San Luis Obispo City Council
September 19, 2023

FLOW

TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET ON SUMP
-NTSEDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOW HALF-FILLED GRAVEL BAGS (2-BAGS HIGH) SPILLWAY, 1-BAG HIGH

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

FLOW FLOW

HALF-FILLED GRAVEL BAGS
(2-BAGS HIGH)

SPILLWAY,
1-BAG HIGH

TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET ON GRADE
-NTSNOTES:

1. INTENDED FOR SHORT TERM USE

2. USE TO INHIBIT NON-STORM WATER FLOWS

3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP

4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETE

5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS & WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC SE-10 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION TYPE-3
-NTSDITCH 12" MIN UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CONCRETE WASHOUT 3' INSTALLATION TABLE SLOPE ROLL INTERVAL 4:1 OR FLATTER 20' O.C. BETWEEN 2:1 AND 4:1 15' O.C. 2:1 AND STEEPER 10' O.C.

STRAW BALE
(TYP)

STAKE (TYP)

STAPLE DETAIL
4"
1 8" DIA.

STEEL WIRE
2"
10 ML

PLASTIC

VARIES LINING
10' MIN.
"ABOVE GRADE"

WITH STRAW BALES
-NTSPLYWOOD
48" X 24"

PAINTED WHITE

BLACK LETTERS
5" HEIGHT

0.5" LAG
SCREWS

WOOD POST
3' x 3" x 8' 3'

CONCRETE WASHOUT

SIGN DETAIL
(OR EQUIVALENT)

BINDING WIRE

STRAW BALE

WOOD OR (TYP) METAL STAKES
(2 PER BALE)

SECTION B-B
-NTSNATIVE MATERIAL (OPTIONAL)

STAPLES
(2 PER BALE)
10 ML

PLASTIC LINING
NOTES:

1. ACTUAL LAYOUT DETERMINED IN FIELD

2. THE CONCRETE WASHOUT SIGN SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN
30 FT. OF THE TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY
INLET

HALF-FILLED GRAVEL BAGS
2-BAGS HIGH
(NO GAPS BETWEEN BAGS)
CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-8
-NTS- SE-10 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION [ALTERNATE]
-NTSCRUSHED AGGREGATE
GREATER THAN 3" BUT
SMALLER THAN 6"

ORIGINAL
GRADE

SECTION A-A
-NTSMATCH EXISTING GRADE
30'
50'
OR (4x) THE CIRCUMFERENCE

OF THE LARGEST

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TIRE,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

PLAN

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT
-NTSA A
B B

CURB & GUTTER

HALF-FILLED
GRAVEL BAGS 50' O/C TYP.

IN FLOW LINES OF GUTTER.
(NO GAPS BETWEEN BAGS)
SE-6 GRAVEL BAGS IN FLOW LINE DETAIL
-NTSNOTES: PLACE STRAW WATTLE IN TRENCH. WATTLE TO BE TIGHTLY BUTTED END TO END BUT NOT OVERLAPPING. MINIMUM 6 STAKES PER 25' OF WATTLE. STRAW WATTLE DETAIL -NTS3"-5" TRENCH 9" Ø x 25' LONG

STRAW WATTLE
34" x 2" x 2' WOOD STAKE IN
CENTER OF WATTLE (2" - 3"

EXPOSED AFTER DRIVING
STAKE)

FILTERFABRIC
OAK
POST
TOE-IN

DRAW CORD

NETTING

OAK POST

FILTER FABRIC
TOE-IN

PRE-ASSEMBLED SILT FENCE
-NTSINSTALLATION PROCEDURES: 1. DIG A 6" x 6" TRENCH AT DESIRED FENCE LOCATION 2. UNROLL SILT FENCE ALONG TRENCH 3. DRIVE STAKES INTO THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF TRENCH WITH NETTING AND STAKES FACING THE DOWNHILL SIDE. 4. LAY THE BOTTOM 6" OF FABRIC INTO THE TRENCH AND FILL WITH TOP SOIL FOR PROPER TOE-IN. 5. DRAW TENSION CORD AT TOP OF FENCE AND TIE TO END STAKES. 4' MAX
MARSH

PACIFIC
OLN
TAIN
BROAD
HILL
U.S.
101

HIGHWAY

HIGUERA MONTEREY PEACH

MOUN HILL SANTA ROSA PALM MILL
NIPOMO
MILL
PALM

MONTEREY BRIZZOLARA DANA GARDEN OSOS MORRO CHORRO HIGUERA COURT BROAD

WALNUT MORRO OSOS LINC JOHNSON PEPPER
PISMO

SANTA ROSA

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE OR DESIGNATE A QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP). THE QSP SHALL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING AND OVERSEE ALL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP AND ITS REQUIREMENTS. THE QSP SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL

INSPECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE BMP'S AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES NEEDED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT. THE QSP SHALL HOLD A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS THAT WILL BE WORKING AT THE SITE AND INFORM THEM ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT AND THESWPPP.

2. THE QUALIFIED SWPPP DEVELOPER (QSD) SHALL APPROVE AND CERTIFY ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE SWPPP AND THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS.

3. IF THERE ARE ANY LIMIT EXCEEDANCES OF THE GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, THE QSP SHALL IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES NECESSARY

TO KEEP THE EXCEEDANCE FROM HAPPENING AGAIN AND REPORT THE EXCEEDANCE VIA THE SMARTS SYSTEM PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT. (SEE SWPPP)

4. IF WATER MONITORING BECOMES NECESSARY PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT, THEN THE PERSON OR PERSONS DOING THE MONITORING SHALL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION TO PERFORM SUCH MONITORING.

5. EROSION CONTROL SHEET(S) SHOW THE WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN FOR THIS SITE BY THE QSD. THE

QSP SHALL REVIEW THESE LOCATIONS AND REPORT BACK TO THE QSD IF THIS LOCATION IS DEEMED UNSAFE OR UNSUITABLE FOR ANY REASONS.

6. THE QSP SHALL ASSURE ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO CONDUCT THE WATER MONITORING.7. A STANDBY CREW FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON (APPROXIMATELY OCTOBER 15 THROUGH APRIL 15). ADEQUATE BMP MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AND STOCKPILED ONSITE, OR AT NEARBY LOCATIONS TO FACILITATE RAPID IMPLEMENTATION OF TEMPORARY BMP DEVICES WHEN THE FORECAST FOR RAIN IS 50% OR GREATER PER NOAA.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BMP MEASURES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND/OR AS DIRECTED

BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, QSP, OR QSD TO CONTROL DRAINAGE WHICH HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY GRADING AND/OR

TRENCHING

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE ON CALL IN THE EVENT IT IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT EROSION CONTROL BMP MEASURES OR IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.

10. ALL STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN A RAIN EVENT ACTION PLAN(REAP) SHALL BE IN PLACE 24 HRS. PRIOR TO FORECAST RAIN EVENTS.

11. AFTER A RAIN EVENT, ALL BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED AND ANY BUILDUP OF SEDIMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED MANNER.

12. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, QSP, QSD OR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER AT ANY TIME TO INSTALL AND/OR CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR CONTROL EROSION.

13. THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ON THIS PLAN ARE A GENERAL CONCEPT OF WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE RELOCATED, DELETED OR ADDITIONAL ITEMS MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE ACTUAL SOIL CONDITIONSENCOUNTERED. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE PLACED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE QSP AND/OR AS APPROVED BY THE QSD.

14. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IN PROPER WORKING ORDER AND TO MODIFY THOSE DEVICES AS SITE PROGRESS DICTATES.

15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES DURING STORMS AND MODIFY THEM IN ORDER TO PREVENT PROGRESS OF ANY ONGOING EROSION.

16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING ANY EROSION OR DEBRIS SPILLING ONTO A PUBLIC STREET DAILY.17. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR QSP SHALL CONTACT THE QSD IN THE EVENT THAT THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS DESIGNED REQUIRES ANY SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS.

18. DURING GRADING OPERATIONS IF AN AREA OF DISTURBANCE IS TO REMAIN IDLE FOR A PERIOD OF 2 OR MORE WEEKS, THE DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH, STRAW OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF BMP TO PREVENT EROSION DURING RAINEVENTS.

19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE STREET SWEEPING ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT ANY SEDIMENT(S) FROM BEING TRACKED OFF-SITE OR TO AREAS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO SEDIMENT(S) BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

20. POST CONSTRUCTION BMP'S INCLUDING PLANTINGS, SHRUBS, GROUND COVER AND TREES AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLANS SHALL BE IN PLACE AS SOON AS FEASIBLE.

21. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SILT FENCING AT ALL PERIMETER LOCATIONS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER OFF-SITE.

22. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT ALL YARD AND LANDSCAPE AREA DRAINS FROM SEDIMENT(S) UNTIL LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND VEGETATION ESTABLISHED.

23. GRAVEL BAGS ORIENTED TO SLOW THE FLOW OF STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CONCRETE GUTTERS IN THE ON-SITE ROADWAY TO HELP FILTER OUT ANY SEDIMENTS. THESE GRAVEL BAGS SHALL BE PLACED 50' O/C MAX. SEDIMENTS THAT ACCUMULATE AT THE GRAVEL BAGS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT.

24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ONE ACCEPTABLE RAIN GAUGES ON-SITE TO MONITOR RAIN EVENT TOTALS DURING CONSTRUCTION.25. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE WIND EROSION AND DUST CONTROL MEASURES.26. IN THE EVENT OF A RELEASE OF A REPORTABLE QUANTITY OF A POLLUTANT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADVISE THE OWNER TO NOTIFY THE NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, AND THE CITY. IF NECESSARY, THIS POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SHOULD BE REVISED TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. A REPORTABLE QUANTITY IS ESTABLISHED BY THE 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CRI) 1117.3 OR 40 CFR 302.4.

27. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DURING ALL DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION AND GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.

28. STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PERMIT AND THE CASQA BMP GUIDE.29. SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON POST CONSTRUCTION VEGETATION BMP'S.

30. IF DURING CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING OPERATIONS BECOME NECESSARY, ALL DEWATERING SHALL BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT AND PER THE CASQA BMP HANDBOOK FOR BMP SC-11. DISCHARGES

SHALL BE TREATED FOR EXCESSIVE SEDIMENTS PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE AND/OR ENTERING THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

31. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL PERMANENT

IMPROVEMENTS, AND FACILITIES ARE COMPLETE, PLANTINGS ARE INSTALLED, VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED, AND THE SITE HAS BEEN DEEMED STABLE BY THE PROJECT QSP AND THERE IS NO RISK FOR EROSION OR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ON-OR-OFFSITE. TEMPORARY MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS.

32. ALL 4:1 & STEEPER SLOPES TO BE HYDROSEEDED AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS.33. THE BMP'S PROPOSED ON THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED AS A GUIDELINE FOR THE CONTRACTOR. OTHER AND/OR MOVES EXTENSIVE

MEASURES MAY BECOME NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO IMPLEMENT.

GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES AS OUTLINED IN THE GENERAL PERMIT AND PER THE SWPPP.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT AN INVENTORY OF THE PRODUCTS USED AND/OR EXPECTED TO BE USED AND THE END PRODUCTS THAT ARE PRODUCED AND/OR EXPECTED TO BE PRODUCED.

3. COVER AND BERM LOOSE STOCKPILED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT ACTIVELY BEING USED.

4. STORE CHEMICALS IN WATERTIGHT CONTAINERS (WITH APPROPRIATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT TO PREVENT ANY SPILLAGE OR LEAKAGE) OR IN A STORAGE SHED (COMPLETELY ENCLOSED).

5. ALL EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE FUELING AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES SHALL BE DONE IN THE AREA SHOWN ON THE SITE PLANS OR OTHER LOCATION WHERE THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S HAVE BEEN INSTALLED TO PREVENT ANY CONTAMINATION OF THE SOILS.

6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SOME TYPE OF GROUND COVER OR OTHER DEVISES TO ENSURE NO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COME IN CONTACT WITH SOILS DURING FUELING AND MAINTENANCE.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE CONTAINMENT AROUND ANY SANITARY TOILETS THAT PREVENT CONTAMINATION TO THE SOILS.

8. ANY BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE STORED ON-SITE THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE NON-VISIBLE POLLUTANTS TO THE

STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL BE STORED IN WATERTIGHT CONTAINERS OR UNDER THE COVER OF SHELTERS THAT PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM RAINS.

9. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTES SHALL BE CLEANED UP DAILY AND STORED IN COVERED CONTAINERS PRIOR TO DISPOSAL.

10. THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE OPTION TO USE METAL RUMBLE STRIPS IN LIEU OF ROCK AT THE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AS LONG AS IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT.

GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES ARE TO BE USED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION:

1. REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBED AREA WHERE POSSIBLE.

2. USE WATER TRUCKS OR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO PREVENT AIRBORNE DUST FROM LEAVING THE SITE. INCREASED WATERING FREQUENCY WILL BE REQUIRED WHENEVER WIND SPEEDS EXCEED 15MPH. RECLAIMED (NON-POTABLE WATER) WATER SHOULD BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

3. PERMANENT DUST CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ANY SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.

