0.1 ($212) ($4,397) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.7 ($1,489) 1.5 $876 CZ09 SCE 0.6 -901 38 0.1 ($190) ($3,861) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($953) 1.6 $896 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($184) ($3,663) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($755) 1.7 $1,055 CZ10 SDGE 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($404) ($9,951) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,043) 1.7 $1,055 CZ11 PGE 0.2 -1,322 71 0.2 ($297) ($6,281) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,324) 1.5 $843 CZ12 PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($298) ($6,354) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,397) 1.4 $716 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($75) ($1,053) ($3,260) ($2,957) 2.8 $1,904 1.4 $716 CZ13 PGE 0.1 -1,594 112 0.4 ($296) ($5,748) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($2,791) 11.3 $2,330 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($282) ($5,107) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.6 ($2,199) 12.6 $2,313 CZ14 SDGE 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($455) ($10,294) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,386) 12.6 $2,313 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.3 -783 36 0.1 ($146) ($2,872) ($3,216) ($2,908) 1.0 $35 2.3 $1,408 CZ16 PG&E 0.1 -1,807 122 0.4 ($348) ($6,698) ($2,640) ($2,261) 0.3 ($4,437) 1.0 $22 302
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
4.3 All-Electric Plus Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results Table 18 and Table 19 compare cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. In all cases the packages are cost effective based on TDV. On-Bill cost effectiveness generally improves with the addition of efficiency measures, improves significantly with an upsized PV system, and then declines again once batteries are added.
Table 18. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All Electric Efficiency All Electric Efficiency + NEEA All Electric Efficiency + PV All Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.7 ($1,256) >1 $8,122 4.0 $2,407 >1 $10,497 2.8 $22,471 1.9 $9,517 1.5 $11,220 1.4 $9,062 CZ02 PGE 0.6 ($1,957) >1 $7,579 1.1 $236 >1 $8,957 3.5 $16,261 2.9 $10,678 1.3 $4,955 1.9 $13,716 CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($3,826) >1 $4,674 0.6 ($1,851) >1 $6,023 3.5 $10,584 2.9 $7,145 0.96 ($685) 1.6 $9,058 CZ04 PGE 0.5 ($3,085) >1 $5,328 0.7 ($1,599) >1 $6,220 3.7 $9,560 3.7 $8,348 0.9 ($1,607) 1.8 $10,519 CZ04 CPAU >1 $12,524 >1 $9,616 >1 $13,328 >1 $10,508 >1 $13,692 >1 $12,636 1.4 $3,815 2.6 $14,807 CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($2,601) 12.6 $3,140 1.1 $363 >1 $5,239 4.9 $11,566 3.3 $6,058 1.0 $583 1.6 $7,976 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($2,698) 12.6 $3,140 1.1 $266 >1 $5,239 4.8 $11,469 3.3 $6,058 1.0 $486 1.6 $7,976 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($500) 21.3 $2,785 1.2 $554 >1 $3,582 5.3 $6,705 4.9 $5,331 0.96 ($530) 1.6 $7,663 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 ($5,221) 6.1 $2,929 0.5 ($3,795) >1 $3,706 13.2 $11,129 7.2 $4,840 0.97 ($355) 1.5 $6,158 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.0 $129 8.8 $3,006 1.4 $1,028 >1 $3,618 10.2 $6,404 10.7 $5,797 0.99 ($82) 1.8 $8,401 CZ09 SCE 0.996 ($14) 102.1 $3,357 1.3 $959 >1 $4,073 8.5 $7,052 8.7 $6,238 1.1 $626 1.9 $10,710 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($403) >1 $3,475 1.2 $668 >1 $4,260 5.5 $7,389 5.5 $6,432 1.1 $1,597 1.7 $7,804 CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($9,171) >1 $3,475 0.3 ($7,637) >1 $4,260 8.4 $12,063 5.5 $6,432 1.0 $514 1.7 $7,804 CZ11 PGE 1.1 $356 >1 $6,751 2.9 $1,988 >1 $7,863 3.9 $15,570 3.1 $9,509 1.3 $4,736 1.8 $12,035 CZ12 PGE 0.8 ($923) >1 $5,727 1.4 $840 >1 $6,925 3.8 $14,386 2.9 $8,684 1.2 $3,221 1.8 $11,629 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $8,792 >1 $5,727 >1 $9,445 >1 $6,925 3.2 $11,636 2.9 $8,684 1.1 $1,351 1.8 $11,629 CZ13 PGE 1.0 ($134) >1 $6,391 1.7 $1,204 >1 $7,315 4.5 $12,333 3.9 $8,944 1.1 $1,808 1.9 $12,609 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.96 ($226) >1 $6,168 2.6 $1,429 >1 $7,337 3.5 $11,205 3.8 $10,769 1.4 $6,530 1.9 $13,315 CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($12,027) >1 $6,181 0.2 ($8,562) >1 $7,350 4.2 $14,424 3.8 $10,782 1.2 $2,882 1.9 $13,328 CZ15 SCE/SCG 3.2 $2,088 >1 $4,185 10.7 $2,739 >1 $4,639 >1 $5,871 >1 $5,572 1.2 $2,471 1.7 $7,367 CZ16 PG&E 0.3 ($2,843) >1 $3,675 0.5 ($1,291) >1 $4,277 3.1 $22,017 1.9 $8,576 1.5 $10,722 1.6 $11,922 303
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 19. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All Electric Efficiency Only All Electric Efficiency + NEEA All Electric Efficiency + PV All Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.3 ($2,010) >1 $1,155 2.5 $610 >1 $3,162 2.2 $16,861 1.2 $2,976 1.2 $5,286 1.0 $168 CZ02 PGE 0.2 ($4,208) 3.3 $481 0.3 ($2,696) >1 $1,403 2.5 $15,218 1.5 $4,707 1.2 $3,791 1.3 $6,522 CZ03 PGE 0.1 ($6,115) 14.1 $325 0.1 ($4,828) >1 $1,206 2.3 $12,653 1.5 $4,249 1.1 $1,285 1.2 $4,720 CZ04 PGE 0.0 ($5,883) 20.7 $992 0.0 ($4,940) 34.2 $1,672 2.3 $13,081 1.7 $6,179 1.1 $1,797 1.4 $6,977 CZ04 CPAU >1 $3,951 20.7 $992 >1 $4,509 34.2 $1,672 1.7 $6,738 1.7 $6,179 0.8 ($4,973) 1.4 $6,977 CZ05 PGE 0.3 ($4,141) 0.6 ($698) 0.3 ($2,912) 1.3 $222 2.9 $15,238 1.5 $3,921 1.2 $3,903 1.2 $3,473 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.3 ($2,831) 0.6 ($698) 0.5 ($1,602) 1.3 $222 3.1 $16,548 1.5 $3,921 1.3 $5,212 1.2 $3,473 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,272) 0.996 ($5) 0.5 ($1,672) 1.7 $444 2.6 $11,941 1.8 $5,275 1.1 $2,134 1.3 $5,984 CZ07 SDGE 0.2 ($6,766) 1.0 $4 0.2 ($5,978) 1.7 $435 3.8 $22,595 1.6 $4,364 1.6 $11,005 1.2 $3,943 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,380) 0.98 ($23) 0.4 ($1,832) 1.4 $334 2.5 $12,446 1.9 $6,579 1.2 $2,991 1.4 $7,829 CZ09 SCE 0.4 ($1,858) 1.1 $53 0.5 ($1,255) 1.5 $367 2.6 $12,699 1.9 $6,334 1.2 $3,232 1.5 $9,406 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.5 ($1,556) 1.4 $280 0.6 ($800) 4.9 $828 2.7 $3,430 2.1 $2,156 0.6 ($5,734) 1.2 $2,118 CZ10 SDGE 0.2 ($7,442) 1.4 $280 0.2 ($6,395) 4.9 $828 3.1 $4,264 2.1 $2,156 0.5 ($7,385) 1.2 $2,118 CZ11 PGE 0.3 ($2,749) >1 $1,115 0.4 ($1,634) >1 $1,901 2.1 $3,811 1.8 $2,577 0.5 ($7,415) 1.3 $4,046 CZ12 PGE 0.2 ($3,692) 3.1 $430 0.3 ($2,597) >1 $1,320 2.6 $16,095 1.6 $5,047 1.2 $4,800 1.3 $6,745 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 3.1 $645 3.1 $430 >1 $1,076 >1 $1,320 1.4 $4,399 1.6 $5,047 0.7 ($6,294) 1.3 $6,745 CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($3,425) 17.9 $1,657 0.0 ($2,455) 25.7 $2,419 1.7 $2,505 1.9 $3,158 0.4 ($8,653) 1.4 $5,829 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($3,402) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($2,270) 6.0 $2,097 2.4 $13,741 2.0 $8,807 1.2 $5,041 1.5 $10,045 CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($7,519) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($5,884) 6.0 $2,097 3.8 $28,555 2.0 $8,807 1.8 $16,912 1.5 $10,045 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.0 ($47) >1 $1,212 1.3 $204 >1 $1,264 3.5 $3,155 2.9 $2,387 0.6 ($5,030) 1.3 $3,480 CZ16 PG&E 0.3 ($3,414) 9.9 $748 0.3 ($2,658) >1 $1,580 2.8 $19,246 1.7 $6,200 1.4 $7,856 1.4 $7,321 304
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
4.4 Mixed Fuel Results
Table 20 and Table 21 show results for the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package compared to the 2022 baseline for Single Family and ADU, respectively. This package is cost-effective based on TDV everywhere for the single family prototype. It’s TDV cost-effective in most cases for the ADU with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 10. The package is cost-effective On-Bill for the single family home only in Climate Zone 1. For the ADU the package is costeffective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12 in PG&E territory, 14, and 16. For the climate zones where there is no PV requirement in the base package, the addition of a new PV system substantially reduced utility costs and the high cost-effectiveness of the PV measure helped to offset the high cost of the battery system.
Table 20. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 30.0 1,577 118 1.1 $710 $18,829 $9,845 $17,192 1.1 $1,636 1.4 $5,664 CZ02 PGE 13.5 1,264 35 0.7 $419 $10,499 $8,951 $15,899 0.7 ($5,400) 1.4 $6,396 CZ03 PGE 11.2 1,073 7 0.6 $295 $7,072 $7,718 $14,333 0.5 ($7,261) 1.2 $2,956 CZ04 PGE 8.4 912 6 0.5 $244 $5,862 $8,056 $14,763 0.4 ($8,902) 1.2 $3,219 CZ04 CPAU 8.4 912 6 0.5 $159 $3,839 $8,056 $14,763 0.3 ($10,925) 1.2 $3,219 CZ05 PGE 16.8 1,186 43 0.8 $416 $10,571 $8,517 $15,361 0.7 ($4,790) 1.3 $4,171 CZ05 PGE/SCG 16.8 1,186 43 0.8 $394 $9,850 $8,517 $15,361 0.6 ($5,512) 1.3 $4,171 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9.2 894 6 0.5 $370 $8,721 $8,097 $14,780 0.6 ($6,059) 1.2 $3,134 CZ07 SDGE 8.3 841 4 0.5 $358 $9,129 $8,029 $14,709 0.6 ($5,579) 1.1 $1,612 CZ08 SCE/SCG 9.5 783 2 0.5 $381 $8,924 $7,494 $14,074 0.6 ($5,150) 1.3 $3,991 CZ09 SCE 8.6 839 3 0.5 $390 $9,148 $7,509 $14,094 0.6 ($4,946) 1.5 $5,914 CZ10 SCE/SCG 8.3 854 2 0.5 $416 $9,733 $7,139 $13,724 0.7 ($3,990) 1.2 $2,863 CZ10 SDGE 8.3 854 2 0.5 $314 $7,983 $7,139 $13,724 0.6 ($5,741) 1.2 $2,863 CZ11 PGE 11.0 1,034 27 0.7 $398 $9,903 $8,478 $15,286 0.6 ($5,383) 1.4 $5,505 CZ12 PGE 11.0 1,107 23 0.6 $364 $9,006 $8,733 $15,626 0.6 ($6,620) 1.4 $5,074 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.0 1,107 23 0.6 $252 $6,354 $8,733 $15,626 0.4 ($9,272) 1.4 $5,074 CZ13 PGE 9.6 1,168 5 0.6 $407 $9,736 $8,713 $15,536 0.6 ($5,801) 1.4 $5,562 CZ14 SCE/SCG 11.2 1,737 6 0.7 $663 $15,570 $9,664 $16,695 0.9 ($1,125) 1.4 $5,435 CZ14 SDGE 11.2 1,737 6 0.7 $403 $10,291 $9,664 $16,695 0.6 ($6,404) 1.4 $5,435 CZ15 SCE/SCG 8.5 532 2 0.5 $486 $11,372 $7,170 $13,536 0.8 ($2,164) 1.3 $3,451 CZ16 PG&E 22.6 1,235 115 1.2 $571 $15,439 $10,780 $18,007 0.9 ($2,568) 1.5 $8,024 305
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
Table 21. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 24.3 3,642 79 0.8 $1,211 $29,946 $15,209 $25,617 1.2 $4,329 0.9 ($1,365) CZ02 PGE 14.5 3,451 40 0.6 $1,028 $25,019 $12,944 $22,587 1.1 $2,431 1.2 $4,938 CZ03 PGE 12.1 2,750 2 0.4 $715 $16,948 $11,077 $19,325 0.9 ($2,377) 1.1 $1,349 CZ04 PGE 12.2 2,860 2 0.4 $759 $17,992 $11,523 $19,837 0.9 ($1,845) 1.1 $2,417 CZ04 CPAU 12.2 2,860 2 0.4 $316 $7,490 $11,523 $19,837 0.4 ($12,347) 1.1 $2,417 CZ05 PGE 7.8 3,293 14 0.5 $959 $22,944 $11,409 $20,621 1.1 $2,324 1.1 $1,409 CZ05 PGE/SCG 7.8 3,293 14 0.5 $952 $22,711 $11,409 $20,621 1.1 $2,090 1.1 $1,409 CZ06 SCE/SCG 9.8 3,292 3 0.5 $815 $19,093 $11,028 $20,110 0.9 ($1,017) 1.2 $3,650 CZ07 SDGE 9.1 3,306 1 0.5 $1,172 $29,683 $11,381 $20,583 1.4 $9,100 1.1 $1,603 CZ08 SCE/SCG 10.1 3,527 1 0.5 $887 $20,746 $11,594 $20,867 0.99 ($121) 1.3 $4,990 CZ09 SCE 8.9 3,512 3 0.5 $883 $20,676 $11,361 $20,556 1.0 $120 1.4 $6,682 CZ10 SCE/SCG 9.0 729 7 0.4 $244 $5,806 $7,005 $14,720 0.4 ($8,914) 0.96 ($473) CZ10 SDGE 9.0 729 7 0.4 $206 $5,312 $7,005 $14,720 0.4 ($9,408) 0.96 ($473) CZ11 PGE 13.1 870 36 0.5 $277 $7,182 $8,022 $15,995 0.4 ($8,813) 1.1 $2,192 CZ12 PGE 12.6 3,589 33 0.6 $1,063 $25,738 $12,806 $22,393 1.1 $3,345 1.2 $4,771 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 12.6 3,589 33 0.6 $591 $14,577 $12,806 $22,393 0.7 ($7,816) 1.2 $4,771 CZ13 PGE 12.8 359 1 0.4 $77 $1,846 $7,009 $13,789 0.1 ($11,943) 1.2 $2,069 CZ14 SCE/SCG 14.2 3,624 2 0.5 $909 $21,262 $12,054 $20,466 1.0 $795 1.2 $4,545 CZ14 SDGE 14.2 3,624 2 0.5 $1,292 $32,729 $12,054 $20,466 1.6 $12,263 1.2 $4,545 CZ15 SCE/SCG 11.2 546 0 0.4 $252 $5,891 $6,588 $14,077 0.4 ($8,186) 1.1 $964 CZ16 PG&E 16.2 3,652 87 0.8 $1,178 $29,323 $13,234 $23,007 1.3 $6,316 1.2 $4,937 306
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 22 and Table 23 compare cost-effectiveness results across all the mixed fuel packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. The single family Efficiency Only package and Efficiency + PV package are cost effective based on On-Bill and TDV under most scenarios. The trends are similar for the ADU except the Efficiency Only package is not cost effective in many climate zones.
Table 22. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 2.8 $3,619 2.7 $3,160 2.4 $8,979 1.6 $3,526 1.1 $1,636 1.4 $5,664 CZ02 PGE 2.0 $1,940 2.5 $2,664 2.2 $5,608 1.8 $3,565 0.7 ($5,400) 1.4 $6,396 CZ03 PGE 1.1 $226 0.97 ($56) 1.6 $2,688 1.2 $602 0.5 ($7,261) 1.2 $2,956 CZ04 PGE 0.8 ($379) 1.1 $107 1.4 $1,493 1.2 $862 0.4 ($8,902) 1.2 $3,219 CZ04 CPAU 0.5 ($1,159) 1.1 $107 0.8 ($910) 1.2 $862 0.3 ($10,925) 1.2 $3,219 CZ05 PGE 1.4 $516 1.3 $300 2.1 $4,449 1.4 $1,359 0.7 ($4,790) 1.3 $4,171 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.2 $303 1.3 $300 2.1 $4,235 1.4 $1,359 0.6 ($5,512) 1.3 $4,171 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($696) 0.9 ($180) 1.5 $1,950 1.2 $757 0.6 ($6,059) 1.2 $3,134 CZ07 SDGE 1.3 $395 0.97 ($36) 2.9 $5,981 1.3 $697 0.6 ($5,579) 1.1 $1,612 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.8 ($238) 1.1 $103 1.7 $2,013 1.4 $1,099 0.6 ($5,150) 1.3 $3,991 CZ09 SCE 0.9 ($148) 1.2 $250 1.8 $2,266 1.5 $1,229 0.6 ($4,946) 1.5 $5,914 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 $5 1.2 $263 1.7 $2,323 1.4 $1,140 0.7 ($3,990) 1.2 $2,863 CZ10 SDGE 1.6 $960 1.2 $263 2.6 $5,010 1.4 $1,140 0.6 ($5,741) 1.2 $2,863 CZ11 PGE 2.0 $2,242 2.1 $2,187 2.2 $5,142 1.8 $2,824 0.6 ($5,383) 1.4 $5,505 CZ12 PGE 1.4 $949 1.6 $1,207 1.9 $4,150 1.5 $2,039 0.6 ($6,620) 1.4 $5,074 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 1.1 $131 1.6 $1,207 1.2 $933 1.5 $2,039 0.4 ($9,272) 1.4 $5,074 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,236 1.5 $1,160 2.0 $4,442 1.5 $1,821 0.6 ($5,801) 1.4 $5,562 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $981 1.5 $1,290 1.9 $4,917 1.6 $2,877 0.9 ($1,125) 1.4 $5,435 CZ14 SDGE 2.3 $4,109 1.5 $1,290 1.9 $4,753 1.6 $2,877 0.6 ($6,404) 1.4 $5,435 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $1,534 1.7 $1,444 1.7 $1,653 1.7 $1,465 0.8 ($2,164) 1.3 $3,451 CZ16 PG&E 1.8 $3,124 2.2 $4,123 2.2 $8,324 1.9 $5,419 0.9 ($2,568) 1.5 $8,024 307
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 23. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.6 $1,228 1.3 $616 2.1 $15,985 1.2 $2,051 1.2 $4,329 0.9 ($1,365) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($634) 1.1 $148 2.3 $13,934 1.4 $3,499 1.1 $2,431 1.2 $4,938 CZ03 PGE 0.6 ($666) 0.7 ($475) 2.2 $9,045 1.3 $1,856 0.9 ($2,377) 1.1 $1,349 CZ04 PGE 0.5 ($941) 0.7 ($515) 2.1 $9,487 1.4 $2,679 0.9 ($1,845) 1.1 $2,417 CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($1,507) 0.7 ($515) 0.99 ($115) 1.4 $2,679 0.4 ($12,347) 1.1 $2,417 CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($456) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,761 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,324 1.1 $1,409 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.5 ($689) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,528 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,090 1.1 $1,409 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($976) 0.6 ($638) 2.1 $9,282 1.5 $3,477 0.9 ($1,017) 1.2 $3,650 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 ($830) 0.5 ($717) 3.3 $20,716 1.3 $2,676 1.4 $9,100 1.1 $1,603 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($1,069) 0.4 ($819) 2.1 $10,035 1.5 $4,415 0.99 ($121) 1.3 $4,990 CZ09 SCE 0.3 ($1,024) 0.5 ($780) 2.1 $10,242 1.5 $4,195 1.0 $120 1.4 $6,682 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($1,004) 0.5 ($750) 1.4 $1,118 1.0 $71 0.4 ($8,914) 0.96 ($473) CZ10 SDGE 1.5 $721 0.5 ($750) 1.7 $2,230 1.0 $71 0.4 ($9,408) 0.96 ($473) CZ11 PGE 1.0 ($11) 1.2 $316 1.6 $2,473 1.3 $1,064 0.4 ($8,813) 1.1 $2,192 CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($761) 0.9 ($224) 2.4 $14,704 1.4 $3,458 1.1 $3,345 1.2 $4,771 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 1.0 ($70) 0.9 ($224) 1.3 $2,975 1.4 $3,458 0.7 ($7,816) 1.2 $4,771 CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($850) 1.1 $206 0.6 ($807) 1.1 $240 0.1 ($11,943) 1.2 $2,069 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.0 $20 1.0 $107 2.2 $10,862 1.6 $4,977 1.0 $795 1.2 $4,545 CZ14 SDGE 1.5 $1,310 1.0 $107 3.7 $23,840 1.6 $4,977 1.6 $12,263 1.2 $4,545 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.2 $411 1.1 $205 1.4 $916 1.2 $388 0.4 ($8,186) 1.1 $964 CZ16 PG&E 0.7 ($456) 1.0 $52 2.6 $17,779 1.4 $4,505 1.3 $6,316 1.2 $4,937
4.5 CARE Rate Comparison
Table 24 and Table 25 present a comparison of On-Bill cost-effectiveness results for CARE tariffs relative to standard tariffs. The all-electric code minimum package for the single family and ADU prototypes is shown in Table 24. Applying the CARE rates lowers both electric and gas utility bills for the consumer and the net impact is lower overall bills for an all-electric home and improved cost-effectiveness relative to the standard tariffs. The opposite trend occurs for the mixed fuel packages shown in Table 25 where the CARE rate lowers utility cost savings and the benefit-to-cost ratios decline. 308
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 24. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) 0.8 ($997) 0.4 ($3,834) 0.7 ($1,505) CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) 0.8 ($1,281) 0.4 ($4,582) 0.6 ($2,146) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 0.8 ($924) 0.3 ($5,560) 0.4 ($2,733) CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) 0.96 ($215) 0.4 ($4,013) 0.7 ($1,465) CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $9,931 >1 $6,242 >1 $2,957
CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 0.9 ($647) 0.5 ($3,009) 0.7 ($1,158) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 1.1 $444 0.6 ($1,699) 1.1 $243 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 1.6 $1,984 0.7 ($1,478) 0.97 ($98) CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 0.8 ($1,636) 0.3 ($6,571) 0.5 ($3,441) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 1.7 $2,073 0.7 ($1,489) 0.95 ($139) CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 1.6 $2,001 0.8 ($953) 1.1 $261
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 1.5 $1,703 0.8 ($755) 1.2 $433
CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 0.5 ($4,330) 0.3 ($7,043) 0.4 ($3,645) CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) 1.1 $568 0.5 ($3,324) 0.7 ($1,344) CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) 1.1 $457 0.5 ($3,397) 0.7 ($1,395) CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $12,640 2.8 $1,904 >1 $4,281 CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) 1.2 $783 0.5 ($2,791) 0.7 ($991)
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) 1.1 $505 0.6 ($2,199) 0.9 ($222) CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) 0.4 ($7,861) 0.3 ($7,386) 0.5 ($3,249) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 2.6 $3,330 1.0 $35 1.5 $927
CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) 0.8 ($825) 0.3 ($4,437) 0.5 ($2,157) 309
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 25. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency+ PV+ Battery Package Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.1 $1,636 0.7 ($4,574) 1.2 $4,329 0.7 ($6,549) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($5,400) 0.4 ($8,958) 1.1 $2,431 0.7 ($6,728) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($7,261) 0.3 ($9,524) 0.9 ($2,377) 0.6 ($8,471) CZ04 PGE 0.4 ($8,902) 0.3 ($10,706) 0.9 ($1,845) 0.6 ($8,329) CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($10,925) 0.0 ($14,763) 0.4 ($12,347) 0.0 ($19,837) CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($4,790) 0.5 ($8,377) 1.1 $2,324 0.7 ($6,030) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($5,512) 0.4 ($8,540) 1.1 $2,090 0.7 ($6,067) CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($6,059) 0.3 ($9,638) 0.9 ($1,017) 0.6 ($8,203) CZ07 SDGE 0.6 ($5,579) 0.5 ($7,676) 1.4 $9,100 0.96 ($836) CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($5,150) 0.4 ($8,775) 0.99 ($121) 0.6 ($7,852) CZ09 SCE 0.6 ($4,946) 0.4 ($8,642) 1.0 $120 0.6 ($7,580) CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($3,990) 0.4 ($7,862) 0.4 ($8,914) 0.2 ($11,587) CZ10 SDGE 0.6 ($5,741) 0.5 ($7,396) 0.4 ($9,408) 0.3 ($10,388) CZ11 PGE 0.6 ($5,383) 0.4 ($8,671) 0.4 ($8,813) 0.3 ($11,145) CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($6,620) 0.4 ($9,617) 1.1 $3,345 0.7 ($6,094) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.4 ($9,272) 0.1 ($14,636) 0.7 ($7,816) 0.1 ($20,989) CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($5,801) 0.4 ($9,016) 0.1 ($11,943) 0.1 ($12,502) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($1,125) 0.6 ($6,889) 1.0 $795 0.7 ($7,099) CZ14 SDGE 0.6 ($6,404) 0.5 ($8,940) 1.6 $12,263 1.1 $1,271 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.8 ($2,164) 0.5 ($6,384) 0.4 ($8,186) 0.2 ($10,846) CZ16 PG&E 0.9 ($2,568) 0.6 ($7,747) 1.3 $6,316 0.8 ($4,356)
4.6 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity
Table 26 compares cost effectiveness results for the three natural gas service line extension cost scenarios presented in Table 8. The average cost scenario reflects the costs applied in the results presented in the prior sections (Table 16). The gas infrastructure cost savings are lower for the new subdivision case and higher for the infill development case. For the latter, the all-electric home is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones except Climate Zones 1, 2, 10 in SDG&E territory, and 14 in SDG&E territory. Table 27 presents the impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness if the subsidies currently allowed under the utility gas main extension rules were removed per a recent CPUC Proposed Decision (see discussion in Section 3.3.2). If the subsidies were removed On-Bill cost-effectiveness improves but only enough to change the outcome in one case, Climate Zones 10 in SoCalGas territory. 310