4. EXPOSED GROUND AREAS THAT ARE PLANNED TO BE REWORKED AT DATES GREATER THAN ONE MONTH AFTER INITIAL GRADING SHALL BE SOWN WITH A FAST GERMINATING NATIVE GRASS SEED AND WATERED UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.

5. ALL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO RE-VEGETATION MUST BE STABILIZED USING APPROVED CHEMICAL SOIL BINDERS, JUTE NETTING, OR OTHER METHODS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE CITY.

6. ALL ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TO BE PAVED SHOULD BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IN ADDITION, BUILDING PADS SHOULD BE LAID AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING UNLESS SEEDING OR SOIL BINDERS ARE USED.

7. VEHICLE SPEED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 MPH ON ANY UNPAVED SURFACE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

8. ALL TRUCKS HAULING DIRT, SAND, SOIL, OR OTHER LOOSE MATERIAL ARE TO BE COVERED OR SHOULD MAINTAIN AT LEAST TWO FEET OF FREEBOARD (MINIMUM VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN TOP OF LOAD AND TOP OF TRAILER) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THECALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 23114.

9. SWEEP STREETS AT THE END OF EACH DAY IF VISIBLE SOIL MATERIAL IS CARRIED ONTO ADJACENT PAVED ROADS. WATER SWEEPERS WITH RECLAIMED WATER SHOULD BE USED WHERE FEASIBLE.

A DESIGNATED DUST CONTROL MONITOR SHALL BE CHOSEN. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL DUST CONTROL MEASURES. THE MONITOR SHALL BE AVAILABLE DURING WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE MONITOR SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND APCD.

AIR QUALITY CONTROL NOTES

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PHASE CONSTRUCTION ROUGH GRADING TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF DISTURBANCE TO AN AREA THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED WITH PROPER BMP'S DURING ANY RAIN EVENTS.

2. AFTER AN AREA HAS BEEN PAVED OR GRADED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE GRAVEL BAGS IN THE FLOW LINES TO FILTER SEDIMENTS FROM STORM WATER RUNOFF OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.

3. AREA DRAINS SHALL HAVE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION INSTALLED DURING THE TIME BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND PLANTING OF GROUND VEGETATION PER THE PLANS OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.

4. LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SPRINKLERS INSTALLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS.

5. ANY AREAS OF DISTURBANCE THAT WILL REMAIN IDLE FOR TWO OR MORE WEEKS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH MULCH, STRAW, HYDROSEED OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BMP COVER.

6. DURING ASPHALT PATCHING OPERATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE EITHER PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY PAVING IN THE AREAS OF PATCHING BY THE END OF THE WORKDAY. NO TRENCHES SHALL BE LEFT OPEN DURING TIMES OF PREDICTED RAINFALL.

7. THE AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR MATERIAL DELIVERY & STORAGE AND CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY, THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE QSP.

8. THE BMP'S SHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS ARE INTENDED AS A GUIDELINE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S QSP, IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE OR OTHER BMP'S WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE QSP.

9. ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN ON A DAILY BASIS BY MEANS OF VACUUMING OR STREET SWEEPINGS.

10. ROADWAYS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN STABILIZED WITH AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE STABILIZED USING SOIL BINDERS, MULCH AND/OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BMP'S PRIOR TO FORECAST RAIN EVENTS.

11. PRIOR TO FORECAST RAIN EVENTS, THE QSP SHALL EVALUATE THE SITE AND ESTABLISH ADEQUATE BMP'S TO PROTECT ALL DISTURBED AREAS FROM EROSION.

12. STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE TYPE 2 DURING STORM DRAIN INSTALLATIONS, AND TYPE 3 AFTER PAVING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, (SEE BMP GUIDANCE HANDOUT IN THE SWPPP FOR MORE INFORMATION).

13. THE STRAW WATTLES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT DIFFERENT PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL INCORPORATE THEIR USE AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

PHASING NOTES WDID No. __________ (PENDING)

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

PROJECT SITE

DRAIN INLET TO HAVE

FILTER FABRIC OR BASKET

DRAIN INLET TO HAVEFILTER FABRIC OR BASKET
rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794
3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

REVISIONS
NO. DATE
DATE:DESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALESHEET NO:
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Irvine, California
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:

JOB NO.:

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

EROSION CONTROL NOTES
C-8.0
(DEFERRED SUBMITTAL)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
408 Page 1741 of 2037
X
X

X X X X X X X
S
S
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH OH

OH OH OH OH OH OH
OH
OH OH

OH OH OH
T
T
T
205
200
200
203
195 200
190
188 188 190 192
195
195
195
190
190
191
191 190
190
190
191
191
192
191
193
200
200
196
197
198
201
200
201
199
193
190
189
190 192
N53°05'37"E 214.61'
N36°28'15"W 279.70'
N53°36'43"E 213.48'
N36°15'10"W 281.64'
SD SD
SD
SD
^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^^^
^
^^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^ ^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
SD
APN: 002-411-002 MISSION COLLEGE PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL (NOT A PART) APN: 002-421-001

SAN LUIS OBISPO

CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
(NOT A PART)

MIXED-USE/ HOTEL
(FUTURE PROJECT)
APN: 002-421-033

LEITCHER

BUILDING
(NOT A PART)
APN: 002-412-013

HAYS-LATIMER ADOBE
(PRIVATE RESIDENCE)
(NOT A PART)
APN: 002-412-005

APARTMENTS
(NOT A PART)
APN: 002-401-010

REIS FAMILY

MORTUARY
(NOT A PART)
APN: 002-402-015

CENTRAL COAST

REALTY GROUP
(NOT A PART)
190 188
187

APPROXIMATE BUILDING

ENVELOPE SHOWN FOR

REFERENCE ONLY

APPROXIMATE BUILDING

ENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN;

PROTECT IN PLACE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING

ENVELOPE SHOWN FOR

REFERENCE ONLY

APPROXIMATE BUILDING

ENVELOPES SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY

PROPOSED TREE

PROTECTION FENCING

PROPOSED TREEPROTECTIONFENCING

PARKING

STRUCTURE LIMITS

PARKING STRUCTURE LIMITS
EXISTING OAK TO REMAIN;

PROTECT IN PLACE
SE-7 SE-7
SE-7
SE-7
SE-10
WM-1
WM-8
SE-1
SE-1
SE-1
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-7
SE-10
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-6
(TYP)
SE-6
(TYP)
195
192
193
194
196
197
195
200
193
194
196
197
198
199
201
__________ (PENDING) (DEFERRED SUBMITTAL)
WDID:

SWPPP BMP LEGEND

SILT FENCESTRAW WATTLE

HYDROSEEDING

STREET SWEEPING/VACUUMINGSTORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
(SEE PHASING NOTES ON C-8.0)

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WITH WHEEL WASH
AREA

MATERIAL DELIVERY/STORAGE AREACONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREAGRAVEL BAGS SE-1SE-5
EC-4
SE-7
SE-10
TC-1
WM-1WM-8
SE-6
0 40 feet
SCALE: 1" = 20'
20 60
rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794
3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

REVISIONS
NO. DATE
DATE:DESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALESHEET NO:
watrydesign.com
San Jose, California
Irvine, California
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:

JOB NO.:

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C-8.1

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
409 Page 1742 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
410

Central Coast Truck Center 86 February 2020
Appendix C: Permit Registration Documents

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
411 Page 1744 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 87 February 2020
Y/N Permit Registration Document
Notice of Intent
Y Risk Assessment
Certification
Post Construction Water Balance
Copy of Annual Fee Receipt
Y Site Maps, see Appendix B

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
412 Page 1745 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 88 February 2020
Appendix D: SWPPP Amendment Certifications

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
413 Page 1746 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 89 February 2020
SWPPP Amendment No.

Project Name:

Project Number:

Qualified SWPPP Developer’s Certification of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Amendment
“This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and attachments were prepared under my direction to meet the requirements of the California Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order No. 2009-009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ). I certify that I am a Qualified SWPPP Developer in good standing as of the date signed below.” QSD’s Signature Date
QSD Name QSD Certificate Number
Title and Affiliation Telephone
Address Email

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
414 Page 1747 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 90 February 2020
Appendix E: Submitted Changes to PRDs

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
415 Page 1748 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 91 February 2020
Log of Updated PRDs
The General Permit allows for the reduction or increase of the total acreage covered under the General Permit when a portion of the project is complete and/or conditions for termination of coverage have been met; when ownership of a portion of the project is purchased by a different entity; or when new acreage is added to the project.

Modified PRDs shall be filed electronically within 30 days of a reduction or increase in total disturbed area if a change in permit covered acreage is to be sought. The SWPPP shall be modified appropriately, with revisions and amendments recorded in Appendix C. Updated PRDs submitted electronically via SMARTS can be found in this Appendix.

This appendix includes all of the following updated PRDs (check all that apply):

Revised Notice of Intent (NOI);
Revised Site Map;
Revised Risk Assessment;
New landowner’s information (name, address, phone number, email address); and New signed certification statement.

Legally Responsible Person [if organization]
Signature of [Authorized Representative of] Legally
Responsible Person or Approved Signatory
Date
Name of [Authorized Representative of] Legally
Responsible Person or Approved Signatory
Telephone Number

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
416 Page 1749 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 92 February 2020
Appendix F: Construction Schedule

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
417 Page 1750 of 2037
,' 7DVN1DPH 'XUDWLRQ 6WDUW )LQLVK 'XUDWLRQ
9DULDQFH
 3DOP1LSRPR3DUNLQJ6WUXFWXUH'HOLYHU\ GD\V )UL :HG GD\V  'HOLYHU\3* (6LWH(OHFWULFDO5HORFDWLRQ
WR&RPSOHWH
3KDVH&RQ

GD\V )UL )UL GD\V
 3* ((OHFWULFDO5HORFDWLRQ'HVLJQ
&ULWLFDO3DWK
GD\V )UL 7KX
 GD\V
3ODQV6SHFLILFDWLRQVDQG(VWLPDWHV GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V 3* (5HYLHZ GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V &LW\3XEOLF:RUNV5HYLHZ GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V $GGUHVV&RPPHQWVIRU%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V &LW\%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW 3* (6LWH(OHFWULFDO5HPRYDO
GD\V )UL 7KX
 GD\V 6XEPLW3ODQVWR%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V %XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW5HYLHZV GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V  $GGUHVV%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW&RPPHQWV GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V 5HVXEPLW36(WR%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V %XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWLVVXHVSHUPLW GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V 3ODQ5HYLHZ4$4&&RQWUDFW5HYLHZ

3ODQV(VWLPDWH6SHFLDO3URYLVLQV

GD\V )UL 7KX
 GD\V
 3UHSDUH3ODQV6SHFLDO3URYLVLRQVDQG(VWLP GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V 6FKHGXOH5HYLHZ0HHWLQJ'HVLJQ6XSHUYLV GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V 36 (5HYLHZ0HHWLQJ GD\V 7KX 7KX GD\V )LQDO&RQWUDFW'RFXPHQWV 3ODQV
6SHFLILFDWLRQVDQG(VWLPDWHV
GD\V )UL 7KX
 GD\V
 $GGUHVV3ODQ&KHFN&RPPHQWVDQG
'HOLYHU)LQDO3DFNDJH
GD\V )UL 7KX GD\V

)LQDO&RQWUDFW'RFXPHQWV GD\V 7KX 7KX GD\V 5LVN0LWLJDWLRQ7LPH%DQN GD\V )UL 7KX  GD\V 3* (6LWH(OHFWULFDO5HPRYDO
$GYHUWLVHDQG$ZDUG
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
 GD\V
3KDVH*UDGLQJDQG'HPROLWLRQ'HVLJQ GD\V )UL 0RQ GD\V 3+ 3ODQV6SHFLILFDWLRQV GD\V )UL )UL GD\V 3+ %LG,WHP/LVWDQG&RVW(VWLPDWH GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V 3KDVH*DUDJHDQG52:'HVLJQ GD\V )UL 0RQ GD\V 3+ 3ODQV6SHFLILFDWLRQV GD\V )UL )UL GD\V 3+ %LG,WHP/LVWDQG&RVW(VWLPDWH GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V &RQVWUXFWDELOLW\5HYLHZ 
3KDVH  
GD\V )UL :HG GD\V 3UHSDUH5HTXHVWIRU3URSRVDO GD\V )UL 0RQ  GD\V 5HTXHVW3URSRVDOV GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V 5HFHLYH3URSRVDOV GD\V 0RQ 0RQ GD\V 5HYLHZ3URSRVDOV 6HOHFW&RQVXOWDQW GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V 







- 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0
+DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI 7DVN6SOLW0LOHVWRQH6XPPDU\
3URMHFW6XPPDU\([WHUQDO7DVNV([WHUQDO0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH7DVN ,QDFWLYH7DVN,QDFWLYH0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH6XPPDU\0DQXDO7DVN 'XUDWLRQRQO\0DQXDO6XPPDU\5ROOXS0DQXDO6XPPDU\6WDUWRQO\ )LQLVKRQO\3URJUHVV'HDGOLQH
3DJH
3URMHFW
3DOP1LSRPR3DUNLQJ6WUXFW'DWH
:HG