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 26. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs:
All-Electric Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Average New Subdivision Infill Development
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) >1 $5,566 0.4 ($6,838) >1 $4,476 0.9 ($718) >1 $9,926 CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) >1 $5,390 0.4 ($6,050) >1 $4,300 1.0 $70 >1 $9,750 CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 63.5 $4,414 0.4 ($6,062) 48.1 $3,324 1.0 $57 125.3 $8,774 CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) >1 $4,929 0.4 ($4,865) >1 $3,839 1.1 $1,255 >1 $9,289 CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 2.5 $2,776 0.4 ($4,920) 1.9 $1,686 1.1 $1,200 4.9 $7,136 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 2.5 $2,776 0.4 ($5,017) 1.9 $1,686 1.1 $1,103 4.9 $7,136 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 3.2 $3,142 0.8 ($1,109) 2.4 $2,052 2.0 $5,011 6.2 $7,502 CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 3.1 $3,081 0.4 ($6,894) 2.3 $1,991 0.9 ($774) 6.0 $7,441 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 2.8 $2,951 0.8 ($853) 2.1 $1,861 2.1 $5,266 5.5 $7,311 CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 3.3 $3,179 0.8 ($1,098) 2.5 $2,089 2.0 $5,022 6.4 $7,539 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 3.5 $3,285 0.7 ($1,710) 2.7 $2,195 1.8 $4,410 6.9 $7,645 CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 3.5 $3,285 0.3 ($11,463) 2.7 $2,195 0.7 ($5,344) 6.9 $7,645 CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) >1 $5,135 0.6 ($3,096) >1 $4,045 1.4 $3,024 >1 $9,495 CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) >1 $5,002 0.6 ($3,203) >1 $3,912 1.4 $2,917 >1 $9,362 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $5,002 >1 $8,537 >1 $3,912 >1 $14,656 >1 $9,362 CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) >1 $4,904 0.5 ($3,245) >1 $3,814 1.4 $2,875 >1 $9,264 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) >1 $4,493 0.5 ($3,699) >1 $3,403 1.3 $2,421 >1 $8,853 CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) >1 $4,506 0.2 ($17,443) >1 $3,416 0.5 ($11,323) >1 $8,866 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 10.3 $4,247 1.3 $1,061 7.9 $3,157 3.3 $7,181 19.8 $8,607 CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) >1 $3,139 0.3 ($4,911) >1 $2,049 1.2 $1,208 >1 $7,499 311
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 27. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness On-Bill Impact of CPUC Proposed Decision on Gas Line Extension Allowances:
All-Electric Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
No Allowances
With Allowance No Allowances
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) 0.6 ($4,469)
CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) 0.6 ($3,681)
CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 0.6 ($3,693)
CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) 0.7 ($2,495)
CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $13,205
CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 0.7 ($2,551)
CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 0.7 ($2,647)
CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 1.2 $1,260
CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 0.6 ($4,524)
CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 1.3 $1,516
CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 1.2 $1,271
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 1.1 $660
CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 0.4 ($9,094)
CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) 0.9 ($726)
CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) 0.9 ($834)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $10,906
CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) 0.9 ($875)
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) 0.8 ($1,329)
CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) 0.3 ($15,088)
CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 2.1 $3,430
CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) 0.6 ($2,542)
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Table 28 and Table 29 present greenhouse gas reductions for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. Savings represent average annual savings over the 30-year lifetime of the analysis. Greenhouse gas reductions are greatest for the all-electric Efficiency + PV + Battery package in all cases. For the single family homes, the all-electric code minimum case reduces greenhouse gas emissions as much or greater than the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package in Climate Zones 1 through 4, 11, 12, 13, and 16. The trend differs for the ADU where the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package results in more greenhouse gas savings than the all-electric code minimum in all climate zones except Climate Zones 3, 4, and 13. 312
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 28: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) Climate
Zone
Single Family All-Electric Single Family Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.4 0.5 1.1
CZ02 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.7
CZ03 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ04 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ05 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.8
CZ06 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ07 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ08 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ09 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ10 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ11 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ12 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.6
CZ13 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ14 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ16 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 0.7 0.8 1.2
313
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 29 ADU Greenhouse Gas Savings (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
ADU All-Electric ADU Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.8
CZ02 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6
CZ03 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ07 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ10 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5
CZ12 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6
CZ13 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ14 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.5
CZ15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4
CZ16 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8
314
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team identified packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.
Table 30 (all-electric) and Table 31 (mixed fuel) summarize results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency EDR2 compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies. All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
Following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis. • All-electric packages have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost effective based on TDV in all cases. In many cases all-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in utility costs and is not cost-effective On-Bill. Some exceptions include the SMUD and CPAU territories where lower electricity rates relative to gas rates result in lower overall utility bills. • The 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage allelectric construction, providing an incentive that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off. This compliance benefit for all-electric homes highlights a unique opportunity for jurisdictions to incorporate efficiency into all-electric reach codes. Efficiency and electrification have symbiotic benefits and are both critical for decarbonization of buildings. As demand on the electric grid is increased through electrification, efficiency can reduce the negative impacts of additional electricity demand on the grid, reducing the need for increased generation and storage capacity, as well as the need to upgrade upstream transmission and distribution equipment. The Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions adopting an all-electric reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR2 margins consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 30. • The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype and code compliance can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units. As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend an additional efficiency requirement for all-electric ADU ordinances. • Electrification combined with increased PV capacity results in utility cost savings and was found to be On-Bill cost effective in all cases. These results were based on today’s net energy metering rules and do not account for future changes to utility agreements, which are expected to decrease the value of PV to the consumer. • For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings the mixed fuel efficiency, PV, and battery package was found to be cost effective based on TDV in all cases. Cost effectiveness was marginal because of the high cost of the battery system. EDR2 margins ranged from 7 to 30 for the costeffective packages as is shown in Table 31. • Applying the CARE rates has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness. 315
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, jurisdictions that only want to require all-electric construction may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring review and approval by the BSC but not the Energy Commission. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission.
Table 30. Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Code Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/B Code Min EE EE+PV EE+PV/B
CZ01 PGE 8.3 18.8 18.8 29.6 0.0 15.1 15.1 24.6
CZ02 PGE 5.7 13.5 13.5 19.1 0.4 9.5 9.5 14.6
CZ03 PGE 4.7 10.5 10.5 15.8 0.0 5.7 5.7 10.5
CZ04 PGE 3.7 8.6 8.6 13.5 0.2 6.3 6.3 10.8
CZ04 CPAU 3.7 8.6 8.6 13.5 0.2 6.3 6.3 10.8
CZ05 PGE 1.1 6.1 6.1 14.3 0.4 2.4 2.4 7.9
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 6.1 6.1 14.3 0.4 2.4 2.4 7.9
CZ06 SCE/SCG 2.5 7.8 7.8 11.6 0.2 6.2 6.2 9.8
CZ07 SDGE 2.3 7.0 7.0 9.9 0.4 6.3 6.3 9.1
CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 4.0 4.0 10.4 0.6 3.6 3.6 10.0
CZ09 SCE 1.2 4.6 4.6 9.9 0.6 3.7 3.7 8.8
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.1 4.6 4.6 10.1 0.4 3.8 3.8 9.1
CZ10 SDGE 1.1 4.6 4.6 10.1 0.4 3.8 3.8 9.1
CZ11 PGE 3.5 8.4 8.4 14.1 0.2 7.7 7.7 13.2
CZ12 PGE 4.0 8.5 8.5 14.7 0.3 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.0 8.5 8.5 14.7 0.3 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ13 PGE 2.1 6.8 6.8 12.0 0.1 6.8 6.8 11.9
CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.6 7.9 7.9 13.2 0.4 7.3 7.3 12.4
CZ14 SDGE 1.6 7.9 7.9 13.2 0.4 7.3 7.3 12.4
CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.6 4.2 4.2 8.6 1.3 6.5 6.5 11.1
CZ16 PG&E 6.0 9.7 9.7 18.1 0.1 8.8 8.8 16.4
316
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 31. Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
EE EE+PV EE+PV/B EE EE+PV EE+PV/B
CZ01 PGE 12.0 12.0 30.0 14.9 14.9 24.3
CZ02 PGE 8.8 8.8 13.5 9.4 9.4 14.5
CZ03 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.2 6.3 6.3 12.1
CZ04 PGE 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ04 CPAU 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ05 PGE 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ05 PGE/SCG 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ06 SCE/SCG 6.1 6.1 9.2 6.1 6.1 9.8
CZ07 SDGE 5.5 5.5 8.3 6.3 6.3 9.1
CZ08 SCE/SCG 3.5 3.5 9.5 3.6 3.6 10.1
CZ09 SCE 3.6 3.6 8.6 3.7 3.7 8.9
CZ10 SCE/SCG 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ10 SDGE 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ11 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.0 7.5 7.5 13.1
CZ12 PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ13 PGE 4.7 4.7 9.6 7.2 7.2 12.8
CZ14 SCE/SCG 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ14 SDGE 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ15 SCE/SCG 4.3 4.3 8.5 6.6 6.6 11.2
CZ16 PG&E 14.9 14.9 22.6 8.7 8.7 16.2
317
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 6 References
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Forrester, S. (2021, October). Tracking the Sun. Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2021 Edition. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun
California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2018). 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2018/2019-alternativecalculation-method-approval-manual-2019-building-energy California Energy Commission. (2021a). Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to 2022 Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6.
Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21- BSTD-01
California Energy Commission. (2022, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-single-family-residentialalternative-calculation-method-reference-manual California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 California Public Utilities Commission. (2022). Proposed Decision of Commissioner Rechtschaffen: PHASE III DECISION
ELIMINATING GAS LINE EXTENSION ALLOWANCES, TEN-YEAR REFUNDABLE PAYMENT OPTION, AND FIFTY PERCENT DISCOUNT PAYMENT OPTION UNDER GAS LINE EXTENSION RULES.
E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197
Energy & Environmental Economics. (2019). Residential Building Electrification in California. Retrieved from https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Energy + Environmental Economics. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards: 2022 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) and Source Energy Metric Data Sources and Inputs.
E-Source companies. (2020). Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric.
Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/behind-meter-battery-market-study?dl=1582149166 Horii, B., Cutter, E., Kapur, N., Arent, J., & Conotyannis, D. (2014). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Proctor, J., Wilcox, B., & Chitwood, R. (2018). Central Valley Research Homes Project. California Energy Commission.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342135376_Central_Valley_Research_Homes_Project_-- _Final_CEC_Report 318
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Statewide CASE Team. (2017). Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2019 California Energy Code. Retrieved from http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2018). Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savingspotential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. (2020a). Nonresidential High Performance Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Energy Solutions. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASEReport.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020b). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-andAlterations_Final_-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2019, August). 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021a). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Batteries in Single Family Homes. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/930/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%20Battery%20Costeff%20Report.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021b). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Prepared by TRC. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/760/file_path/fieldList/2019%20New%20Detached%20ADUs%20Co st-effectiveness%20Report.pdf
TRC, P. E. (2021). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units.
UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. (2021). Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners.
319
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 7 Appendices
7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 4. The map in Figure 4 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 4. Map of California climate zones.
320
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the CA IOU and POU rate tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package. The California Climate Credit was applied for both electricity and natural gas service for the IOUs using the 2022 credits shows below. 15 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts.
7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 32 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.0362 / kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.
15 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/californiaclimate-credit 321 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 32: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 33. The corresponding CARE rates are shown in Table 34.
Table 33: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.76338 $1.33589 $1.79545 $2.09927 $2.55883
Feb 2022 $0.73412 $1.33589 $1.79545 $2.07001 $2.52957
Mar 2022 $0.61773 $1.33589 $1.79545 $1.95362 $2.41318
Apr 2021 $0.22304 $1.19868 $1.68034 $1.42172 $1.90338
May 2021 $0.21063 $1.19868 $1.68034 $1.40931 $1.89097
June 2021 $0.21778 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.41797 $1.90021
July 2021 $0.19109 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.39128 $1.87352
Aug 2021 $0.22551 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.4257 $1.90794
Sept 2021 $0.44379 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.64398 $2.12622
Oct 2021 $0.68120 $1.20019 $1.68243 $1.88139 $2.36363
Nov 2021 $0.81218 $1.20019 $1.68243 $2.01237 $2.49461
Dec 2021 $0.82555 $1.20019 $1.68243 $2.02574 $2.50798
Table 34: PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month CARE Discount Total CARE Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 ($0.41947) ($0.51139) $1.67790 $2.04554
Feb 2022 ($0.41362) ($0.50553) $1.65449 $2.02214
Mar 2022 ($0.39034) ($0.48226) $1.56138 $1.92902
Apr 2021 ($0.28372) ($0.38006) $1.13490 $1.52022
May 2021 ($0.28124) ($0.37757) $1.12497 $1.51030
June 2021 ($0.28297) ($0.37942) $1.13190 $1.51769
July 2021 ($0.27764) ($0.37408) $1.11054 $1.49634
Aug 2021 ($0.28452) ($0.38097) $1.13808 $1.52387
Sept 2021 ($0.32818) ($0.42462) $1.31270 $1.69850
Oct 2021 ($0.37566) ($0.47211) $1.50263 $1.88842
Nov 2021 ($0.40185) ($0.49830) $1.60742 $1.99321
Dec 2021 ($0.40453) ($0.50098) $1.61811 $2.00390
322
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 323
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 324
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 325
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 326
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.2 Southern California Edison
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 35 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.03339 / kWh was 327
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.
Table 35: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
328
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 329
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 330
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.3 Southern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 36 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
331
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 36: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
`CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 37. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges. 16 To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on January 2021 and April 2021 costs.
CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.
Table 37: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.83569 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.66056 $2.07446
Feb 2022 $0.60655 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.43142 $1.84532
Mar 2022 $0.55921 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.38408 $1.79798
Apr 2021 $0.31373 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.11972 $1.51935
May 2021 $0.35684 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.16283 $1.56246
June 2021 $0.39460 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.20059 $1.60022
July 2021 $0.42622 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.23221 $1.63184
Aug 2021 $0.44599 $0.80599 $1.20562 $1.25198 $1.65161
Sept 2021 $0.44425 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.26912 $1.68302
Oct 2021 $0.57580 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.40067 $1.81457
Nov 2021 $0.63799 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.46286 $1.87676
Dec 2021 $0.65129 $0.82487 $1.23877 $1.47616 $1.89006
16 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices 332 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 333
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 38 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.04174 / kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.
Table 38: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 39. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.
Table 39: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2022 $0.83668 $1.43201 $1.70577 $2.26869 $2.54245
Feb 2022 $0.60727 $1.43201 $1.70577 $2.03928 $2.31304
Mar 2022 $0.55988 $1.43201 $1.70577 $1.99189 $2.26565
Apr 2021 $0.31401 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.75865 $2.02133
May 2021 $0.35719 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.80183 $2.06451
June 2021 $0.39498 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.83962 $2.10230
July 2021 $0.42663 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.87127 $2.13395
Aug 2021 $0.44642 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.89106 $2.15374
Sept 2021 $0.44468 $1.44464 $1.70732 $1.88932 $2.15200
Oct 2021 $0.57637 $1.38238 $1.63573 $1.95875 $2.21210
Nov 2021 $0.63862 $1.38238 $1.63573 $2.02100 $2.27435
Dec 2021 $0.65194 $1.38238 $1.63573 $2.03432 $2.28767
334
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 335
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 336
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 337
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 338
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown 339
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 66 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 in Table 40. The distribution charge was $0.4835/therm for Tier 1 and $1.0426/therm for Tier 2. The monthly service charge applied was $10.94 per month per the G-1 tariff in effect at the time of the analysis.
Table 40: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Effective
Date
Commodity
Rate
Cap and Trade
Compliance
Charge
Transportation
Charge
Carbon
Offset
Charge
G1 Tier 1
Volumetric
Totals
G1 Tier 2
Volumetric
Totals
Jan 2022 $0.77140 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.53900 $1.83144 Feb 2022 $0.53600 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.30360 $1.81874 Mar 2022 $0.53700 $0.04860 $0.15000 $0.04000 $1.30460 $1.8565 Apr 2022 $0.59750 $0.07680 $0.14404 $0.04000 $1.38734 $1.8363 May 2021 $0.39010 $0.04860 $0.12200 $0.04000 $1.10450 $1.8889 June 2021 $0.39820 $0.04860 $0.12214 $0.04000 $1.11274 $1.89714 July 2021 $0.48000 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.22034 $2.04394 Aug 2021 $0.54920 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.28954 $2.11314 Sept 2021 $0.52170 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.26204 $1.78012 Oct 2021 $0.71750 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.45784 $1.83222 Nov 2021 $0.75050 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.49084 $1.83472 Dec 2021 $0.63210 $0.04860 $0.12274 $0.04000 $1.37244 $1.80442 340
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 67 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 341
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 68 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. 342
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 69 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 41 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for CPAU and SMUD, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied.
Table 41: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Electric Residential Average Rate
(%/year, real)
PG&E SCE SDG&E
2023 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2024 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2025 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2026 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2027 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2028 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2029 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2030 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2031 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2032 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2033 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2034 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2035 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2036 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2037 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2038 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2039 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2040 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2041 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2042 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2043 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2044 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2045 2.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2046 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2047 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2048 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2049 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2050 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2051 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2052 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
343
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 70 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12
7.3 Summary of Measures by Package
Table 42 provides the details of the measures in each of the efficiency package by climate zone and case. Table 43 presents the measures for all the single family efficiency + PV + battery packages. Table 44 presents the measures for all the ADU efficiency packages.
Table 42: Single Family Efficiency Package Measures
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic
0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 U-Factor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
0.35 W/cfm Buried Ducts
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 X R-60 vs R-38 X
2 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
3 R-60 vs R-30 X X X
4 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
5 R-49 vs R-30 X X X
6 R-60 vs R-30 X X X
7 R-49 vs R-30 X X
8 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
9 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
10 R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
11 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
12 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
13 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
14 X X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
15 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X X
16 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
344
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 71 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Table 43: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Package Measures Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic
0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 UFactor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
0.30 UFactor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
0.35 W/cfm
Buried
Ducts
Basic
Compact
Hot Water
Credit
1 X X X
2 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
3 R-38 vs R-30 X X X
4 X R-49 vs R-38 X X X
5 R-49 vs R-30 X X X
6 R- 49 vs R-30 X X X
7 R-49 vs R-30 X X
8 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
9 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
10 X X X X
11 X R-49 vs R-38 X X X X
12 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
13 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
14 X X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
15 X R- 49 vs R-38 X X X X
16 R- 49 vs R-38 X X X
Table 44: ADU Efficiency Package Measures
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab
0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance
0.24 U-Factor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
Ductless
VCHP
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 X X
2 X X X
3 X X
4 X X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X X
11 X X X X
12 X X X X
13 X X X X
14 X X X X X
15 X X X X
16 X X
345
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 72 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 The efficiency measures added to the All-Electric prescriptive package in Climate Zones that were not compliant are shown in Table 45 and
Table 46.
Table 45: Single Family All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures Climate
Zone
0.24 U-Factor / 0.50
SHGC Windows
Basic Compact Hot
Water Credit
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 X
16 X
Table 46: ADU All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures Climate
Zone
3 ACH50 R-49 vs R-38
Attic
Insulation
0.30 U-Factor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
0.24 U-Factor /
0.50 SHGC
Windows
Improved HVAC
Fan Efficiency:
0.35 W/cfm
Basic Compact
Hot Water Credit
1 2
3 4 X
5 X X
6 X
7 X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 12
13 X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X X X
346
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 73 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.
As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.
Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.
If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.
Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to
access our resources and sign up
for newsletters
Contact [email protected]
for no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors
Follow us on Twitter
347
Agenda Item # 7.
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2023/02/28
Revision: 1.0
2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:
Multifamily New Construction
348
Agenda Item # 7.
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 2023, 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
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
349
Agenda Item # 7.
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
350
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
2/28/2023 Original Release N/A
351
Agenda Item # 7.
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 .................................................................................................................................... 63 352
Agenda Item # 7.
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 ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 29. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 48 353
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Table 30. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/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........................................................................................................................................... 36 354
Agenda Item # 7.
355
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
1 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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 allelectric 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 356
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
2 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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.
• For jurisdictions interested in a reach code requiring all-electric buildings, this analysis does justify a modest reach based on either efficiency TDV or source energy. 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 costeffective 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. 357
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
3 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
AllElectric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
AllElectric
+ 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. For example, jurisdictions that only want to require all-electric construction may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code, would file the ordinance with the BSC and not need to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness. 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]. 358
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Introduction
4 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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. 359 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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. 360
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 − 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 Equation 2
𝐵𝐵 − − 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
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
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 = �(𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 )𝑡𝑡 (1 + )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
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
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 361
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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 20233 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 362
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
8 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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). 363
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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.. 364 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
365
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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 reflectance (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. 366
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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.
367
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 5. Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(2023 PV$)
3-Story 5-Story Source & Notes
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 $0.31/W
368
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(2023 PV$)
3-Story 5-Story Source & Notes
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. 369
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 15 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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 AllElectric 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 costeffective 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. 370
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 16 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
Furnace + Source & Notes
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
Residual Value ($1,591) $0 $0 $0 equipment.
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 371
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 17 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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. 372 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 18 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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. All-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/utilitiesengineering/general-specifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf 373 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 19 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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. 374
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 20 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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 $697 per dwelling unit.
The all-electric packages applied to the 3-story prototype in Climate Zone 16 and the 5-story prototype in Climate Zones 1 and 16 incorporate both gas to electric water heating and gas to electric space heating measures. In these cases, there are significant cost savings due to the avoided first costs of installing a gas furnace as compared to a heat pump. As a result, these cases are On-Bill cost-effective.