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
418

,' 7DVN1DPH 'XUDWLRQ 6WDUW )LQLVK 'XUDWLRQ
9DULDQFH
 2EWDLQ3XUFKDVH2UGHU GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V  .LFNRII0HHWLQJ GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V &RPSOHWH5HYLHZRI 3ODQV GD\V 7XH 0RQ GD\V 3UHSDUHVXPPDU\RISODQUHYLHZFRPPHQWVDQGDQ\ LPSDFWVIRUSURHFWVFRSHVFKHGXOHDQGEXGJHWDQGIXUQLVKWRWHDP GD\V 7XH :HG GD\V
 5HYLHZ0HHWLQJWR'LVFXVV
&RPPHQWV GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 3KDVH  $GGUHVV5HYLHZ&RPPHQWV)RU%XLOGLQJ
3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ3DFNDJH
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 &RQILUP&RPPHQWV$GGUHVVHGDQG5HDG\IRU3HUPLW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5HYLHZ3ODQVDQG3URYLGH5HPDLQLQJ &RPPHQWV
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 5HWDLQ&RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW,QVSHFWLRQ
6HUYLFHVIRU3KDVHDQG3KDVH
GD\V 7KX :HG
 GD\V

3UHSDUH5HTXHVWIRU3URSRVDO GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 3UHSDUH&RXQFLO5)3&0$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUWDQG $PHQGLQJ:DWU\&RQWUDFWZLWK&$%XGJHW
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 &RXQFLO5)3$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG  GD\V 5HSRUW$SSURYHG GD\V :HG
 :HG
 GD\V 5HTXHVW3URSRVDOV
&03XEOLF5HODWLRQV
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5HFHLYH3URSRVDOV GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 5HYLHZ3URSRVDOV 6HOHFW&RQVXOWDQW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 2EWDLQ3XUFKDVH2UGHU GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V .LFNRII0HHWLQJ GD\V 7KX :HG  GD\V &LW\%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW
%RWK3KDVHDQG3KDVH
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
6XEPLW3ODQVWR%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V %XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW5HYLHZV GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V $GGUHVV%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW&RPPHQWV3ODQ GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5HVXEPLW36(WR%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V %XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWLVVXHVSHUPLW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 3ODQ5HYLHZ4$4&&RQWUDFW5HYLHZ 
3ODQV(VWLPDWH6SHFLDO3URYLRQV

GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 3UHSDUH3ODQV6SHFLDO3URYLVLRQVDQG(VWLPDW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V &LW\&RQVXOWDQW5HYLHZRI GD\V 7KX :HG  GD\V 6FKHGXOH5HYLHZ0HHWLQJ'HVLJQ6XSHUYLVRU GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 36 (5HYLHZ0HHWLQJ GD\V :HG :HG GD\V )LQDO&RQWUDFW'RFXPHQWV
3ODQV6SHFLILFDWLRQV
DQG(VWLPDWHV
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 $GGUHVV3ODQ&KHFN&RPPHQWVDQG
3UHSDUH)LQDO3DFNDJH
GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V
 3KDVH)LQDO&RQWUDFW'RFXPHQWV GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 3KDVH)LQDO&RQWUDFW'RFXPHQWV GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 5LVN0LWLJDWLRQ7LPH%DQN GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 3KDVH$GYHUWLVHDQG$ZDUG GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 3UHSDUH$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5RXWH$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUW GD\V 7KX  :HG
 GD\V 5HSRUW$SSURYHG GD\V :HG
 :HG
 GD\V $GYHUWLVH3URMHFW GD\V 7KX

 :HG
 GD\V
%LG2SHQLQJ GD\V :HG
 :HG
 GD\V
 3UHSDUH$ZDUG5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  5RXWH$ZDUG5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  &RQWUDFWVDQG,QVXUDQFH GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  3KDVH&RQVWUXFWLRQ GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  6FKHGXOHSUHFRQVWUXFWLRQPHHWLQJ GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ0HHWLQJ GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 










- 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0
+DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI 7DVN6SOLW0LOHVWRQH6XPPDU\
3URMHFW6XPPDU\([WHUQDO7DVNV([WHUQDO0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH7DVN ,QDFWLYH7DVN,QDFWLYH0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH6XPPDU\0DQXDO7DVN 'XUDWLRQRQO\0DQXDO6XPPDU\5ROOXS0DQXDO6XPPDU\6WDUWRQO\ )LQLVKRQO\3URJUHVV'HDGOLQH
3DJH
3URMHFW
3DOP1LSRPR3DUNLQJ6WUXFW'DWH
:HG

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
419

,' 7DVN1DPH 'XUDWLRQ 6WDUW )LQLVK 'XUDWLRQ
9DULDQFH

 ,VVXH3UHVV5HOHDVH GD\V :HG :HG GD\V

 &RQWUDFW6WDUW7LPH GD\V 7KX
 :HG GD\V
 :RUN'D\V GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V

3KDVH$GYHUWLVHDQG$ZDUG GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V  3UHSDUH$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5RXWH$GYHUWLVLQJ5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG  GD\V 5HSRUW$SSURYHG GD\V :HG
 :HG
 GD\V $GYHUWLVH3URMHFW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V %LG2SHQLQJ GD\V :HG :HG GD\V 3UHSDUH$ZDUG5HSRUW GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 5RXWH$ZDUG5HSRUW GD\V 7KX  :HG GD\V &RQWUDFWVDQG,QVXUDQFH GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 3KDVH&RQVWUXFWLRQ GD\V 7KX :HG GD\V 6FKHGXOHSUHFRQVWUXFWLRQPHHWLQJ GD\V 7KX :HG  GD\V 3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ0HHWLQJ GD\V :HG
 :HG
 GD\V &RQWUDFW6WDUW7LPH GD\V 7KX
 :HG GD\V :RUN'D\V PRQV 7KX :HG PRQV 





- 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0 0 - 6 1 - 0
+DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI +DOI 7DVN6SOLW0LOHVWRQH6XPPDU\
3URMHFW6XPPDU\([WHUQDO7DVNV([WHUQDO0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH7DVN ,QDFWLYH7DVN,QDFWLYH0LOHVWRQH,QDFWLYH6XPPDU\0DQXDO7DVN 'XUDWLRQRQO\0DQXDO6XPPDU\5ROOXS0DQXDO6XPPDU\6WDUWRQO\ )LQLVKRQO\3URJUHVV'HDGOLQH
3DJH
3URMHFW
3DOP1LSRPR3DUNLQJ6WUXFW'DWH
:HG

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
420

Central Coast Truck Center 93 February 2020
Appendix G: Construction Activities, Materials Used, and Associated Pollutants

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
421 Page 1754 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 94 February 2020
Table G.1 Construction Activities and Associated Pollutants Phase Activity Associated Materials or
Pollutants Pollutant Category(1)
Grading and Land Development
Clearing, grading, grubbing, or
excavation Sediment Sediments, Nutrients, Metals, Gross Pollutants Vehicle and Equipment Use
Equipment Operation
Equipment Maintenance
Equipment Washing
Equipment Fueling
Oil, Grease, Fuels, Other Toxic
Chemicals, Miscellaneous
Waste
Portable Toilets Sanitary Waste Bacteria and viruses, Synthetic Organics
Streets and Utilities Phase
Paving Operations/Curbs and
Gutters Hot and Cold Mix Asphalt Oil and Grease
Concrete/Masonry
Cement dust, concrete curing
compounds, galzing
compounds, surface cleaners,
saw cut slurries
Metals, Synthetic Organics
Utility line testing and flushing Hydrostatic test water, pipe flushing Synthetic Organics
Vertical Construction Phase
Framing/carpentry Sawdust, particle board dust,
adhesives, and treated woods Metals, Synthetic Organics Painting
Paint thinners, acetone, methyl
ehtyl ketone, stripper paints,
lacquers, varnish, enamels,
turpentine, gum spirit, solvents,
dyes, stripping pigments and
sanding
Metals, Synthetic Organics
Landscaping and Site Stabilization Phase
Soil Preparation/Amendments Use of soil
additives/amendments Nutrients
Planting/Vegetation
Management
Vegetation Control
(pesticides/herbicies)
Nutrients, Metals, Synthetic
Organics
Seeding Fibers/mulches, tackifiers, other
chemical constituents Nutrients
(1) Categories per CASQA BMP Handbook (i.e., Sediment, Nutrients, Bacteria and Viruses, Oil and Grease, Metals, Synthetic Organics, Pesticides, Gross Pollutants, and Vector Production)

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
422 Page 1755 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 95 February 2020
Appendix H: CASQA Stormwater BMP Handbook Portal:

Construction Fact Sheets

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
423 Page 1756 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 96 February 2020
Appendix I: BMP Inspection Form

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
424 Page 1757 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 76 February 2020
Risk Level 2
Visual Inspection Field Log Sheet
Date and Time of Inspection: Report Date:

Inspection Type: Ƒ Weekly Ƒ Before
predicted
rain
Ƒ During
rain event
Ƒ
Following
qualifying
rain event
Ƒ Contained
stormwater
release
Ƒ Quarterly
nonstormwater
Site Information
Construction Site Name:

Construction stage and
completed activities:

Approximate area
of exposed site:

Weather and Observations
Date Rain Predicted to Occur: Predicted % chance of rain:

Estimate storm beginning:
(date and time)
Estimate storm
duration:_________
(hours)
Estimate time since
last storm:
________
(days or hours)
Rain gauge
reading: _______
(inches)
Observations: If yes identify location
Odors Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Floating material Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Suspended Material Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Sheen Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Discolorations Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Turbidity Yes Ƒ No Ƒ
Site Inspections
Outfalls or BMPs Evaluated Deficiencies Noted
(add additional sheets or attached detailed BMP Inspection Checklists) Photos Taken: Yes Ƒ No Ƒ Photo Reference IDs:

Corrective Actions Identified (note if SWPPP/REAP change is needed) Inspector Information
Inspector Name: Inspector Title:

Signature: Date:

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
425 Page 1758 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 97 February 2020
Appendix J: Project Specific Rain Event Action Plan
Template

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
426 Page 1759 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
427 Page 1760 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
428 Page 1761 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
429 Page 1762 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
430 Page 1763 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 98 February 2020
Appendix K: Training Reporting Form

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
431 Page 1764 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 99 February 2020
Trained Contractor Personnel Log
Stormwater Management Training Log and Documentation
Project Name:

WDID #:

Stormwater Management Topic: (check as appropriate)
Erosion Control Sediment Control
Wind Erosion Control Tracking Control
Non-Stormwater Management Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control Stormwater Sampling
Specific Training Objective:

Location: Date: _
Instructor: Telephone:

Course Length (hours):

Attendee Roster (Attach additional forms if necessary)
Name Company Phone
As needed, add proof of external training (e.g., course completion certificates, credentials for QSP, QSD).

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
432 Page 1765 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 100 February 2020
Appendix L: Responsible Parties

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
433 Page 1766 of 2037

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
434 Page 1767 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 102 February 2020
Identification of QSP
Project Name:

WDID #:

The following are QSPs associated with this project
Name of Personnel(1) Company Date
(1) If additional QSPs are required on the job site add additional lines and include information here

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
435 Page 1768 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 104 February 2020
Appendix M: Contractors and Subcontractors

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
436 Page 1769 of 2037
Central Coast Truck Center 105 February 2020
Appendix N: Construction General Permit

APPENDIX G - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
437 Page 1770 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: September 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7a – INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING LOCAL

AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
Staff received questions from a Councilmember. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics:

1. What is meant by “CZ5” and how does that impact solar requirements? Can you explain footnote 7 (related to exempting small single-family residential units from the reach code)?
The state identifies 16 climate zones to make sure that energy efficiency requirements are tuned to local conditions. The City is in Climate Zone 5, often referred to as “CZ5.” Buildings use energy differently in each climate zone (e.g., Central Valley buildings use more energy in the summer because of larger air conditioning needs than a building in San Luis Obispo). As a result, certain items in the code, like rooftop solar system size are different for each climate zone.

On-site solar is a mandatory requirement in the code for single-family residential buildings. The cited code language in the report (150.1(c)14) notes that certain buildings are exempt from this solar requirement and in San Luis Obispo this means single-family residential buildings that are approximately 1,250 square feet or smaller.

Since the code does not require a small single-family residential building to have rooftop solar, that building can achieve the base EDR1 score without rooftop solar.

However, rooftop solar would likely be required to achieve the reach code’s EDR1 margin of +6 points. Staff did not want to increase the cost of an all-electric small single-family residential unit from the base code and therefore recommends exempting these smaller buildings when solar is not required by the base code.

Despite this reach code related recommendation, the option of an all-electric small building built to code minimum standards continues to be feasible and cost effective. Staff’s proposed approach leaves it to the project applicant to decide if they want to add solar or not.

Item 7a. 2023 New Buildings Reach Code Page 2
Additionally, resources are available to project applicants to further reduce the cost of smaller all-electric new buildings and staff encourages community members to take advantage of the $6,750 available in incentives for all-electric accessory dwelling units ($5,000 from Central Coast Community Energy and $1,750 from California Electric Homes).

2. Can staff more clearly describe the electric-readiness recommendation? Staff recommends ensuring that a new building with a natural gas central hot water heater (i.e., a single large boiler that serves the entire development) can incorporate electrical conduit if/when the gas heater is eventually replaced with an electric heat pump water heater.

The way staff recommends doing this is by having the conduit pathway shown on the drawings submitted with the building permit application. Staff stopped short of recommending installing the conduit because of uncertainty related to the size needed to serve future equipment and because of the potential cost effectiveness implications for local requirements that have cost, but no energy bill savings.

Item 7b
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1005
For Agenda of: 9/19/2023
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager
Michael Loew, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING LOCAL

AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting Local Amendments to Part 6 of the Building Construction and Fire Prevention Code, 2023,” to be codified under San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.060 – “Amendments – Energy Standards”.

POLICY CONTEXT
 Resolution 11159 (2020 Series) adopts a communitywide goal of carbon neutrality and a building sector goal of no net new increase of building GHG emissions as the result of new buildings starting in 2020.
 Ordinance 1717 (2022 Series) adds Chapter 8.11 (All-Electric Buildings) to the Municipal Code requiring that all new buildings be all-electric, with certain limited exceptions.
 Administrative Order 01 (2023 Series) pauses enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 8.11 (All-Electric Buildings).
 2023-25 Financial Plan Climate Action Major City Goal 4.1.h directs staff to continue to monitor impacts to Municipal Code 8.11 (All‐Electric New Buildings), and if necessary, return to Council with an alternative approach to achieving the City's climate action goals as they relate to new buildings.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In 2020, Council adopted a program to encourage all-electric new buildings. In 2022, Council updated that program to require new buildings to be all-electric via San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 8.11. On April 17, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, that a Berkeley ordinance requiring all-electric new buildings was pre-empted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and was therefore invalid.

Item 7b
On April 18, 2023, Council voted to direct the City Manager and Community Development Director to temporarily suspend enforcement of the all-electric building requirement for new buildings. Based on Council feedback from the April 18, 2023 Council meeting, staff added Task 4.1h to the 2023-25 Climate Action Major City Goal, which states: “Continue to monitor impacts to Municipal Code 8.11 (All‐Electric New Buildings), and if necessary, return to Council with an alternative approach to achieving the City’s climate action goals as they relate to new buildings.”
Staff have continued to monitor the situation and have observed a lack of timely resolution in the Berkeley case, a lack of imminent statewide resolution for the problem, and the local receipt of mixed-fuel building permit applications. 1 Based on these observations,
staff recommends adopting an interim solution.

The California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley ruling limits how the City can reduce emissions from new buildings. Staff have identified local amendments to the California Energy Code (also known as a “reach code”) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings as the preferred alternative approach. Since the California Energy Code only regulates certain energy uses, this approach limits the City’s scope and therefore the reach code does not apply to cooking equipment (e.g., stoves), laundry dryers, or other unregulated energy uses.

The proposed reach code, provided as Attachment A, includes requirements for new buildings that would result in lower operational greenhouse gas emissions. To be consistent with state law, the City must make findings that the proposed building code amendments related to building energy performance are cost effective and use less energy than the standard State Code. The California Energy Commission (CEC) must agree with the City's analysis before the local amendments to the California Energy Code can go into effect. This report finds that the proposed amendments that affect building energy use are cost effective; the studies that illustrate cost effectiveness are provided as Attachments B, C, and D.

While the proposed approach is less effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the all-electric new building requirements codified in Municipal Code Chapter 8.11, the proposed reach codes provide the best and most timely opportunity to continue pursuing Council’s adopted climate action goals within the existing legal framework.

Should Council move forward with staff’s recommendation, the second reading of the Ordinance would occur on October 3, 2023. Pending California Energy Commission approval of the local amendments to the California Energy Code, the reach code would go into effect on January 1, 2024.

1 “Mixed-fuel” refers to buildings that are served by natural gas and electricity utilities.

Item 7b

DISCUSSION
Background
Policy Background
On August 19, 2020, Council adopted the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery via Resolution 11159 (2020 Series), which approved a communitywide goal of carbon neutrality and a building sector goal of no additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as the result of new buildings. To achieve the building sector goal, Council adopted a program to encourage all-electric new buildings in 2020, and in 2022 adopted an ordinance requiring new buildings to be all-electric (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter "SLOMC” 8.11).

Ninth Circuit Ruling and Subsequent SLOMC Ch. 8.11 Enforcement Suspension On April 17, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley that a Berkeley ordinance requiring all-electric new buildings was pre-empted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and was therefore invalid.

On April 18, 2023, as a result of the panel’s decision, the San Luis Obispo City Council directed the City Manager and Community Development Director to temporarily suspend enforcement of the all-electric building requirement for new buildings (SLOMC Chapter

8.11)
2 . The City of Berkeley is currently petitioning for additional review by the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Should a subsequent ruling be issued that overturns or otherwise vacates the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the Administrative Order would be rescinded and enforcement of Chapter 8.11 will resume.

Justification for Developing an Interim Alternative Approach Based on Council feedback from the April 18, 2023, Council meeting, staff added Task

4.1h to the 2023-25 Climate Action Major City Goal, which states: “Continue to monitor impacts to Municipal Code 8.11 (All‐ Electric New Buildings), and if necessary, return to Council with an alternative approach to achieving the City’s climate action goals as they relate to new buildings.” Council approved the Major City Goal work task via adoption of the 2023-25 Financial Plan in June of 2023. Staff have continued to monitor the situation and have observed the following:
 The ruling isn’t likely to be resolved in a timely manner;  There are no imminent statewide fixes for the problem (e.g., the California Energy Commission updates the California Energy Code on a triennial basis and any future updates made by the California Energy Commission to the statewide code that might be more favorable for low-emissions buildings would have to wait until the effective date of the 2025 California Energy Code, which wouldn’t be enforceable until January 1, 2026); and

2 The Administrative Order adopted under this direction outlining the conditions of the suspended enforcement is available on the City’s website

Item 7b
 The City has already started to receive mixed-fuel building permit applications since the Administrative Order went into effect, which may “lock in” fossil fuel infrastructure in these buildings for their operational life.

Based on these observations, staff recommends adopting an interim energy reach code to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new buildings.

PROPOSED APPROACH
The California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley ruling limits how the City can reduce emissions from new buildings. Staff have identified increased building energy performance requirements via local amendments to the California Energy Code (also known as a “reach code”) as the preferred alternative approach. The California Energy Code establishes whole-building efficiency requirements, which account for a building’s water heater, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system, solar generating system, and insulation, among other things. However, it does not account for cooking equipment, laundry dryers, or other unregulated energy uses. As such, the proposed reach code does not regulate cooking equipment, laundry dryers, or other energy uses not addressed by the California Energy Code.

California Energy Code Energy Evaluation Metrics
The 2022 California Energy Code provides baseline efficiency and building performance standards that a project must meet before receiving a building permit. The California Energy Code provides different metrics for different types of buildings and is organized into three categories:
 Single-Family Residential: A new single-family residential building must meet or exceed “Energy Design Rating” (EDR) scores.3 There are three EDR score categories:
o EDR1 (Source Energy) – EDR1 is a score representing a building’s energy efficiency expressed in terms that serve as a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions.
o EDR2 (Efficiency) – EDR2 is a score representing a building’s energy efficiency expressed in terms of the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year.
o EDR Total (Total Energy Design Rating) is a score representing the building’s total energy expressed in terms of the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year while also factoring in solar and energy demand flexibility.

3 The definitions in this section are simplified for brevity, for more information, see:
https://energycodeace.com/download/66973/file_path/fieldList/FS.SF%20Bldgs.2022

Item 7b
 Multi-Family Residential: A new multi-family residential building must meet or exceed a standard that combines the value and cost of energy consumed at different times of the day and year (referred to as Time Dependent Valuation of energy, or TDV), and the emissions from the building’s energy source. The 2022 Source Energy metric is new for all multifamily buildings, and it was added to support decarbonization and electrification policy goals. 4  Non-Residential: A new non-residential building must also meet or exceed a standard that uses TDV energy and Source Energy emissions scores.

Proposed Energy Performance Enhancements
Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards establish a process that allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide standards.5,6 Under this process, the CEC requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings to be cost effective and use less energy than the standard requirements.

Staff recommends that Council adopt cost effective local amendments (referred to as a “reach code") to the California Energy Code that would increase the required EDR1 score for single family residential buildings and the required Source Energy scores for all other buildings. As noted in Table 1, single-family residential new buildings would be required to exceed the standard design Total Source Energy Design Rating (EDR1) score by at least 6 points.7 Table 1 also identifies Source Energy performance requirement for new multi-family residential buildings (9% better than code for low-rise (three stories or fewer), 3% better for high-rise (four stories or more)), and 7% better for new non-residential buildings.
8 Because of how the EDR1 and Source Energy scores are calculated in the 2022 California Energy Code, the higher standards proposed in the reach code would incentivize new buildings to include additional electric appliances/mechanical systems, while also allowing mixed-fuel buildings that include additional energy efficiency measures. The enhanced performance requirements would apply equally to mixed-fuel and all-electric buildings and are cost-effectively achievable through the energy code’s performance pathway without requiring appliances that exceed federal efficiency standards.

4 The definitions provided in this section are simplified for brevity, for more information, visit:
https://energycodeace.com/resources/?itemId=66025
5 Public Resources Code Section 25402.1:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=25402.1 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/CEC-400-2022- 010_CMF.pdf
7 As noted in Section 150.1(c)14 of the 2022 California Energy Code, some small single-family residential buildings in the City’s Climate Zone (CZ5) are exempt from the mandatory solar requirement. Staff’s recommendation exempts these buildings from the reach code.
8 Section 140.4(a)2 of the 2022 California Energy Code prescriptively requires electric heat-pump space-conditioning in several small-to-medium nonresidential building types including retail, grocery, schools, offices, financial institutions, and libraries. As such, staff’s recommendation exempts these buildings from the reach code.

Item 7b
Table 1. Proposed Improved Energy Performance Standards Building Type Performance Requirement
Single Family Residential buildings Exceed the standard EDR1 requirement by at least 6 points
Multi-Family Residential (Low) Exceed the standard Source Energy requirement by 9%
Multi-Family Residential (High) Exceed the standard Source Energy requirement by 3%
Non-Residential Exceed the standard Source Energy
requirement by 7%
Electric Ready Requirements
The 2022 California Energy Code requires certain mixed-fuel buildings to include “electric ready” components including electric outlets near natural gas appliances, appropriate ventilation for future heat pump appliances, and reserved and labelled breakers in the electrical panel for future electric appliances as follows:9,10  Single-Family Residential – heat pump hot water heaters are prescriptively required, and “electric ready” infrastructure is required for any building that includes a gas fueled furnace, clothes dryer, and/or cooktop.  Multi-Family Residential – “electric ready” infrastructure is required in a newly constructed multi-family residential unit that includes a gas fueled space heater, water heater, clothes dryer, and/or cooktop. Centralized water-heating systems for multifamily buildings in which dwelling units do not have separate water heaters are exempt from these requirements.

During the drafting of this report, staff considered developing requirements for “electric ready” infrastructure for centralized water-heating systems in new multi-family residential buildings and for water heating systems in new non-residential buildings. Due to the complexity of these systems, uncertainty around the size and energy needs of future electric centralized water-heating systems, and uncertainty about the cost effectiveness standards required for such measures, staff is not recommending these requirements at this time. Instead, staff recommends that building permit applications identify a pathway for electrical conduit on construction drawings for fuel-fired central hot water heating systems in newly constructed buildings that aren’t currently subject to electric-ready requirements.

Practical Effect of the Reach Code
Because the City is working within the confines of the California Energy Code, the description of the proposed approach above is inherently technical. This section illustrates the practical effect of the proposed approach by providing a simplified example of how a single-family home designer would comply with the reach code.

9 For additional information about residential electric readiness requirements, see:
https://energycodeace.com/resources/?itemId=91861
10 Note that the California Energy Code’s electric ready requirements extend to cooking equipment and clothes dryers even though these uses are not otherwise regulated by the code.

Item 7b
A building designer working on a single-family home built to the code minimum would likely include high efficiency LED lighting, rooftop solar, an electric heat pump hot water heater, a natural gas furnace, insulated walls, an insulated attic, and efficient windows, among other things. The designer would load the building design into a computer model and estimate its energy performance. The energy modeling software would provide standard reporting metrics, including an EDR1 score. The designer would then compare the EDR1 score to a standard design building. In this case, the designed building’s EDR1 score would be equal to the standard design building’s EDR1 score and would comply with that part of the California Energy Code.

With the reach code in place, the designer would now need to achieve an EDR1 score that is 6 points better than the standard design building. If this building designer replaced the gas furnace with a commonly available heat pump HVAC system, the building would achieve a score that is 6 EDR1 points better than the code minimum and would be consistent with the proposed reach code requirements. Alternately, the building designer could keep the gas furnace and install a battery storage system, which would also result in an increase of more than 6 EDR1 points. The building designer also has the option to develop a package of efficiency and solar measures; so long as the measures lead to an increase of 6 or more EDR1 points better than the code minimum, it is consistent with the reach code.

This example is similar for the other building types where the compliance margins could be achieved by either installing electric heat pump HVAC equipment or installing some package of additional solar capacity and efficiency measures.