These results reflect a CO2 refrigerant based central heat pump water heating system. The 5-story prototype was also evaluated with a R-134a refrigerant based central heat pump water heater and these results are shown in Appendix
7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison.
375
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 21 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 12. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $4,352 376
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 22 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 13. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric Prescriptive Code Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $6,704 377
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 23 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
4.2 All-Electric Plus PV
Table 14 and Table 15 present cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric plus PV packages for the 3-story and 5-story prototypes, respectively. All cases are cost-effective both On-Bill and based on TDV.
Table 14. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $11,596 378
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 24 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 15. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: All-Electric 100% PV Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $16,140 379
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 25 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
4.3 Mixed Fuel Efficiency
Table 16 and Table 17 show results for the Mixed Fuel Efficiency packages. The packages are cost-effective based on at least one of the two metrics in Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, and 8 through 16 for the 3-story prototype and in Climate Zones 2, 4, 6, and 8 through 15 for the 5-story prototype. In all cases the NPV values, whether negative or positive, are small. The compliance impacts are also small.
A summary of measures included in each package is provided in Appendix 7.6 Summary of Measures by Package.
Table 16. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $184 380
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 17. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency
4.4 Mixed Fuel Plus PV (Plus Battery for the 3-Story Prototype) Table 18 presents the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package for the 3-story prototype. The battery system is a 100kWh battery. This scenario is costeffective for all climate zones and under both metrics except for On-Bill in Climate Zone 4 in CPAU territory. Table 19 presents the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV package for the 5-story prototype. This package is cost-effective under TDV in all climate zones and cost-effective On-Bill everywhere except in Climate Zones 6 and 7. In the cases where it is not cost-effective, it is very close to being so with small negative NPV. In Climate Zone 6 in the 5-story prototype there is no upgrade to the PV system capacity as the prescriptive PV system already offset all of the estimated electricity use.
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 ($0) 381
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 18. 3-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $3,219 382
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 19. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $4,011 383
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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 costeffective 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
Table 21 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. 384
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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. 385
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
386
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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 allelectric 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.
• For jurisdictions interested in a reach code requiring all-electric buildings, this analysis does justify a modest reach based on either efficiency TDV or source energy. 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 387
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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.
Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, jurisdictions that only want to require all-electric construction may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the California Building Code requiring filing with the BSC but not review and approval by the Energy Commission. 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
AllElectric
+ PV
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed
Fuel
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
AllElectric
+ 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%
388
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 California Public Utilities Commission. (2022). Proposed Decision 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/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197
Energy + Environmental Economics. (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-savingspotential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. (2020a). Nonresidential High Performance Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Energy Solutions. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASEReport.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020b). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier 389 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-andAlterations_Final_-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (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%20CostEff%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-CostEff%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/SCEMFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf 390
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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.
391
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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-climatecredit 392 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 24.
These are applied to both the G-1 and GM rates. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules for further details. The corresponding CARE rates are shown in Table 25 and reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff. The GM master metered wather heating baseline quantity of 0.43 therms per dwelling unit per day in all baseline territories and in both seasons was applied to the centrally metered gas water heating.
Table 24. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/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 $2.80922
393
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 Table 25. PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/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
394
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 395
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 396
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 397
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.2 Southern California Edison
The following pages provide details on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 26 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 one-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
398
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 399
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 400
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.3 Southern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 27 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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 28.
These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules for further details. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.10 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2022 rates.
CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.
Table 28. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/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 401 Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 402
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&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 $0.04174 / 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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table
30. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the December 2022 tariff based on eleven years of historical gas data. See the beginning of Section 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules for further details. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.
Table 30. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/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
403
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 404
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 405
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 406
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 407
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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 31. 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 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules 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
408
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 409
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used. 410
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 411
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 32 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%
412
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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 AllElectric 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
Furnace + Source & Notes
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 AllElectric 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) ($4,647)
413
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.4 PG&E Gas Infrastructure Cost Memo
414
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 415
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 416
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
7.5 Central Heat Pump Water Heater Comparison
Table 35 presents energy and cost-effectiveness results for a R-134a refrigerant based system design using a Colmac central heat pump water heater in the 5- story prototype. This was only found to be cost-effective based on at least one of the two metrics in Climate Zones 1, 4 in CPAU territory, and 16.
Table 35. 5-Story Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Prescriptive Code with R-134a Heat Pump Water Heater Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
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 $746 417
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28
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
418
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
419
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-2-28 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
420
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi Family Nonresidential Exceptions 50% Modification (or similar) City of Campbell All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Nonresidential: Emergency services,
commercial cooking, specific case-use
restaurants, industrial processes may be
granted an exemption for gas use. Granted
exceptions must pre-wire for future electric
appliances.
75% >
City of Cupertino All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Nonresidential: F, H, and L Occupancies, or
other similar research & development,
Essential Services. Buildings with for-profit
restaurants may apply for an exemption.
Hotels/motels with greater than 80 rooms
may utilize fuel gas for on-site commercial
clothes drying equipment. Granted exceptions
must pre-wire for future electric appliances.
75% >
City of Menlo Park All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
(Prohibition on conversion to MixedFuel buildings.)
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
(Prohibition on conversion to MixedFuel buildings.)
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
(Prohibition on conversion to MixedFuel buildings.)
Residential: all buildings that are 3 stories or
less may contain non-electric cooking
appliances and fireplaces.
Nonresidential: Scientific laboratory buildings,
emergency centers. For-profit restaurant or
employee kitchens may apply for an
exemption for gas use / must pre-wire for
future electric appliances.
75% >
City of Mountain View All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Nonresidential: F, H, and L Occupancies
Yes
City of Palo Alto All-electric new buildings, including ADU's.
All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings None Yes
City of Redwood City All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
Residential and Non-residential: Technical
Infeasibility
No
Building Electrification Reach Codes
421
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi Family Nonresidential Exceptions 50% Modification (or similar) City of San Carlos All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Residential: residential buildings except multiunit may contain non-electric indoor and outdoor cooking appliances and fireplaces.
Non-Residential: Laboratory areas may
contain non-electric Space Conditioning
Systems; restaurants or commercial kitchens
may apply for an exception.
Residential and Non-Residential: Infeasibility;
no all-electric compliance pathway
Exceptions must pre-wire for future electric
Yes
City of San Mateo All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Non-Residential: buildings containing kitchens
located in a place of public accommodation
may apply for an exception; laboratories may
contain non-electric Space Conditioning
Systems
Residential and Non-Residential: no all-electric
compliance pathway
No
City of Santa Clara All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Non residential: F, H, and L Occupancies;
public agency operated emergency centers;
hotels with 80+ guestrooms may use natural
gas in on-site laundry facilities;
may not use gas unless establishes a non
electric option is not available.
Residential and Non-Residential: no all-electric
compliance pathway
Yes
City of Saratoga All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
Residential: natural gas cooking appliances;
prewire for future electrical appliances.
Nonresidential: natural gas cooking
appliances; prewire for future electrical
appliances. Emergency centers are exempt.
Yes
422
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi Family Nonresidential Exceptions 50% Modification (or similar) City of Sunnyvale All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Nonresidential: F, H, L Occupancies; municipal
emergency centers; non-residential kitchens if
applicant establishes no all-electric option
Residential and Nonresidential: generators; no
all-electric prescriptive compliance pathway
Exceptions must pre-wire for future electric
Yes
Los Altos Hills All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
All-electric new buildings with
exceptions
n/a Residential: Indoor and outdoor cooking,
outdoor fireplaces, and pool/spa heating
Indoor cooking combustion equipment must
be pre-wired for future electric
No
Town of Los Gatos All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Nonresidential: buildings containing kitchens
located in a place of public accommodation
may apply for an exemption for commercial
food heat-processing equipment served by
fuel gas
Yes
Town of Portola Valley All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings All-electric new buildings with exceptions
Non-Residential: The Building Official may
grant an exception for non-residential cooking
needs or for newly constructed public agency
buildings as needed for emergency services.
Yes
423
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family, Duplexes,
Townhomes Multi-Family Hotel and Motel Non-residential Office Other Non-residential (retail and restaurants) City of Campbell (1) Level 2 EV Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
*including ADU's
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 1 EV Ready
20% Level 2 EVCS +
30% Level 2 EV- Capable
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
City of Cupertino (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
Parking additions or electrical panel
upgrades must have reserved breaker
spaces and electrical capacity
according to the requirements
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with Level
2 EV-Capable. Existing EV Capable
spaces shall be upgraded to a
minimum of Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
5% Level 2 EVCS +
25% Low Power Level 2 EVReady + remaining 10% of
spaces with Low Power Level 2
EV-Capable
20% Level 2 EVCS +
30% Level 2 EV- Capable
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable.
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with Level
2 EV-Capable. Existing EV Capable
spaces shall be upgraded to a
minimum of Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
Town of Los Gatos (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with Level
2 EV-Capable. Existing EV Capable
spaces shall be upgraded to a
minimum of Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
5% Level 2 EVCS +
25%Low Power Level 2 EVReady + remaining 10% of
spaces with Low Power Level 2
EV-Capable
Additions: new parking facilities or electrical
systems/lighting shall include 10% of new
spaces with Level 2 EV-Capable. Existing EV
Capable spaces shall be upgraded to a
minimum of Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
20% Level 2 EVCS +
30% Level 2 EV- Capable
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with
Level 2 EV-Capable. Existing EV
Capable spaces shall be upgraded to
a minimum of Level 1 EV Ready.
ALMS requirements.
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with Level
2 EV-Capable. Existing EV Capable
spaces shall be upgraded to a
minimum of Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
City of Menlo Park (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Low Power Level 2 EV Ready
CALGreen Tier 1
Additions/Alterations: shall
provide EV spaces as required by
Table 5.105.5.1
CALGreen Tier 1
Additions/Alterations: shall
provide EV spaces as required by
Table 5.105.5.1
Electric Vehicle Reach Codes
424
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family, Duplexes,
Townhomes Multi-Family Hotel and Motel Non-residential Office Other Non-residential (retail and restaurants) City of Mountain View (1) Level 2 EVCS
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
Additions: Parking additions or
electrical panel upgrades must have
reserved breaker spaces and electrical
capacity to provide one Level 2 EVCS
parking space and a Level 1 EV-Ready.
3+ units:
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 2 EV Ready
Every 100 Spaces:
Level 3/DC Fast Charger
CALGreen Tier 2
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with
EVCS. Existing EV Capable spaces
shall be upgraded to a minimum of
Level 1 EV Ready.
CALGreen Tier 2
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with
EVCS. Existing EV Capable spaces
shall be upgraded to a minimum of
Level 1 EV Ready.
City of Palo Alto (1) Level 2 EV Ready 1 Level 2 EV Ready per parking space OR
60% Low Power Level 2
5% Level 2 EVSE
25% EV-Capable
10% Level 2 EVCS
30% EV Ready
10-20 Spaces:
20% Level EVSE +
20% Level 2 EV-Capable
20> Spaces:
15% Level 2 EVSE +
15% Level 2 EV-Capable
City of Redwood City (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 1 EV Ready
5% Level 2 EVCS +
25% Low Power Level 2 EVReady +
remaining 10% of spaces with
Low Power Level 2 EV-Capable
20% Level 2 EVCS +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
City of San Carlos (1) Level 2 EV Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
*including ADU's
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Low Power Level 2 EV Ready
5% Level 2 EVCS +
25% Low Power Level 2 EVReady +
remaining 10% of spaces with
Low Power Level 2 EV-Capable
10% Level 2 EVCS +
10% Level 1 EV Ready +
30% Level 2 EV-Capable
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
425
Agenda Item # 7.
Jurisdiction Single Family, Duplexes,
Townhomes Multi-Family Hotel and Motel Non-residential Office Other Non-residential (retail and restaurants) City of San Mateo (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Low Power Level 2 EV Ready
Existing buildings who add new
parking facilities or electrical
systems/lighting shall include 10% of
new spaces with Level 2 EV-Capable.
<20 sleeping units:
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Low Power Level 2 EV
Ready
20% Level 2 EVCS +
30% Level 2 EV- Capable
10% Level 2 EV-Ready +
10% Level 2 EV-Capable
City of Santa Clara (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
For parking spaces not assigned to a
dwelling unit: 25% of the unassigned
parking space(s) shall be Level 2 EV Ready
spaces, 75% of the unassigned space(s)
shall be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready
spaces.