Cost Effectiveness
The California Energy Commission requires any local amendments to the California Energy Code that affect energy use in regulated buildings to be cost effective and to use less energy than the standard requirements. The CEC requires the local agency to adopt a determination that the energy standards are cost effective at a public meeting. The determination must subsequently be filed with the Energy Commission.

One way to illustrate cost effectiveness is through the “Time Dependent Valuation” or “TDV” metric. The TDV metric is what the California Energy Commission uses in evaluating cost effectiveness for efficiency measures in the California Energy Code and includes the onsite costs and savings of the proposed energy measures, as well as the energy system costs and benefits of the energy measures. The metric is “time dependent” because energy use has different costs and impacts depending on the time of day and season. For example, electricity saved during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity saved during off-peak periods.

In support of reach code development, the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program, which includes the State's Investor-Owned Utilities (PG& E, SDG&E, and SCE, under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission) developed and published the:
11 11 The California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program publishes cost effectiveness reports and accompanying study data at: https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources

Item 7b
 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study (Attachment B) and the associated cost-effectiveness data; 12  2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Multifamily New Construction Study (Attachment C) and the associated cost-effectiveness data;
13 and
 2022 Code: Non-residential New Construction Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Study (Attachment D) and the associated cost-effectiveness data.14 These studies and the associated cost-effectiveness data are highly detailed and are included in the record to support Council’s findings and policy decisions. The studies and the associated cost-effectiveness data include a calculated benefit-to-cost ratio for a wide variety of measures, building types, and climate zones. A benefit-cost value of “1” or greater illustrates that the measures save more than they cost and are therefore “cost effective.”15 These studies and the associated cost-effectiveness data are the basis for staff’s cost effectiveness findings and are sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106.

Based on these studies, staff finds the proposed local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code to be cost-effective and consume less energy than otherwise permitted by Title 24, Part 6. In short, using the California Energy Commission’s TDV metric, the proposed amendments save more than they cost to implement. The following additional detail is included for transparency and to facilitate the California Energy Commission’s review of the City’s cost effectiveness findings:

1. Requiring new single-family residential buildings to achieve an EDR1 margin over the standard building by 6 or more points. As illustrated in the study data, an allelectric single-family home with additional efficiency measures would save energy relative to the base code and would achieve an EDR1 margin of 7.1 and a benefit to cost ratio of 12.6 on a TDV basis. The study data also shows that a mixed-fuel building with additional efficiency measures, additional rooftop solar, and a battery storage system would save energy relative to the base code and would achieve and EDR1 margin of 18.6 and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.2 on a TDV basis. It should be noted that an all-electric building built to minimum code standards using typically available appliances would achieve an EDR margin of 6.

12 The cost-effectiveness data from the Single-Family Residential study is available at:
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1286/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Single%20Family%20NewCon%20Study%2 0Data.xlsx
13 The cost-effectiveness data from the Multifamily Residential study is available at:
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1564/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Multifamily%20New%20Construction%20St udy%20Data.xlsx
14 The cost-effectiveness data from the Nonresidential study data is available at:
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1373/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Nonresidential%20New%20Construction%2 0Study%20Data.xlsx
15 For more detail, see section 2.1.3 of
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1266/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Nonres%20New%20Construction%20Costeff%20Report.pdf

Item 7b

2. Requiring low rise multi-family buildings to achieve a Source Energy savings 9% or more. As illustrated in the study data, an all-electric low rise multi-family building built to minimum code standards would achieve a Source Energy margin of 9% and a benefit to cost ratio of 9.2 on a TDV basis. The study data also shows that a mixedfuel building with additional efficiency measures, additional rooftop solar, and a battery storage system would save energy relative to the base code, would achieve a Source Energy margin of 18% and would achieve a benefit to cost ratio of 1.6 on a TDV basis.

3. Requiring high-rise multi-family buildings to achieve a Source Energy savings of 3% or more. As illustrated in the study data, an all-electric high rise multi-family building built to minimum code standards would achieve a Source Energy margin of 6% and a benefit to cost ratio of 2.2 on a TDV basis. The study data also shows that a mixedfuel building with additional efficiency measures, additional rooftop solar, and a battery storage system would save energy relative to the base code, would achieve a Source Energy margin of 3%, and would achieve a benefit to cost score of 3.3 on a TDV basis.

4. Requiring non-residential buildings to achieve a Source Energy budget savings of 7%. The Non-Residential New Construction Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Study provides analysis for several non-residential building prototypes. One of the prototypes is a retail building, which prescriptively requires electric heat pump space conditioning and along with other similar small-to-medium non-residential buildings that prescriptively require electric space conditioning, would be exempt from the reach code (see footnote 8, above). As illustrated in the study data for the remaining non-residential building prototypes, all-electric new non-residential buildings built to minimum code standards meet or exceed the 7% compliance margin. Mixed-fuel non-residential buildings with various additional energy efficiency measures and rooftop solar, would meet or exceed the 7% compliance margin, save energy relative to the base code, and are cost effective on a TDV basis.16 Available Resources for Lower Cost All-Electric Buildings For projects that chose to go all-electric, the state of California and regional entities are providing technical assistance, substantial rebates, and incentives for all-electric new buildings. Current programs include:
 California Electric Homes is provided by the California Energy Commission and provides base incentives for all-electric new market rate residential buildings including $3,000 for single-family homes, $1,750 per multi-family residential unit, $1,750 per accessory dwelling unit, and $6,000 per modular or manufactured home. Program participation is capped at $1.5 million per builder and includes additional incentives for items like induction cooktop and beyond code efficiency measures.

16 In addition to the study data posted on the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Program website, staff requested that TRC (the technical consultants that produced the Non-Residential New Construction Reach Code CostEffectiveness study) conduct additional model runs to identify cost effective measure packages for the “Quick Service Restaurant” building prototype. TRC found that a mixed-fuel Quick Service Restaurant with additional efficiency measures and a 4kW solar array would save energy relative to the base code, achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 8.9%, and would be cost effective on a TDV basis with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.7.

Item 7b
 Central Coast Community Energy provides additional incentives for all-electric accessory dwelling units that stack on top of the California Electric Homes program.
 The Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (BUILD) Program is provided by the California Energy Commission and includes technical support and incentives for all-electric new affordable housing including approximately $3,399 per multifamily unit and $5,500 per single-family home.  The Energy Code Coach program offered by 3C-REN provides no-cost personalized support to help building professionals navigate the Energy Code.

Relationship to SLOMC 8.11 (All-Electric Buildings)
Section 6 of Administrative Order 01 (2023 Series), which paused enforcement of the City’s all-electric new building requirements, notes that the Order “is automatically rescinded upon any judicial decision which overturns or otherwise vacates the Ruling.” As described in the draft ordinance (attachment A), should this occur, Chapter 8.11 of the Municipal Code would supersede the reach code and enforcement of the reach code would be suspended so long as Chapter 8.11 is being enforced.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
 September 18, 2018 – City Council identified its carbon neutrality goal and directed staff to research the possibility of requiring carbon neutral buildings as part of the City’s building codes.
 February 2019 – City Council provided unanimous direction to develop an approach to carbon neutral new development.
 June 4, 2019 – City Council adopts the Climate Action Major City Goal (MCG) with a “reach code” as an item in the work program.
 September 3, 2019 – City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings.
 June 16, 2020 – City Council rescinded portions of the September 3 action and readopted the Clean Energy Choice Program.
 July 7, 2020 – City Council conducted the second reading of Clean Energy Choice Program ordinances.
 August 18, 2020 – The City adopted the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, which included building sector goals and explicitly identifies the need to update the Clean Energy Choice Program in 2022.
 May 18, 2021 – Staff provided a Climate Action Plan update to City Council, which included an update on building electrification progress.  June 1, 2021 – City Council adopted the 2021-23 Financial Plan with the Climate Action Major City Goal that called for updating Clean Energy Choice Program in 2022.

Item 7b
 February 1, 2022 – Staff provided a presentation on the first phase of the Clean Energy Choice Program and received strategic direction from City Council ahead of the 2022 Program update.
 July 5, 2022 – Council adopted the Clean Energy Program for New Buildings, which required new buildings to be all-electric.
 December 13, 2022 – Council adopted the Climate Action Plan Update, which reaffirms community and new building sector specific goals and includes the 2023- 27 Climate Action Work Program focused on reducing emissions from buildings.  April 18, 2023 – Council directed the City Manager and Community Development Director to temporarily suspend enforcement of the all-electric building requirement for new buildings (SLOMC Chapter 8.11.). Enforcement was formally paused via Administrative Order 01 (2023 Series).
 June 6, 2023 – Council adopted the 2023-25 Financial Plan, which includes Climate Action Major City Goal 4.1.h that directs staff to continue to monitor impacts to Municipal Code 8.11 (All-Electric New Buildings), and if necessary return to Council with an alternative approach to achieving the City's climate action goals as they relate to new buildings.

Public Engagement
As described in the 2019, 2020, and 2022 Council Agenda Reports, extensive outreach was conducted in various community forums and settings affirming that all-electric new buildings are feasible, cost-effective, and supportive of the City’s climate action goals.

Prior to the Ninth Circuit ruling that led to the City’s suspending enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 8.11’s all-electric new building requirement, the Council’s policy had been seeing successful implementation. The work conducted in support of the proposed reach code is a continuation of existing Council policy related to low-emissions new buildings.

During development of the reach code, staff conducted community outreach in accordance with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. Specifically, the City presented the update to the Developer’s Roundtable (e.g., developers, architects, engineers, design professionals, and property owners) and to the Green and Healthy Homes Roundtable (e.g., community-based organizations, technical experts, and key non-profit housing providers), notified appliance retail stakeholders about the proposed reach code, and highlighted the item in the City’s Council Meeting Preview social media posts. Should Council adopt the reach code, staff would initiate general awareness outreach via the Council Meeting Recap and a news release; and would share information about the reach code directly with project applicants via Community Development Department staff.

Schedule and Next Steps
Should Council approve staff’s recommendations, work would proceed on the timeline provided in Table 2. It is important to note that the California Building Code, which includes the California Energy Code, is updated every three years. Should Council adopt staff’s recommendation, the local reach code would expire with the current Building Code on December 31, 2025.

Item 7b
Table 2. Schedule and Next Steps
Task Timeframe
Second reading of the draft Ordinance
(Attachment A) and submittal to the
California Energy Commission.

October 3, 2023
Receive approval from the California
Energy Commission November - December
Reach code goes into effect January 1, 2024

CONCURRENCE
Staff from Administration, Community Development, and the City Attorney’s Office concur with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff’s recommendations are found to be exempt from CEQA under the general rule, 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Further, this ordinance is also exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemptions in Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines in that the proposed ordinance would institute regulatory requirements intended to protect the environment and natural resources.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $
The reach code requirements will be implemented through the development review and/or building permit review process. The staff time to review projects is already budgeted and is a core work task of the Community Development Department. This work can be directly supported by the 3C-REN Energy Code Coach Program, which provides technical support for code interpretation. Funded under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Code Coach is free to the user and can be accessed by project applicants and City staff.

Item 7b

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council could request more information, suggest changes, or request that the proposed local amendments to the California Energy Code be presented for adoption at a later date. Should Council pursue this alternative, staff requests specific direction and feedback.

2. Council could take no action and direct staff to pursue other initiatives. This action is not recommended by staff because it is inconsistent the City’s climate action goals and prior Council direction and adopted policy.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Ordinance Adopting Local Amendments to the California Energy Code B - 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study C - 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Multifamily New Construction Study D - 2022 Code: Non-Residential New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study

O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO PART 6

OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE PREVENTION CODE,
2023.

WHEREAS, greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere as the result of human activity is the primary cause of the global climate crisis; and WHEREAS, in California alone, the initial impacts of climate change have resulted in unprecedented disasters with tremendous human, economic, and environmental costs and;
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global emissions need to be reduced by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050 to prevent global catastrophe; and
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 1279 to require statewide carbon neutrality "as soon as possible," but no later than 2045; and WHEREAS, City of San Luis Obispo residents and businesses have repeatedly identified climate action as a top community priority; and WHEREAS, Resolution 11159 (2020 Series) adopts the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, which includes a communitywide goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 and sector specific goal of no net new building emissions from onsite energy use by 2020; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 11381 (2022 Series) reaffirmed the communitywide goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 and sector specific goal of no net new building emissions from onsite energy use by 2020; and
WHEREAS, the inventoried greenhouse gas emissions in the City of San Luis Obispo come from a variety of sources, primarily transportation and energy use in buildings and facilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve carbon neutrality, new sources of greenhouse gas emissions need to be substantially reduced or eliminated; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402.1 (h)(2) allows local agencies to adopt more stringent local amendments to the energy conservation provisions in the California Energy Code; and

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
O ______
WHEREAS, the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program, has determined specific modifications to the 2022 State Energy Code for each climate zone that are cost-effective; and that such modifications will result in designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2022 State Energy Code; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the "2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction Study" and associated study data, the “2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:

Multifamily New Construction Study” and associated study data, and the “2022 Code:

Non-Residential New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study” and associated data developed for the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program, and find them sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106; and WHEREAS, based on these studies, the City finds the proposed local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code to be cost-effective and consume less energy than permitted by Title 24, Part 6; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 California Energy Code offers compliance options that were established through the public rulemaking process of the code update; and WHEREAS, the Council expressly declares that the proposed amendments to the Energy Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, topological, and geological conditions; and
WHEREAS, the requirements specified in this Ordinance were reviewed via public comment and through a publicly noticed public hearing process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to establish standards for new buildings to exceed minimum 2022 Title 24 Part 6 requirements.