<20 units: 1 Level 2 EV Ready per
parking space
>20 units: 1 Level 2 EV Ready per
parking space first 20
Additional unites: 25% Level 2 EV
Ready + 75% one Low Power
Level 2 EV Ready
<20 Sleeping Units:
1 Level 2 EV Ready
per parking space
>20 sleeping units:
10% Level 2 EVCS + 50% EVCapable
35% Level 2 EVCS +
35% Level 1 EV-Capable
35% Level 2 EVCS +
35% Level 1 EV-Capable
City of Saratoga (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
40% Level 2 EVCS +
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Additions: new parking facilities or
electrical systems/lighting shall
include 10% of new spaces with
EVCS. Existing EV Capable spaces
shall be upgraded to a minimum of
Level 1 EV Ready. ALMS
requirements.
Based on total number of
parking spaces (see CGBC Table
5.106.5.3.1)
Based on total number of parking
spaces (see CGBC Table
5.106.5.3.1)
Based on total number of parking
spaces (see CGBC Table
5.106.5.3.1)
City of Sunnyvale (1) Level 2 Ready
2nd Space: (1) Level 1 EV Ready
30% Level 2 EV Ready +
70% Level 1 EV Ready
20% Level 2 EV Ready +
50% Level 1 EV-Capable
35% Level 2 EVCS +
35% Level 1 EV-Capable
35% Level 2 EVCS +
35% Level 1 EV-Capable
Every 100 spaces: Level 3 EVCS
426
Agenda Item # 7.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
427
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Tom Kabat
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:54:17 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
I’m working in my community to pass the same type of Reach Codes 2.0 that are also being presented to you.
The IPCC and the IEA (international climate science and energy progress bodies) have both determined that the existing fleet of fossil fired machines (including gas water heaters and gas furnaces) will consume all available “tolerable climate space” under the 2 degree C Paris accord limit.
That means that from now on, every replacement gas-fired device is entirely over the top of the 2 degree warming limit from day one.
Please join the communities striving to show the needed leadership in pivoting toward a safe climate future by passing the Reach Codes 2.0 as presented by staff without exceptions.
We need your support as peers making progress together and building upon each others’ good work! Thank you for looking for ways our generation can leave its best legacy by demonstrating additional progress.
Best regards,
Tom Kabat
Energy Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Mechanical Engineer Menlo Park, CA
428
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Stephen Hams
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 2:26:31 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council members,
As a long time member of the nonpartisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL,) I appreciate the climate conscious actions the Council has taken over the years. Now you have the opportunity to take another very significant step to help Los Altos towards a healthier climate future.
I support strong Reach Codes to do our part to curb CO2 emissions in Los Altos, and to keep our community safe and healthy. I am sure you are well award of the health benefits that will accrue to current and future Los Altos residents under the new, stronger proposed Codes.
Therefore, I urge the Council to pass the Reach Codes 2.0 as presented by staff without exceptions.
Thank you very much.
Steve Hams
25 year Los Altos resident (zip code 94022)
429
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Cheryl Okuno
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:57:10 PM
To Whom It may concern,
I support strong reach codes to do our part as a community to reduce our CO2 emissions for our future. It is important we take action NOW and not wait. We need to start being responsible for our actions and make changes today!
Aloha,
Cheryl
I have not, and will not, verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties.
Compass
Cheryl Okuno
Broker Associate
DRE#: 01051270
office
167 S. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
430
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Andrew Meyer
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 8:25:04 PM
Councilmembers - thank you for your ongoing hard work in support of Los Altos! A few years ago, we lost a cabin that had been in our family for 3 generations due to a previously unprecedented fire season that is unfortunately getting more and more common. While it's tempting to refer to this type of extreme weather - whether fires or atmospheric rivers - as "a once in 100 years storm", or more and more commonly "the new normal", even that actually undersells the impact: this isn't "the new normal", it's "the current normal" and has the potential to continue growing more and more extreme if we don't act now.
Every country, every state, every city, and every individual needs to do their part to protect our planet, and that includes the wonderful and kind people I see every week in downtown Los Altos (how lucky I am to have such fantastic neighbors!) - not only for ourselves, but for our beloved family members in younger generations. Methane is an incredibly potent gas - dozens of times more potent than CO2 on a per-unit basis, and the second most impactful climate warmer on an overall basis - and curbing its emission is an important piece of the wider climate solution. I support strong reach codes and urge the council to pass Reach Codes 2.0 as presented by staff without exceptions.
Thanks,
Andrew Meyer, South Los Altos resident since 2016
431
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Kathy Battat
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 11:18:10 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
As a resident of neighboring city, the Town of Hillsborough, I would like to encourage your Council to pass Reach Codes 2.0 as presented by staff without exceptions.
Local jurisdictions of means like ours need to do whatever we can to push the envelope on reducing green house gases. Reach Codes are the best way to require change beyond what the state of California is able to enact state-wide. When cities show resolve to enact Reach Codes it gives the state cover to follow.
I have encouraged Hillsborough to do the same, and we have made progress with Reach Codes that include all electric requirements for water and area heating in major remodels and ADU’s in addition to new construction. I encourage Los Altos to do the same. I support strong Reach Codes to curb CO2 emissions and to keep our communities safe and healthy.
Respectfully,
Kathy Battat
432
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Naomi
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES—April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 12:29:15 PM
I strongly urge the City Council to pass Reach Codes 2.0. As a high school senior, I’m extremely concerned about climate change—but even more concerned by inaction to curb it. I can confidently say that most people my age share my climate anxiety and support for reach codes. Passing stronger codes affirms that Los Altos cares about the future of its youth.
The recent power outages caused by extreme weather, which will worsen if we continue to burn methane in our homes, also indicate the necessity of reach codes.
The only way to decelerate this weather pattern is to decarbonize.
Sincerely, Naomi Schulze
433
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Jeffrey Mann
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item: Reach Codes - April 11, 2023 Los Altos City Council meeting Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 6:54:57 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council Members,
I represent San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF Bay PSR), a group of hundreds of health professionals in the Bay Area who seek to protect the health of our patients and communities who are threatened by the climate emergency that is destroying our life support system. SF Bay PSR seeks to rapidly advance policies and regulations in support of an equitable transition to all electric buildings. Switching from fossil-fuel appliances to all electric appliances will help protect health and the planet.
I write to urge you to approve the proposed Reach Codes 2.0 as presented by staff without exceptions at your April 11th City Council Meeting. It is essential that the city consider all reasonable measures to prevent new uses of gas and facilitate the necessary transition from fossil gas to address the air quality, health, and safety impacts of current fossil gas use in our homes and other buildings.
A rapid transition away from fossil fuel use is also critical to avoid the very worst and irreversible impacts of climate change. Preventing the continued use of fossil fuels, including “natural gas” (which is primarily methane, a gas that has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide), creates more affordable, cleaner, healthier, and more resilient housing and buildings for communities.
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report revealed that sadly, a 1.5°C rise in planetary temperature is now unavoidable, the potential to limit warming to below 2°C—and avoid even more catastrophic climate impacts—is still possible if the world can achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.[1]That means we need to begin phasing out fossil fuels right away, including methane gas used to heat and cook with. <!--[if !supportLists]-->1.
<!--[endif]-->Building electrification is a key strategy for addressing our climate emergency <!--[if !supportLists]-->●
<!--[endif]-->“Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from California’s building sector account for more than a quarter of the state’s total emissions. Direct emissions from building fossil fuel use account for 10–15% of the total. These emissions result primarily from both the combustion of gas in buildings for cooking, heating, and water heating as well as from methane leaks throughout the gas distribution system.” [2] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Building electrification (BE), defined as “replacing gas with efficient electric appliances in existing buildings and constructing new building as allelectric” is the primary approach to building decarbonization. <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Phasing out gas use provides many benefits to community health, safety, and a stable climate future. Extending these benefits to existing homes and buildings is now urgently needed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<!--[endif]-->Building electrification prevents toxic exposures to air pollution from gas stoves and other gas appliances.
These are some of the health effects of exposure to natural gas. <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->California has the highest percentage of gas stove use in the country. 88% of all California households (11.5 million in total) having natural gas service in 2020; typically, 70% of these households cook with a natural gas stove or oven. [3] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Natural gas throughout California contains numerous hazardous air pollutants that are linked to cancer, asthma, and the formation of smog. [4] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Scientists documented that even when gas stoves are off they can leak benzene (a known carcinogen) in concentrations such that indoor air concentrations are on a par with secondhand smoke.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Homes with gas stoves can emit nitrogen dioxide concentrations that are 50-400% higher than homes with electric stoves. Nitrogen dioxide causes direct damage to people’s lungs, and is one of the primary causes of smog. [5] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Children in homes with gas stoves have a 42% increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms, a 24% increased risk of ever being diagnosed with asthma by a doctor, and an overall 32% increased risk of both current and lifetime asthma. [5] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Chronic exposure to elevated fine particulate matter (also known as PM2.5) has the potential to damage human respiratory systems, the cardiovascular system, is harmful to pregnant women, and is one of the leading causes of premature death throughout the world. [5] <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Improperly vented gas appliances lead to carbon monoxide poisoning that result in thousands of emergency room visits and several hundred deaths every year. [5]
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->Pollution from gas stoves disproportionately harms children in communities of color <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->African-American and Hispanic children with asthma are likely the most disproportionately burdened by indoor air pollution from gas stoves. <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Poor people without adequate heating will often use gas stoves to heat their home which contributes to indoor air pollution. <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Lower-income and communities of color are three times more likely to live in an area with poor outdoor air quality, which compounds indoor air pollution health harms. [5]
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.
<!--[endif]-->Other benefits of building electrification <!--[if !supportLists]-->●<!--[endif]-->Electrifying our building stock produces a new demand for skilled workers. A 2019 UCLA study [2] documentedthat building electrification in California could support an average of 64,200–104,100 jobs annually, after accounting for losses in the gas industry. The greatest increases in employment would be building retrofits and renewable energy construction, while the greatest decreases would be in gas distribution followed by labor-saving all-electric new construction. However, the negative labor impacts are much smaller than the positive impacts.
●
All-Electric homes and buildings are more efficient. According to the California Energy Commission, a modern high-efficiency heat pump electric water heater (available at all major retailers) costs roughly one-third less on utility bills to operate than the most efficient gas water heater.[6] In addition, electric heat pump heating also provides air-conditioning, resulting in less equipment, reduced maintenance costs, and greater climate resilience. ●Public Safety: Methane gas is highly flammable. In the past 10 years, 9,000 gas explosions in the U.S have killed more than 500 people, and gas leaks have displaced and sickened thousands of people.[7] Methane gas also caused half the fires after two major California earthquakes.[8] ●Climate: All-electric buildings are a practical step forward to address the climate crisis, by breaking the cycle of fossil fuel dependency in buildings. This is the single biggest step that cities can take to address climate.
●
Resilience: Switching from gas to electric at the time of remodel or replacement helps avoid a complex, costly and likely inevitable switch to all-electric heating and appliances in the future, since gas prices are expected to rise sharply, and California is planning to eventually end gas distribution. The California Public Utilities Commission estimates that natural 434
Agenda Item # 7.
gas rates will increase at twice the rate of electricity through the next 10 years.[6] Thank you for considering our comments. We would be pleased to provide additional information or respond to any questions that might arise.
Jeffrey A. Mann, M.D.
Lafayette, California
for Physicians for Social Responsibility
References
1. https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?te=1&nl=climate- ___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOjc3NjJjMGNkOGY3Njc5MjUxMDU2ZWM1NjAwYjkxYzlhOjY6YjRhODo2Y2Y4MWVjNTBkYzljNjhiMWE2ZGY1NjI1N2M0ZmM4NDM4ZGE2ZmM3YjRjMWY3YmI3MzljZTdkODM5MmQ4NWZhOnQ6VA fwd:&emc=edit_clim_20210812
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.
<!--[endif]-->California Building Decarbonization: Workforce Needs and Recommendations. UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, November 2019. <!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020 residential energy consumption survey (RECS) <!--[if !supportLists]-->4.
<!--[endif]-->California Air Resources Board website
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.
<!--[endif]-->Seals, Brady and Krasner, Andee. Report 2020: Gas Stoves: Health and air quality impacts and solutions. RMI <!--[if !supportLists]-->6.
<!--[endif]-->CPUC Rate Analysis: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/en- ___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOjc3NjJjMGNkOGY3Njc5MjUxMDU2ZWM1NjAwYjkxYzlhOjY6NWJjNjo5MTBjNGIzNzg1MWZiMjA4YzlmMmIzZmJhZWY3ZGQ5NGQyNjVmY2Y3Yzk4MGVlYjhhNTAyMTQ5NGIyZGIyMTcwOnQ6VA banc/feb-2021-utility-costs-and-affordability-of-the-grid-of-the-future.pdf
7. Joseph, George. “30 Years of Oil and Gas Pipeline Accidents, Mapped.” Citylab. November 30, 2016 <!--[if !supportLists]-->8.
<!--[endif]-->Los Angeles in 1994 and San Francisco in 1989, according to the California Seismic Safety Commission. (2002). “Improving Natural Gas Safety in Earthquakes.” SSC-02-03 435
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Jeff Byron
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Input from a former California Energy Commissioner on Reach Codes for April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 5:13:30 PM
Dear Council Member,
My family has resided in Los Altos now for 40 years. I have also spent my entire career working on environmental and energy issues and was a California Energy Commissioner from 2005 to 2011. So, I’m familiar with building and efficiency standards as well as the state’s long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gases and the impact on climate change. I’m also aware of the challenges that changing the status quo represents for local government leaders like yourselves. And it isn’t stated nearly enough, how fortunate we Los Alto-lites are to have such committed public servants governing our city.
I understand the first reading of the ordinance to adopt Reach Codes 2.0 will likely be before the council next week —another complex issue for you to understand and decide. I urge you to vote in favor of the thoughtful staff recommendations. Your vote will demonstrate a conviction to address climate change for our city, ensure future residents will save money on their electricity bills, and provide the leadership that our children are counting on.
I would be happy to talk or meet with you about home electrification, energy policy, and answer your questions. I could also give you a brief tour of our retro-fitted all-electric home so you could see for yourself what this is all about.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Jeff Byron
436
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Young, Michael
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:21:01 PM
I am writing to express my strong support of Reach Codes without exceptions to keep our Los Altos community safe and healthy and to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
As a Los Altos resident with personal experience with chronic respiratory illness, I am asking that the city pass Reach Codes 2.0 to protect the health of me, my family, and my community.
Not only would Reach Codes reduce outdoor air pollution, but they would also shield us from harmful substances in our own homes.
Moreover, Reach Codes 2.0 would significantly reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and aligns with Los Altos's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, something I strongly support as well.
Sincerely,
Michael Young
Los Altos Resident
Los Altos High School Student
437
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Cai, Grace
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 6: REACH CODES - April 11th, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 11:52:28 AM
I am writing to express my strong support of Reach Codes without exceptions to keep our Los Altos community safe and healthy and to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
As a Los Altos resident that cares about the health of my community, I am asking that the city pass Reach Codes 2.0 to reduce air pollution both indoors and outdoors.
Also, Reach Codes 2.0 would aid in decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, a goal in line with Los Altos's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
Sincerely,
Grace Cai
Los Altos Resident
Los Altos High School Student
Los Altos Rotary Interact Club Co-President
438
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Fenner, Ace
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - April 11, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 1:01:41 PM
I am writing to express my strong support of Reach Codes without exceptions to keep our community safe and healthy.
Coming from a family of people with Asthma I am asking that the city pass Rach Codes 2.0 to protect my family and my community.
Sincerely,
Ace Fenner
Los Altos High School Student
439
Agenda Item # 7.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
440
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Bill Hough
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: public comment regarding item #7 on 4/11/2023 agenda Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 7:37:12 PM
I strongly object to the Environmental Commission recommendations that all new residences and all major remodels (defined as 50% of structure OR if cost of remodel is $250,000 or more) be required to be all electric with no exceptions. That means no gas stovetop or fireplace as currently allowed.
Most annoying and unreasonable is the proposal that if any existing gas appliances including gas furnaces and your gas cooking appliances break, you will be required to replace them with all electric appliances. This will place an undue burden on retired people on reduced incomes who are already getting hammered by massive inflation in this miserable economy.
We are constantly being warned about blackouts due to an over stressed electrical grid. Half the town lost power for several days last month. These "reach codes" will only make this matter worse. And all this virtue signaling will have no impact on global warming as long as China and India continue burning fossil fuels.
There is talk of a a cost effectiveness study. This needs to factor in the expense to homeowners who will have to pay for these expensive retrofits. If the city is going to mandate us to get rid of gas appliances, they should reimburse residents for this unfunded mandate.
I'll believe global warming is a problem when the rich people who are telling me it is a problem start ACTING like it is a problem. They can start by getting rid their carbon-spewing private jets.
The bottom line is that I do NOT support ANY gas ban and I oppose adopting these codes.
Bill Hough
Los Altos resident and taxpayer
Virus-free.www.avg.com
441
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Victoria Byrd
To: Gabriel Engeland; City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Public Comment Subject: Re: I oppose banning gas appliances.
Date: Sunday, April 9, 2023 8:07:29 AM
Attachments: Outlook-wi2qjzt3.png
Hi Gabriel and Jonathan, I oppose the requirement for all electric homes for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:39 AM Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for the email, Ms Byrd. The Environmental Commission did not recommend a gas ban for appliances. The requirement for all electric homes is for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
If you would like your email included in public comment, please forward it to "[email protected]"
I have copied the City Council on this email, but moved them to BCC.
Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Sign up for the City Manager Weekly Update.
Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
From: Victoria Byrd <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 7:19 AM
442
Agenda Item # 7.
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose banning gas appliances.
I oppose banning gas appliances.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
443
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Victoria Byrd
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: proposed REACH codes
Date: Sunday, April 9, 2023 8:14:10 AM
I oppose the current proposed REACH codes that would require all electric homes for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
To clarify further, I oppose REACH codes or any city ordinance, requirement, rule or guideline that in any way restricts, inhibits, limits or otherwise impedes my ability to install or repair gas appliances in the future.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
444
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Victoria Byrd
To: Gabriel Engeland; City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Public Comment Subject: Re: I oppose banning gas appliances.
Date: Sunday, April 9, 2023 8:07:29 AM
Attachments: Outlook-wi2qjzt3.png
Hi Gabriel and Jonathan, I oppose the requirement for all electric homes for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:39 AM Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for the email, Ms Byrd. The Environmental Commission did not recommend a gas ban for appliances. The requirement for all electric homes is for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
If you would like your email included in public comment, please forward it to "[email protected]"
I have copied the City Council on this email, but moved them to BCC.
Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Sign up for the City Manager Weekly Update.
Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
From: Victoria Byrd <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 7:19 AM
445
Agenda Item # 7.
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose banning gas appliances.
I oppose banning gas appliances.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
446
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Victoria Byrd
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: proposed REACH codes
Date: Sunday, April 9, 2023 8:14:10 AM
I oppose the current proposed REACH codes that would require all electric homes for newly constructed properties or when a property renovation/addition is equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the structure or $250,000 in value.
To clarify further, I oppose REACH codes or any city ordinance, requirement, rule or guideline that in any way restricts, inhibits, limits or otherwise impedes my ability to install or repair gas appliances in the future.
Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
650-810-5730
447
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Couture, Terri
To: Public Comment
Subject: los altos city council meeting public comment - April 11 Agenda item 7 Date: Sunday, April 9, 2023 10:12:30 AM
Dear City Council members, City manager and Los Altos members Restricting your community’s ability to seek multiple energy avenues infringes on local community rights. Many nations continue and even increase their dirty energy policies to the economic and health detriment of our State’s residents.
In the USA, 39% of our electricity is made from natural gas and 60% is made from fossil fuels. (see US Energy Admin report Feb 2023). California is the 4th largest producer of USA energy. Alternatively for instance, in China 70% of the electricity is made by burning coal. Those dirty air by products travel with winds and currents internationally, and 2 new coal burning plants are brought online internationally every week.
In many nations the US dollar is being devalued. There are many consequences.
You say, then let’s use solar! Solar isn’t 24 hours a day producer. The dirty manufacture of batteries and panels pollute the world, not to mention the abuse of young & poor workers. Furthermore the batteries and panels are not recyclable.
Where is the full disclosure study? Why are you not seeking the complete consequences to protect our community?
Sincerely, Fred Tuerk
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 448
Agenda Item # 7.
449
Agenda Item # 7.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
450
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Maya Johnson
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 - April 11, 2023
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:56:43 PM
To the Los Altos City Council,
Please pass the Reach Codes as proposed with no exceptions. I believe this will be beneficial to Los Altos residents, myself included, for a number of reasons.
For one, there are currently several rebates and tax credits residents can take advantage of for switching from gas to electric appliances. In fact, these incentives make it less expensive to switch from old gas to new electric appliances than old gas to new gas appliances. Our Silicon Valley Clean Energy Rebates can be seen here. The Cost Effectiveness Studies did not include such incentives, and we should take them into consideration.
In addition, there are health benefits from reducing indoor air pollution when switching from gas to electric appliances. Looking ahead to the future regulation, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District made rulings to address indoor health risks. In March, the BAAQMD ruled to ban most new gas water heaters after 2027 and gas furnaces after 2029. Passing the Reach Code now will help prepare Los Altos residents for this ruling. Rather than putting in an expensive gas line and investing in appliances that will become obsolete, they can invest in electric appliances now.
Finally, of course, there are the climate benefits. Please help pass the current Reach Code and start planning for a more aggressive one for the next cycle beginning in January 2026.
Sincerely,
Maya Hardiman
451
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Ava Seto
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM: REACH CODES - MEETING 4/11/23 Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:40:08 PM
Dear Los Altos Council Members,
I support the passing of Reach Codes 2.0. Mandating the installation of electric furnaces will be cost-effective and sustainable. Page 18 of Attachment 3, Cost Effectiveness Studies, shows how an All-electric HVAC system can be $200,000 less than a mixed fuel system. Since Los Altos has partnered with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, the source of the electricity is from renewable energy sources. Although an electric furnace installation may cost more than a gas furnace repair, the positive effects on successive future generations will outweigh the one-time cost. Thus, installing electric furnaces will be cost-efficient while still reducing emissions.
In addition, the installation of electric furnaces will reduce gas emissions and will ensure the safety and health of Los Altos residents. Gas emissions contribute to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more moisture and to have extreme rainfalls and storms.
These past few months we have witnessed the damage that these extreme storms can have on homeowners' properties and electricity supply.
Gas emissions also contribute to extreme temperatures in the summer that allow California to be vulnerable to wildfires which will pollute the air and can be hazardous to people’s health especially those of young children and elderly people. Electric furnaces would reduce the intensity of the storms’ and droughts’ repercussions.
As a result, passing Reach Codes 2.0 will have economic, health, and safety benefits.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ava
High school student - MVLA School District
452
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Steve Smith
To: Public Comment
Subject: April 11 City Council Meeting, item 7, REACH
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:24:34 AM
Dear City Council,
I wish to voice my concern over the definition of new construction within the proposed REACH codes. While I agree with the 50% rule, I find numerous issues with the $250,0000 rule.
GIven our construction costs, $250K buys a 300 - 400 square foot addition, which is way way less than 50% of the average Los Altos home's square footage.
More importantly, fixed numbers that are not indexed for inflation are extremely bad policy.
Maybe I should ask the IRS to stop adjusting the tax brackets for inflation????? I therefore request that you give serious consideration to one of the following improvements:
A) Remove the $250,000 rule in its entirety.
OR
B) Do BOTH of the following:
1) Raise the $250K to a number that approximates a smaller home's 50% remodel costs, AND
2) Add an inflation clause to the effect of
"compounded annually every Jan 1 based on _________"
where you can use JUST ONE of the following ideas to fill in the blank:
a) A suitable local construction rate of inflation
OR
b) 150% of the CPI (construction costs inflate much more rapidly than CPI, do feel to come up with a slightly different percentage).
Thank you for your consideration of these improvements
Steve Smith
453
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #7 APRIL 11, 2023 REACH CODES Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:58:13 AM
Council Members:
Please do not ban gas stoves in remodels. There have been many long power outages recently, which are likely to continue in the future. A gas cooktop at least let people have warm food.