SECTION 2. Adoption. The local amendments to Part 6 of the City of San Luis Obispo Building Construction and Fire Prevention Code, 2023 (SLOMC Section

15.02.060) as specified in Exhibit A, are hereby adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo to be codified under Chapter 15.04.060. The Council hereby adopts the recitals herein as separate and additional findings of fact in support of adoption of the ordinance.

SECTION 3. Relationship to Administrative Order 01 (2023 Series) and Supersedure by Municipal Code Chapter 8.11. By its terms, Administrative Order 01 (2023 Series), which paused enforcement of the City’s all-electric new building requirement (SLOMC Chapter 8.11), is rescinded upon any judicial decision which overturns or otherwise vacates the Ninth Circuit panel ruling issued in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley. Should this occur, enforcement of Chapter

8.11 will resume, and enforcement of Section 15.04.060 as adopted herein will be suspended.

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
O ______
SECTION 4. Severability. If any word, phrase sentence part, section, subsection or other portion of this amendment or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this amendment, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have passed this amendment and each section, subsection sentence, clause and phrase of this amendment, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentences, clauses or phrases is declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Findings. The City Council finds that each of the changes or modifications to measures referred to therein are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions in the area encompassed by the boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo, and the City Council adopts the following findings in support of local necessity for the changes or modifications:

1. San Luis Obispo is situated along a wildland-urban interface and has been identified as a Community at Risk from wildfire and is extremely vulnerable to wildfires and firestorms, and human activities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cause increases in worldwide average temperature, drought conditions, vegetative fuel, and length of fire seasons- contributing to the likelihood and consequences of fire.

2. The City of San Luis Obispo is situated at the base of a watershed of the Santa Lucia Mountains and flooding of San Luis, Chorro, Stenner, Old Garden, and Brizzolara Creeks results in conditions rendering fire department vehicular traffic unduly burdensome or impossible, as witnessed in major floods that occurred in 1952, 1961, 1969, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1995, and 2023. Furthermore, flood conditions described above create the potential for overcoming the ability of the fire department to aid or assist in fire control, evacuations, rescues and other emergency task demands inherent in such situations. The resulting overburdening of fire department personnel may cause a substantial or total lack of protection against fire for the buildings and structures located in the City of San Luis Obispo. The afore-described conditions support the imposition of fire protection requirements greater than those set forth in the California State Building Standards Code and support the imposition of more restrictive requirements than set forth in the California Energy Code for the purpose of reducing the City's contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions resulting in a warming climate and related severe weather events.

3. The aforementioned flood and rain events result in conditions wherein stormwater can inundate the wastewater treatment system as witnessed in major floods that occurred in 1952, 1961, 1969, 1973, 1978, 1982, and 1995.

Furthermore, rain events and flood conditions described above create a condition referred to as Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) that allow rain and flood waters to flow and/or seep into the wastewater system and overcome the ability

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
O ______
of the wastewater collection system and Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to convey and treat sewage. The resulting overburdening of the wastewater system can result in threats to public health, public and private property and water quality and violations and fines from the State of California, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or others. To the extent that climate change has the potential to make these conditions worse, more restrictive Energy Code requirements to achieve reduced greenhouse gas emissions are necessary.

4. Seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create numerous serious difficulties in the control and protection against fire situations in the City of San Luis Obispo. The hot, dry weather in combination with Santa Lucia (offshore) winds frequently results in wildland fires in the brush-covered slopes on the Santa Lucia Mountains, San Luis Mountain, and the Irish Hills areas of the City of San Luis Obispo. The aforementioned areas surround the City.

When a fire occurs in said areas, such as occurred in 1985 when the Los Pilitas fire burned six days and entered the City and damaged many structures, the entirety of local fire department personnel is required to control, monitor, fight and protect against such fire situations in an effort to protect life and preserve property and watershed land. The same climatic conditions may result in the concurrent occurrence of one or more fires in the more populated areas of the City without adequate fire department personnel to protect against and control such a situation. Therefore, the above-described findings support the imposition of measures to increase the efficiency of new buildings in the City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

SECTION 6. CEQA. This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA because it is an action taken by a regulatory agency for the purpose of protecting the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308). In addition, this ordinance is exempt from CEQA under the general rule, 15061(b)(3), on the grounds that these standards are more stringent than the State energy standards, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, and there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The following findings are made in support of these determinations:

1. The purpose of the implementation of a Reach Code is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the City of San Luis Obispo that are produced from buildings.

2. The Reach Code approval process requires that the City determines that the local standards will require buildings to use no more energy than current statewide requirements. Furthermore, the California Energy Commission approval process requires that the City make the findings as part of its approval process. Therefore, the Reach Code standards can only go into effect if they protect the environment by making buildings more efficient.

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 5
O ______
SECTION 7. Violations. Violation of the requirements of this Ordinance shall be considered, at the City’s election, an infraction of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code punishable by all sanctions prescribed in Chapter 1.12, or an administrative violation punishable as provided under Chapter 1.24.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective as of January 1, 2024.

SECTION 9. Ordinance Summary. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The New Times, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.

INTRODUCED on the _____ day of _________ 2023, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2023, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 6
O ______
Exhibit A
Section 15.04.060

AMENDMENTS - ENERGY STANDARDS
A. Adoption of Codes and Applicability
The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 1, 2024 and is applicable to newly constructed buildings and facilities, and those that are built after a demolition. The minimum energy compliance margin standards established in this code shall apply to all applicable buildings accordingly. The amendments contained in 15.04.060 do not apply to additions, alterations, or repairs to buildings or facilities constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

B. Add Item D to Subchapter 1, Section 100.0(e)3, to read as follows:

D. Prohibited reduction in source energy performance. No repair, addition, or alteration shall reduce the efficiency of any building or facility, as determined by the source energy compliance margin.

C. Add the following definition to Subchapter 1, Section 100.1(b):

DEMOLITION is the act of reconstructing, removing, taking down or destroying all or portions of an existing building or structure, or making extensive repairs or modifications to an existing building or structure, if such changes involve removal or replacement of fifty percent or more of both the structural framing and cladding or of the exterior walls within a twenty-four-month period. When determining whether a building or structure is demolished, the following applies:

1. The nonconforming portions of any wall are counted as removed or taken down, even when retention of these portions is proposed.

2. Any continuous run of remaining exterior wall surfaces measuring ten feet or less in length are counted as removed or replaced.

D. Add Section 120.11 to Subchapter 3, to read as follows:
120.11 Electric Readiness Requirements for All Systems
Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate a pathway for routing of conduit from the equipment using gas or propane to the point of interconnection with the electrical service.

E. Delete Section 140.1 from Subchapter 5, and replace with new Section 140.1 to read as follows:

A building complies with the performance approach provided that:

1. The TDV energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 7
O ______
Design Building under Subsection (a), and

2. The energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least 7 percent for all nonresidential occupancies.

Exception to Section 140.1 item 2. A source energy compliance margin of at least 7 percent is not required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space-conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2. (a) Energy budget for the standard design building. The energy budget for the Standard Design Building is determined by applying the mandatory and prescriptive requirements to the proposed design building. The energy budget is the sum of the TDV energy for space-conditioning, indoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, service water heating and covered process loads.
(b) Energy budget for the proposed design building.

The energy budget for a proposed design building is determined by calculating the TDV energy for the proposed design building. The energy budget is the sum of the TDV energy for space-conditioning, indoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and service water heating and covered process loads.

Exception to Section 140.1(b). A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, that provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits or payments for energy bill reductions to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10- 115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system or battery storage system TDV energy required to comply with the standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual.
(c) Calculation of energy budget. The TDV energy for both the standard design building and the proposed design building shall be computed by compliance software certified for this use by the Commission. The processes for compliance software approval by the Commission are documented in the ACM Approval Manual.

Note: Authority: Sections 25213, 25218, 25218.5, 25402 and 25402.1, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 25007, 25008, 25218.5, 25310, 25402, 25402.1, 25402.4, 25402.5, 25402.8, and 25943, Public Resources Code.

G. Amend Subchapter 8, Section 150.1(b) to read as follows, with items 2 and 3 to remain:

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 8
O ______
(b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commissioncertified compliance software as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual, and as specified in items 1, 2 and 3 below.

1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy Efficiency Design Rating, and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building shall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. A newly constructed building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND the Source Energy compliance margin is at least 6, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.

EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building that does not require a PV system in accordance with section 150.1(c)14 does not need a Source Energy compliance margin of at least 6, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

I. Add Section 160.9(d), to read as follows:
160.9(d) Central Water Heater Readiness
Where a multi-family central water heating system using gas or propane is installed, the construction drawings shall indicate a pathway for routing of conduit from the equipment using gas or propane to the point of interconnection with the electrical service.

Ordinance No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 9
O ______
J. Amend Subchapter 11, Section 170.1, paragraph 1, to read as follows:

A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally:

1. The source energy budget of a newly constructed multifamily building (with three or less habitable stories) shall be at least 9% lower than that of the Standard Design Building.

2. The source energy budget of newly constructed multifamily buildings (with four or more habitable stories) shall be at least 3% lower than that of the Standard Design Building.

Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2023/06/20
Revision: 1.1
2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:

Single Family New
Construction

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Copyright 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 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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater – Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA – High Performance Attic
HPWH – Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF – Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
9/12/2022 Original Release N/A
6/20/2023 Minor revision to content, no change to results 1, 42

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................3 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.3 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Energy Design Rating........................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs............................................................................................................8

3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.3.2 All-Electric................................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 4 Results......................................................................................................................................................................24

4.1 2022 Metrics and Compliance............................................................................................................................................. 24

4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results ..................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 All-Electric Plus Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results........................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Mixed Fuel Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

4.5 CARE Rate Comparison..................................................................................................................................................... 34

4.6 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity.................................................................................................................................... 36

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Reductions.............................................................................................................................................. 38 5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................41 6 References ...............................................................................................................................................................44 7 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................46

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones......................................................................................................................................... 46

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 47

7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric.................................................................................................................................................. 47

7.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 53

7.2.3 Southern California Gas.............................................................................................................................................. 57

7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 60

7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities.............................................................................................................................................. 65

7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only)................................................................................................. 68

7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions...................................................................................................................................... 69

7.3 Summary of Measures by Package .................................................................................................................................... 70

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2: Prototype Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes .......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 6. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Main Distribution Line Extension Costs............................................................................... 17 Table 7. Residential IOU Gas Line Extension Appliance Allowances ................................................................................................. 17 Table 8. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Service Line Extension Costs ............................................................................................. 17 Table 9. Single Family IOU Other Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs................................................................................................... 17 Table 10. Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs1 ................................................................................................ 18 Table 11. Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs .............................................................................................. 18 Table 12. ADU Utility Infrastructure Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 13: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures ............................................................................. 19 Table 14. Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs...................................................................................................... 21 Table 15. ADU All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs.................................................................................................................... 22 Table 16. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum............................................................................................ 27 Table 17. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum.......................................................................................................... 28 Table 18. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................... 29 Table 19. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................................. 30 Table 20. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery............................................................................ 31 Table 21. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ......................................................................................... 32 Table 22. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages ................................................................................................... 33 Table 23. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages ................................................................................................................. 34 Table 24. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum ......................................................................... 35 Table 25. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency+ PV+ Battery Package ............................................ 36 Table 26. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs: All-Electric Code Minimum ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 27. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness On-Bill Impact of CPUC Proposed Design on Gas Line Extension Allowances: AllElectric Code Minimum....................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 28: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) .................................................................................................. 39 Table 29 ADU Greenhouse Gas Savings (metric tons) ...................................................................................................................... 40 Table 30. Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................ 42 Table 31. Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness........................................................................ 43 Table 32: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 33: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 34: PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)............................................................................................................... 48 Table 35: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 54 Table 36: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 58 Table 37: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 58 Table 38: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 60

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Table 39: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm).................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 40: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 41: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions................................................................................................................... 69 Table 42: Single Family Efficiency Package Measures ...................................................................................................................... 70 Table 43: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Package Measures............................................................................ 71 Table 44: ADU Efficiency Package Measures .................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 45: Single Family All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures......................................................................................... 72 Table 46: ADU All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures....................................................................................................... 72

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Single Family All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2: ADU All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3: Single Family Four Gas Appliance Home Compliance Impacts........................................................................................... 25 Figure 4. Map of California climate zones........................................................................................................................................... 46

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
1 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.

This report documents cost-effectiveness analysis results for traditional new detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types. It evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs). Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.

The following summarizes key results from the study:
• 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 natural 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.
• 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. • 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.

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. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
2 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 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].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Introduction
3 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
4 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 2 Methodology and Assumptions

2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Modeling
The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using software approved for 2022 Title 24 Code compliance analysis, CBECC-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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones. 3 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year building lifetime.

2.3 Energy Design Rating
The 2019 Title 24 Code introduced California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code for single family buildings. This EDR was based on the hourly TDV energy use from a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the Reference Building. The Reference Building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero. While the Reference Building is used to set the scale for the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the Title 24 prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design.

EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. Referencing the margin results in similar requirements across a variety of designs. This approach aligns with how compliance is reported for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 Code. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 5.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
8 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis drawing from previous 2019 Reach Code research where necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50) 6 by 40 percent to 3 ACH50. HERS rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).

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

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

Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. The 2022 Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15.

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

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

Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 violate net energy metering (NEM) rules. 8 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions.

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

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

Battery Energy Storage: A battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Advanced Demand Response Control” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. The “Advanced Demand Response Control” option assumes the battery system will charge or discharge depending on the needs of the grid. To qualify for the Advanced Demand Response Control the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA13.3.3.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). 8 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
9 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions
Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Non-Preempted Measures
Reduced
Infiltration

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

Window U-factor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,280 $285 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).

Window SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0 Based on feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017).

Cool Roof

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

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

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

Low Pressure
Drop Ducts

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Ductless MiniSplit Heat Pump
Ductless system
meeting the
VCHP credit vs.
ducted split heat
pump
n/a $1,571
Costs were developed based on data from E3’s 2019 report Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and the 2022 AllElectric Multifamily CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c). Equipment costs are from the CASE Report for the 10-story multifamily prototype assuming similar sized equipment between the multifamily dwelling unit and the ADU. Thermostat, wiring, electrical, and ducting costs are from the E3 study. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is also included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
15 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Battery
First cost $617/kWh $617/kWh
Costs are based on research conducted for the 2021 Batteries in Single Family Homes reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021a). $1,000/kWh first cost in 2020 based on Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) residential participant cost data. To estimate the first cost in future years this was reduced by 7% annually based on SDG&E’s Behind-theMeter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020). The first cost is reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2 Costs are presented as the average of 2023, 2024, and 2025. No SGIP incentives are included.

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
16 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

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

These costs are applied as cost savings for an all-electric home when compared to a mixed fuel home. This is the component with the highest degree of variability for all-electric homes. These costs are project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest natural gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The CA IOU costs for single family homes presented are based primarily on cost data provided by PG&E.

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

The costs less the deductions were applied under the On-Bill cost-effectiveness methodology. The total costs before the deductions were applied under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology to better reflect the full cost of gas main extensions since the deductions are subsidized by ratepayers and recovered via revenue from customers. This follows the analysis approach in the 2019 reach code study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and was based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Codes technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology.

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
17 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 6. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Main Distribution Line Extension Costs Total
Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions1
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Gas Water Heater Base $1,020 $0 $13 $0
Gas Space Heater Base $0 $0 $0
1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.

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

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

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

Table 9. Single Family IOU Other Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Meter $300
Plan Review $850
Table 10 presents total costs including distribution and service line extensions, meter installation and plan review for the three gas CA IOUs for the two base case scenarios. Costs are based on the average service line extension costs from Table 8. For the single family analysis, based on the Reach Codes Team's conversations with the industry it is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric homes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
18 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 10. Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs1 Total Less Gas Extension Rule
Deductions2
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
Total - Gas Water Heater Base $4,560 $3,540 $3,553 $3,540 Total - Gas Space Heater Base $3,540 $3,540 $3,540
1Based on average service line extension costs from Table 8. 1After Utility Gas Main Extension Rule deductions.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
19 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
20 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Water Heater: Various cost sources were reviewed and the Reach Codes Team determined that installed first costs for a garage installed tankless gas water heater and HPWH are very similar and no incremental cost was applied for the equipment and installation (see below for details on costs for gas piping and electrical wiring). This accounts for slightly higher equipment costs for the HPWH but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the combustion gas venting.

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
21 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 14. Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs Measure
Incremental Cost (2023 PV$)
First Cost Replacement
Cost
Total Lifetime
Financed
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC
Equipment & Installation ($151) $703 $533
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($688) $703 ($69)
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas Tankless
Equipment & Installation $0 $652 $652
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $0 $49
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($537) $652 $49
NEEA Tier 3 HPWH vs Federal Minimum HPWH
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $0 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($480) $0 ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) $0 ($651)
Total ($580) $0 ($651)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
22 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
23 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
24 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 4 Results

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
25 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Figure 2: ADU All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts
Figure 3: Single Family Four Gas Appliance Home Compliance Impacts -6
-4
-2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
Mixed Fuel Prescrip�ve, 4 Gas Appliances
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 16. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 8.3 -4,628 400 1.5 ($721) ($10,848) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,614) >1 $5,566 CZ02 PGE 5.7 -3,170 247 0.8 ($581) ($10,060) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($4,826) >1 $5,390 CZ03 PGE 4.7 -2,413 171 0.7 ($510) ($9,954) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.5 ($4,838) 63.5 $4,414 CZ04 PGE 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 ($455) ($8,756) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.6 ($3,641) >1 $4,929 CZ04 CPAU 3.7 -2,233 163 0.7 $21 $3,274 ($9,424) ($9,931) >1 $13,205 >1 $9,217 CZ05 PGE 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($452) ($8,930) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,696) 2.5 $2,776 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 -2,123 133 0.4 ($455) ($9,027) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.6 ($3,793) 2.5 $2,776 CZ06 SCE/SCG 2.5 -1,481 84 0.3 ($269) ($5,120) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $115 3.2 $3,142 CZ07 SDGE 2.3 -1,328 69 0.2 ($456) ($10,904) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.5 ($5,670) 3.1 $3,081 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -1,331 67 0.2 ($249) ($4,864) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.1 $371 2.8 $2,951 CZ09 SCE 1.2 -1,513 85 0.3 ($269) ($5,109) ($5,288) ($5,234) 1.0 $126 3.3 $3,179 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($307) ($5,720) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.9 ($486) 3.5 $3,285 CZ10 SDGE 1.1 -1,777 107 0.3 ($657) ($15,474) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.3 ($10,239) 3.5 $3,285 CZ11 PGE 3.5 -2,934 227 0.7 ($444) ($7,106) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,872) >1 $5,135 CZ12 PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 ($437) ($7,213) ($5,288) ($5,234) 0.7 ($1,979) >1 $5,002 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.0 -2,751 213 0.7 $58 $4,526 ($5,288) ($5,234) >1 $9,761 >1 $5,002 CZ13 PGE 2.1 -2,099 154 0.6 ($383) ($7,136) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,021) >1 $4,904 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($411) ($7,590) ($5,136) ($5,116) 0.7 ($2,475) >1 $4,493 CZ14 SDGE 1.6 -2,301 159 0.6 ($914) ($21,350) ($5,149) ($5,130) 0.2 ($16,219) >1 $4,506 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.6 -944 53 0.2 ($165) ($3,084) ($5,407) ($5,369) 1.7 $2,285 10.3 $4,247 CZ16 PG&E 6.0 -4,314 404 1.5 ($545) ($6,642) ($3,257) ($2,954) 0.4 ($3,687) >1 $3,139

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 17. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Average
Annual GHG
Reductions
(metric tons)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.0 -1,832 114 0.4 ($346) ($6,791) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($3,834) 1.2 $489 CZ02 PGE 0.4 -1,380 75 0.2 ($353) ($7,539) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,582) 1.2 $403 CZ03 PGE 0.0 -1,665 123 0.5 ($384) ($7,667) ($2,457) ($2,106) 0.3 ($5,560) 2.0 $888 CZ04 PGE 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 ($351) ($6,970) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.4 ($4,013) 15.9 $2,395 CZ04 CPAU 0.2 -1,591 118 0.5 $42 $3,285 ($3,260) ($2,957) >1 $6,242 15.9 $2,395 CZ05 PGE 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($268) ($5,966) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,009) 1.2 $460 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.4 -1,031 49 0.1 ($226) ($4,656) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.6 ($1,699) 1.2 $460 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.2 -909 38 0.1 ($215) ($4,435) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.7 ($1,478) 1.4 $666 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 -879 37 0.1 ($384) ($9,528) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.3 ($6,571) 1.4 $771 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 -864 36 0.1 ($212) ($4,397) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.7 ($1,489) 1.5 $876 CZ09 SCE 0.6 -901 38 0.1 ($190) ($3,861) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($953) 1.6 $896 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($184) ($3,663) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.8 ($755) 1.7 $1,055 CZ10 SDGE 0.4 -962 43 0.1 ($404) ($9,951) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,043) 1.7 $1,055 CZ11 PGE 0.2 -1,322 71 0.2 ($297) ($6,281) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,324) 1.5 $843 CZ12 PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($298) ($6,354) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($3,397) 1.4 $716 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.3 -1,283 69 0.2 ($75) ($1,053) ($3,260) ($2,957) 2.8 $1,904 1.4 $716 CZ13 PGE 0.1 -1,594 112 0.4 ($296) ($5,748) ($3,260) ($2,957) 0.5 ($2,791) 11.3 $2,330 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($282) ($5,107) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.6 ($2,199) 12.6 $2,313 CZ14 SDGE 0.4 -1,658 115 0.4 ($455) ($10,294) ($3,216) ($2,908) 0.3 ($7,386) 12.6 $2,313 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.3 -783 36 0.1 ($146) ($2,872) ($3,216) ($2,908) 1.0 $35 2.3 $1,408 CZ16 PG&E 0.1 -1,807 122 0.4 ($348) ($6,698) ($2,640) ($2,261) 0.3 ($4,437) 1.0 $22

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 19. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All Electric Efficiency Only All Electric Efficiency + NEEA All Electric Efficiency + PV All Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.3 ($2,010) >1 $1,155 2.5 $610 >1 $3,162 2.2 $16,861 1.2 $2,976 1.2 $5,286 1.0 $168 CZ02 PGE 0.2 ($4,208) 3.3 $481 0.3 ($2,696) >1 $1,403 2.5 $15,218 1.5 $4,707 1.2 $3,791 1.3 $6,522 CZ03 PGE 0.1 ($6,115) 14.1 $325 0.1 ($4,828) >1 $1,206 2.3 $12,653 1.5 $4,249 1.1 $1,285 1.2 $4,720 CZ04 PGE 0.0 ($5,883) 20.7 $992 0.0 ($4,940) 34.2 $1,672 2.3 $13,081 1.7 $6,179 1.1 $1,797 1.4 $6,977 CZ04 CPAU >1 $3,951 20.7 $992 >1 $4,509 34.2 $1,672 1.7 $6,738 1.7 $6,179 0.8 ($4,973) 1.4 $6,977 CZ05 PGE 0.3 ($4,141) 0.6 ($698) 0.3 ($2,912) 1.3 $222 2.9 $15,238 1.5 $3,921 1.2 $3,903 1.2 $3,473 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.3 ($2,831) 0.6 ($698) 0.5 ($1,602) 1.3 $222 3.1 $16,548 1.5 $3,921 1.3 $5,212 1.2 $3,473 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,272) 0.996 ($5) 0.5 ($1,672) 1.7 $444 2.6 $11,941 1.8 $5,275 1.1 $2,134 1.3 $5,984 CZ07 SDGE 0.2 ($6,766) 1.0 $4 0.2 ($5,978) 1.7 $435 3.8 $22,595 1.6 $4,364 1.6 $11,005 1.2 $3,943 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($2,380) 0.98 ($23) 0.4 ($1,832) 1.4 $334 2.5 $12,446 1.9 $6,579 1.2 $2,991 1.4 $7,829 CZ09 SCE 0.4 ($1,858) 1.1 $53 0.5 ($1,255) 1.5 $367 2.6 $12,699 1.9 $6,334 1.2 $3,232 1.5 $9,406 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.5 ($1,556) 1.4 $280 0.6 ($800) 4.9 $828 2.7 $3,430 2.1 $2,156 0.6 ($5,734) 1.2 $2,118 CZ10 SDGE 0.2 ($7,442) 1.4 $280 0.2 ($6,395) 4.9 $828 3.1 $4,264 2.1 $2,156 0.5 ($7,385) 1.2 $2,118 CZ11 PGE 0.3 ($2,749) >1 $1,115 0.4 ($1,634) >1 $1,901 2.1 $3,811 1.8 $2,577 0.5 ($7,415) 1.3 $4,046 CZ12 PGE 0.2 ($3,692) 3.1 $430 0.3 ($2,597) >1 $1,320 2.6 $16,095 1.6 $5,047 1.2 $4,800 1.3 $6,745 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 3.1 $645 3.1 $430 >1 $1,076 >1 $1,320 1.4 $4,399 1.6 $5,047 0.7 ($6,294) 1.3 $6,745 CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($3,425) 17.9 $1,657 0.0 ($2,455) 25.7 $2,419 1.7 $2,505 1.9 $3,158 0.4 ($8,653) 1.4 $5,829 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($3,402) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($2,270) 6.0 $2,097 2.4 $13,741 2.0 $8,807 1.2 $5,041 1.5 $10,045 CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($7,519) 4.0 $1,280 0.0 ($5,884) 6.0 $2,097 3.8 $28,555 2.0 $8,807 1.8 $16,912 1.5 $10,045 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.0 ($47) >1 $1,212 1.3 $204 >1 $1,264 3.5 $3,155 2.9 $2,387 0.6 ($5,030) 1.3 $3,480 CZ16 PG&E 0.3 ($3,414) 9.9 $748 0.3 ($2,658) >1 $1,580 2.8 $19,246 1.7 $6,200 1.4 $7,856 1.4 $7,321