“California’s power grid operator says $9.3 billion in new projects is needed over the next decade to support the state’s shift to renewable energy and plug-in cars. … The transmission plan is based on state projections that California will need to add 40 gigawatts to 70 gigawatts of power generation over the next 10 years, depending on how quickly consumers switch to electric cars and electric home appliances. California’s highest-ever recorded power demand, set in September, was 52 gigawatts.” https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/californiagrid-needs-9-3-billion-upgrade-in-renewables-shift Also, $250,000 does not buy much of a remodel these days. I think it would be best to leave square footage as a measure of remodel that requires conversion to electric.
Thanks for listening,
Pat Marriott
454
Agenda Item # 7.
From: Cathy Quinlan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas v electric
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:27:24 AM
Hello public servants;
Gas vs. Electric; This should be OUR choice. After what we all went through this winter, with no electricity. I had to throw out my entire fridge/freezer! The people with GAS generators were able to function for the FOUR DAYS that we had no power. Unless you can let us in on a plan to solve that, please don’t take away gas.
Thank you for listening.
Cathy Quinlan
455
Agenda Item # 7.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject: Los Altos Council and Commissions Teleconference Policy Prepared by: Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
Initiated by:
City Council
Previous Council Consideration:
March 28, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
None
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the City Council wish to amend the Council Norms & Procedures and Commission Handbook to allow teleconferencing under certain circumstances in accordance with state law?
Summary:
City Council provided direction at the City Council meeting on March 28, 2023, for staff to bring back a policy allowing teleconferencing under certain circumstances in accordance with state law for Councilmembers and Commissioners.
Staff Recommendation:
Add Section 11.13 Teleconferencing to the Council Norms & Procedures, which will allow Council members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law.
Amend the Commission Handbook section “Teleconferencing” to allow Commission members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law. Direct staff to come back with an update on this policy in six months. 456
Agenda Item # 8.
Subject: Los Altos Council and Commissions Teleconference Policy April 11, 2023 Page 2
Purpose
Allow City Councilmembers and Commission members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law.
Background
The City Council Norms & Procedures does not have a section that outlines the rules for Council members teleconferencing into Council meetings.
The Commissioner Handbook has a section that clearly prohibits Commission members from teleconferencing into meetings.
City Council directed staff at their meeting on March 28, 2023 to bring back a policy that will allow City Councilmembers and Commission members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law.
Furthermore, Council wanted to ensure that Councilmembers and Commissioners would have the same policy applied to the City Commissions as the City Council.
Discussion/Analysis
Staff recommends to add Section 11.13 Teleconferencing into the Council Norms & Procedures with the following language:
“City Council members may participate in meetings via teleconference in accordance with State law (Gov. Code sec. 54953 and AB 2449). Members participating via teleconferencing under AB 2449 (Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances) must participate via audio and visual methods. In all other circumstances, members participating via teleconferencing shall participate via audio and visual methods, when practical.
Members may participate via teleconference in no more than 20% of meetings in a calendar year (January to December), whether utilizing provisions of the traditional Brown Act or Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances. All meetings of the City Council must have a majority of members present in the physical meeting location within the City.
At the beginning of a meeting in which a member is participating via teleconference, the Mayor, or the Vice Mayor if the Mayor is participating remotely, will ask the member(s) participating via teleconference to confirm the teleconference location was properly noticed according to State Law, the teleconference location is accessible to members of the public and whether anyone is present in the teleconference location besides the member. 457
Agenda Item # 8.
Subject: Los Altos Council and Commissions Teleconference Policy April 11, 2023 Page 3
Currently, the “Teleconferencing” section of the Commission Handbook states the following:
“Commission members shall not participate in meetings by teleconference.” Staff recommends amending the “Teleconferencing” section of the Commission Handbook with the following language:
“Commission members may participate in meetings via teleconference in accordance with State law (Gov. Code sec. 54953 and AB 2449). Members participating via teleconferencing under AB 2449 (Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances) must participate via audio and visual methods. In all other circumstances, members participating via teleconferencing shall participate via audio and visual methods, when practical.
Members may participate via teleconference in no more than 20% of meetings in a calendar year (January to December), whether utilizing provisions of the traditional Brown Act or Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances. All meetings of the Commission must have a majority of members present in the physical meeting location within the City.
At the beginning of a meeting in which a member is participating via teleconference, the Chair, or the Vice Chair if the Chair is participating remotely, will ask the member(s) participating via teleconference to confirm the teleconference location was properly noticed according to State Law, the teleconference location is accessible to members of the public and whether anyone is present in the teleconference location besides the member.” This policy will go into effect immediately and staff will return to City Council with a report in six months on how this policy has impacted the Council and Commissions Staff Recommendation:
Add Section 11.13 Teleconferencing to the Council Norms & Procedures, which will allow Council members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law.
Amend the Commission Handbook section “Teleconferencing” to allow Commission members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law. Direct staff to come back with an update on this policy in six months. 458
Agenda Item # 8.
City of Los Altos 2023 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept/
Date of
request
to add.
APRIL 25, 2023 Study Session - Halsey House update –530 Start Time Info Aida
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
Noise Ordinance Discussion Nick
Housing Element Update Discussion Nick
POA MOU Ratification Consent Irene
Reach Codes; 2nd reading and adoption Consent ESUD
CHAC Update Discussion Mayor
HHW Amendment #2 with SCC Consent Aida
License Plate readers Discission Angela
Emergency Operations Report Info Angela
Sewer Master Plans Info Aida
May 9, 2023 Study Session Storm Water Master Plan Aida
May 9, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
3rd Quarter Report
Review Council Norms and Procedures Discussion Gabe
Solid Waste Rates Discission Aida
Approval of Final Map of 140 Lyell St Consent Jim
Gas Powered Leaf Blowers Discussion Nick
Adopt by reference the IBC Property Maintenance Code Public Hearing Nick Resolution for approval of guidelines for Prop 218 Consent Aida 459
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
May 23, 2023 FY23-24 Budget Study Session June
May 23, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
1 st Amendment to Agreement with CO+ED Architecture Consent Jim Treasury Report Consent June
Council Non-Profit Civic Organization Contribution Discussion Anthony June 13, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX approving the Report of Sewer Service Charges and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the Tax Collector
2 Printed Public
Hearing -
- not less than 10
days - published
once a week for
two consecutive
weeks 5/11/2022
& 5/18/2022
Present 2023/24 Budget Public Hearing June
June 27, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
Adopt 2023/24 Budget Consent June
MidPen Board Member Presentation Special Item Mayor
July 11, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 22, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
460
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
Treasury Report Consent June
September 12, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
September 26, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Year End tentative report – September (if needed)
Treasury Report Consent June
October 10, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 24, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
November 14, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022
November 28, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
December 5, 2023 Council Reorganization
December 12, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
(ACFR)and Year End – 1st meeting December
461
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….
May is Bike Month Proclamation Special Item Mayor
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) – Jim ES
PCI Report – Jim
MWENDO – Council (with Env Commission)
Dark Skies Ordinance (LLE/JW/NF/ 2/21/2023)
Update to personnel rules– HR Consent HR
Cities Association JPA – Council Discussion Angel
Future Agenda Item Policy Update Discussion Anthony
Acceptance of the CCTV Video Inspection; Project WW01011 Consent Aida Flag Policy Pilot, 2nd Nov Meeting 2023 Discussion Council SB 423 – Support or Oppose Discussion NF
SVCE Electrification Grant Consent Aida
Bicycle parking ratio ordinance (HEU) Discussion Nick
Acceptance of the Council Chamber AV project Consent Aida 462
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
City wide parking analysis – (HEU) Study Session Nick
Design Contract for S 1st Street scape Consent Jim
463
Agenda Item # 9.
PROGRAM SUB PROJECT INITIATION DATE HEU COMPLETION DATE STATUS Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Budget & Hire Planning
Technician December 31, 2022 COMPLETED
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Amend ADU Ordinance
based upon HCD's letter 6 months or less
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.
Eliminate 3rd Party
Architectural Review February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.
Dismiss Design Review
Commission February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.L: Eliminate the requirement of story poles. March 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Budget & Hire Housing March 31, 2023 BUDGET DEPENDENT Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for Adopt VMT Policy & June 30, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
RFP-Permit Ready ADU
Plans July 31, 2023 DEVELOPING RFP
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Financial Analysis July 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 DEVELOPING RFP Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees. August 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 RFP RELEASED 4/10/23 Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Release RFP December 31, 2023 Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Initial Outreach September 31, 2023
Program 6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental
assistance program. September 31, 2023
Program 2.A: Continue to implement and enhance
inclusionary housing requirements. December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Housing in-lieu fee. December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS Program 2.F: Water and Sewer Service Providers. December 31, 2023 Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. Downtown Districts December 31, 2023
Program 3.E: Ensure that the density bonus ordinance
remains consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements. Code Amendments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED 464
Agenda Item # 9.
Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.
Bicycle Storage and
Charging Regulations December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS
Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.
Remove CSC Review of
Housing Developments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.C: Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers
consistent with AB 101. December 31, 2023
Program 4.D: Allow transitional and supportive housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023
Program 4.E: Allow employee/farmworker housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023
Program 4.F: Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’
housing needs. December 31, 2023
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources. Prepare Inventory. December 31, 2023 Program 6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement
information. December 31, 2023
Program 1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall. January 31, 2024 Program 1.G: Rezone housing sites from previous Housing Elements. January 31, 2024
Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings
applicable to housing developments. March 31, 2024
Program 3.I: Allow residential care facilities consistent with State law. March 31, 2024
Program 3.J: Explicitly allow manufactured homes consistent with State law. March 31, 2024
Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and
multi-family. September 31, 2024
Program 1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District. December 31, 2024 Program 1.C: Allow housing in the Office Administrative (OA) District. December 31, 2024
Program 1.E: Update the Loyola Corners Specific Plan. December 31, 2024 465
Agenda Item # 9.
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Adopt-Permit Ready ADU
Plans December 31, 2024
Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements. December 31, 2024 DEVELOPING RFP Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts.
Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
District December 31, 2024
Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and
Woodland Plaza. December 31, 2024
Program 3.M: Modify parking requirements for emergency
shelters consistent with State
law. December 31, 2024
Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Commercial linkage fee. December 31, 2025 Program 1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and
Community Facilities District sites and
facilitate housing on religious institution properties. December 31, 2025 Program 1.F: Rezone Village Court parcel. December 31, 2025 Program 4.H: Provide additional density bonuses and
incentives for housing that accommodates special needs
groups. December 31, 2025
Program 4.I: Allow senior housing with extended care
facilities in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. December 31, 2025 Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation. July 31, 2026 Program 4.G: Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. July 31, 2026
Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Follow-up Outreach September 31, 2026
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Entitlement Review December 31, 2026 Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts. December 31, 2026 466
Agenda Item # 9.
Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for residents.
Capital Improvement
Project for above head
pedestrian crossing
signals on San Antonio
Road near Downtown Los
Altos December 31, 2027
Program 5.F: Incentivize the creation of play areas for multifamily housing projects. December 31, 2027 Program 1.K: Participate in regional housing needs planning efforts. Ongoing
Program 1.L: General Plan amendments. Ongoing
Program 1.M: SB 9 implementation. Ongoing
Program 1.N: Facilitate and monitor pipeline housing
projects. Ongoing
Program 2.C: Assist in securing funding for affordable
housing projects. Ongoing
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ongoing
Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Annual Survey Annually Program 4.A: Support efforts to fund homeless services. Ongoing Program 4.B: Continue to participate in local and regional forums for homelessness,
supportive, and transitional housing. Ongoing
Program 5.A: Monitor condominium conversions. Ongoing
Program 5.B: Continue to administer the City’s affordable housing programs. Ongoing
Program 5.C: Restrict commercial uses from displacing
residential neighborhoods. Ongoing
Program 5.D: Implement voluntary code inspection program. Ongoing Program 5.E: Help secure funding for housing rehabilitation and assistance programs. Ongoing
467
Agenda Item # 9.
Program 6.A: Assist residents with housing discrimination and landlord-tenant
complaints. Ongoing
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources.
Inform, Evaluate
Apply/Submit Ongoing
Program 6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units. Ongoing Program 7.A: Promote energy and water conservation and
greenhouse gas reduction
through education and awareness campaigns. Ongoing
Program 7.B: Monitor and implement thresholds and
statutory requirements of climate change legislation. Ongoing 468
Agenda Item # 9.