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 22 and Table 23 compare cost-effectiveness results across all the mixed fuel packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. The single family Efficiency Only package and Efficiency + PV package are cost effective based on On-Bill and TDV under most scenarios. The trends are similar for the ADU except the Efficiency Only package is not cost effective in many climate zones.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 23. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Mixed Fuel Efficiency Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.6 $1,228 1.3 $616 2.1 $15,985 1.2 $2,051 1.2 $4,329 0.9 ($1,365) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($634) 1.1 $148 2.3 $13,934 1.4 $3,499 1.1 $2,431 1.2 $4,938 CZ03 PGE 0.6 ($666) 0.7 ($475) 2.2 $9,045 1.3 $1,856 0.9 ($2,377) 1.1 $1,349 CZ04 PGE 0.5 ($941) 0.7 ($515) 2.1 $9,487 1.4 $2,679 0.9 ($1,845) 1.1 $2,417 CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($1,507) 0.7 ($515) 0.99 ($115) 1.4 $2,679 0.4 ($12,347) 1.1 $2,417 CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($456) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,761 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,324 1.1 $1,409 CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.5 ($689) 0.2 ($1,141) 2.5 $13,528 1.3 $2,473 1.1 $2,090 1.1 $1,409 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($976) 0.6 ($638) 2.1 $9,282 1.5 $3,477 0.9 ($1,017) 1.2 $3,650 CZ07 SDGE 0.4 ($830) 0.5 ($717) 3.3 $20,716 1.3 $2,676 1.4 $9,100 1.1 $1,603 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.3 ($1,069) 0.4 ($819) 2.1 $10,035 1.5 $4,415 0.99 ($121) 1.3 $4,990 CZ09 SCE 0.3 ($1,024) 0.5 ($780) 2.1 $10,242 1.5 $4,195 1.0 $120 1.4 $6,682 CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.4 ($1,004) 0.5 ($750) 1.4 $1,118 1.0 $71 0.4 ($8,914) 0.96 ($473) CZ10 SDGE 1.5 $721 0.5 ($750) 1.7 $2,230 1.0 $71 0.4 ($9,408) 0.96 ($473) CZ11 PGE 1.0 ($11) 1.2 $316 1.6 $2,473 1.3 $1,064 0.4 ($8,813) 1.1 $2,192 CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($761) 0.9 ($224) 2.4 $14,704 1.4 $3,458 1.1 $3,345 1.2 $4,771 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 1.0 ($70) 0.9 ($224) 1.3 $2,975 1.4 $3,458 0.7 ($7,816) 1.2 $4,771 CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($850) 1.1 $206 0.6 ($807) 1.1 $240 0.1 ($11,943) 1.2 $2,069 CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.0 $20 1.0 $107 2.2 $10,862 1.6 $4,977 1.0 $795 1.2 $4,545 CZ14 SDGE 1.5 $1,310 1.0 $107 3.7 $23,840 1.6 $4,977 1.6 $12,263 1.2 $4,545 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.2 $411 1.1 $205 1.4 $916 1.2 $388 0.4 ($8,186) 1.1 $964 CZ16 PG&E 0.7 ($456) 1.0 $52 2.6 $17,779 1.4 $4,505 1.3 $6,316 1.2 $4,937

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 24. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.5 ($5,614) 0.8 ($997) 0.4 ($3,834) 0.7 ($1,505) CZ02 PGE 0.5 ($4,826) 0.8 ($1,281) 0.4 ($4,582) 0.6 ($2,146) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($4,838) 0.8 ($924) 0.3 ($5,560) 0.4 ($2,733) CZ04 PGE 0.6 ($3,641) 0.96 ($215) 0.4 ($4,013) 0.7 ($1,465) CZ04 CPAU >1 $13,205 >1 $9,931 >1 $6,242 >1 $2,957
CZ05 PGE 0.6 ($3,696) 0.9 ($647) 0.5 ($3,009) 0.7 ($1,158) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($3,793) 1.1 $444 0.6 ($1,699) 1.1 $243 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.0 $115 1.6 $1,984 0.7 ($1,478) 0.97 ($98) CZ07 SDGE 0.5 ($5,670) 0.8 ($1,636) 0.3 ($6,571) 0.5 ($3,441) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.1 $371 1.7 $2,073 0.7 ($1,489) 0.95 ($139) CZ09 SCE 1.0 $126 1.6 $2,001 0.8 ($953) 1.1 $261
CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($486) 1.5 $1,703 0.8 ($755) 1.2 $433
CZ10 SDGE 0.3 ($10,239) 0.5 ($4,330) 0.3 ($7,043) 0.4 ($3,645) CZ11 PGE 0.7 ($1,872) 1.1 $568 0.5 ($3,324) 0.7 ($1,344) CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,979) 1.1 $457 0.5 ($3,397) 0.7 ($1,395) CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $9,761 >1 $12,640 2.8 $1,904 >1 $4,281 CZ13 PGE 0.7 ($2,021) 1.2 $783 0.5 ($2,791) 0.7 ($991)
CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($2,475) 1.1 $505 0.6 ($2,199) 0.9 ($222) CZ14 SDGE 0.2 ($16,219) 0.4 ($7,861) 0.3 ($7,386) 0.5 ($3,249) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,285 2.6 $3,330 1.0 $35 1.5 $927
CZ16 PG&E 0.4 ($3,687) 0.8 ($825) 0.3 ($4,437) 0.5 ($2,157)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 25. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency+ PV+ Battery Package Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.1 $1,636 0.7 ($4,574) 1.2 $4,329 0.7 ($6,549) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($5,400) 0.4 ($8,958) 1.1 $2,431 0.7 ($6,728) CZ03 PGE 0.5 ($7,261) 0.3 ($9,524) 0.9 ($2,377) 0.6 ($8,471) CZ04 PGE 0.4 ($8,902) 0.3 ($10,706) 0.9 ($1,845) 0.6 ($8,329) CZ04 CPAU 0.3 ($10,925) 0.0 ($14,763) 0.4 ($12,347) 0.0 ($19,837) CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($4,790) 0.5 ($8,377) 1.1 $2,324 0.7 ($6,030) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.6 ($5,512) 0.4 ($8,540) 1.1 $2,090 0.7 ($6,067) CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($6,059) 0.3 ($9,638) 0.9 ($1,017) 0.6 ($8,203) CZ07 SDGE 0.6 ($5,579) 0.5 ($7,676) 1.4 $9,100 0.96 ($836) CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.6 ($5,150) 0.4 ($8,775) 0.99 ($121) 0.6 ($7,852) CZ09 SCE 0.6 ($4,946) 0.4 ($8,642) 1.0 $120 0.6 ($7,580) CZ10 SCE/SCG 0.7 ($3,990) 0.4 ($7,862) 0.4 ($8,914) 0.2 ($11,587) CZ10 SDGE 0.6 ($5,741) 0.5 ($7,396) 0.4 ($9,408) 0.3 ($10,388) CZ11 PGE 0.6 ($5,383) 0.4 ($8,671) 0.4 ($8,813) 0.3 ($11,145) CZ12 PGE 0.6 ($6,620) 0.4 ($9,617) 1.1 $3,345 0.7 ($6,094) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.4 ($9,272) 0.1 ($14,636) 0.7 ($7,816) 0.1 ($20,989) CZ13 PGE 0.6 ($5,801) 0.4 ($9,016) 0.1 ($11,943) 0.1 ($12,502) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($1,125) 0.6 ($6,889) 1.0 $795 0.7 ($7,099) CZ14 SDGE 0.6 ($6,404) 0.5 ($8,940) 1.6 $12,263 1.1 $1,271 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.8 ($2,164) 0.5 ($6,384) 0.4 ($8,186) 0.2 ($10,846) CZ16 PG&E 0.9 ($2,568) 0.6 ($7,747) 1.3 $6,316 0.8 ($4,356)

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 26. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs:

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 27. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness On-Bill Impact of CPUC Proposed Decision on Gas Line Extension Allowances:

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 28: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) Climate
Zone
Single Family All-Electric Single Family Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.4 0.5 1.1
CZ02 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.7
CZ03 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ04 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ05 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.8
CZ06 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ07 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ08 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ09 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.5
CZ10 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ11 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ12 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.6
CZ13 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.6
CZ14 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.7
CZ15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5
CZ16 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 0.7 0.8 1.2

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 29 ADU Greenhouse Gas Savings (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
ADU All-Electric ADU Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ NEEA
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.8
CZ02 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6
CZ03 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ07 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5
CZ10 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4
CZ11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5
CZ12 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6
CZ13 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4
CZ14 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.5
CZ15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4
CZ16 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team identified packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

Table 30 (all-electric) and Table 31 (mixed fuel) summarize results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency EDR2 compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies. All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 31. Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
EE EE+PV EE+PV/B EE EE+PV EE+PV/B
CZ01 PGE 12.0 12.0 30.0 14.9 14.9 24.3
CZ02 PGE 8.8 8.8 13.5 9.4 9.4 14.5
CZ03 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.2 6.3 6.3 12.1
CZ04 PGE 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ04 CPAU 4.8 4.8 8.4 6.7 6.7 12.2
CZ05 PGE 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ05 PGE/SCG 4.8 4.8 16.8 2.3 2.3 7.8
CZ06 SCE/SCG 6.1 6.1 9.2 6.1 6.1 9.8
CZ07 SDGE 5.5 5.5 8.3 6.3 6.3 9.1
CZ08 SCE/SCG 3.5 3.5 9.5 3.6 3.6 10.1
CZ09 SCE 3.6 3.6 8.6 3.7 3.7 8.9
CZ10 SCE/SCG 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ10 SDGE 3.7 3.7 8.3 3.8 3.8 9.0
CZ11 PGE 5.7 5.7 11.0 7.5 7.5 13.1
CZ12 PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 5.3 5.3 11.0 6.8 6.8 12.6
CZ13 PGE 4.7 4.7 9.6 7.2 7.2 12.8
CZ14 SCE/SCG 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ14 SDGE 6.2 6.2 11.2 8.5 8.5 14.2
CZ15 SCE/SCG 4.3 4.3 8.5 6.6 6.6 11.2
CZ16 PG&E 14.9 14.9 22.6 8.7 8.7 16.2

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 References
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Statewide CASE Team. (2017). Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2019 California Energy Code. Retrieved from http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2018). Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savingspotential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. (2020a). Nonresidential High Performance Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Energy Solutions. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASEReport.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020b). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-andAlterations_Final_-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 7 Appendices

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 32: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 33. The corresponding CARE rates are shown in Table 34.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between April 2021 and March 2022.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 36: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
`CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 37. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges. 16 To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be relatively consistence and applied for the entire year based on January 2021 and April 2021 costs.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending August 2021 according to the rates shown

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 66 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 in Table 40. The distribution charge was $0.4835/therm for Tier 1 and $1.0426/therm for Tier 2. The monthly service charge applied was $10.94 per month per the G-1 tariff in effect at the time of the analysis.

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 67 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 68 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 69 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 70 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20

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

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

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 71 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table 43: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Package Measures Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 UFactor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.30 UFactor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

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

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 72 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 The efficiency measures added to the All-Electric prescriptive package in Climate Zones that were not compliant are shown in Table 45 and
Table 46.

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

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

0.30 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows
Improved HVAC
Fan Efficiency:

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 73 Appendices
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.

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

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

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

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

Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2023/06/20
Revision: 1.1
2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:

Multifamily New Construction

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Copyright 2022, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.

Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process 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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
2/28/2022 Original Release N/A
6/20/2023 Minor revisions to content; no change to results 2, 3, 32, 33

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

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
1 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.

This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6 or Energy Code), effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed multifamily buildings. The analysis considers low-rise and mid-rise multifamily building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) Packages include a code compliant electrification package and a mixed fuel efficiency package, as well as the addition of above-code on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity and battery energy storage. The 2022 Energy Code established electric heat pumps as the prescriptive baseline for space heating in most climate zones. As a result, this analysis primarily focuses on the electrification of central water heating. Space heating electrification was also evaluated where the prescriptive heat pump baseline didn’t apply: In Climate Zone 16 for multifamily buildings three habitable stories or fewer, and Climate Zones 1 and 16 for multifamily buildings greater than three habitable stories.

This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is a customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) is the California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part

6. Two multifamily prototypes were evaluated in this study. A 3-story loaded corridor and a 5-story mixed use prototype, which combined are estimated to represent 91 percent of new multifamily construction in California.

The following summarizes key results from the study:
• The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on the California Energy Commission’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) metric in all cases. In many cases 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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
2 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 billing tariff is expected to increase On-Bill cost-effectiveness of the all-electric prescriptive code scenario. An all-electric home has better on-site utilization of generated electricity from PV than a mixed fuel home with a similar sized PV system, and as a result exports less electricity to the grid. Since the net-billing tariff values exports less than under NEM 2.0, the relative impact on annual utility costs to the mixed fuel baseline is greater.
• This analysis does justify a modest reach based on either efficiency TDV or source energy for all-electric buildings. However, this may be challenging for some projects given the recent changes to which the industry must adapt, including the efficiency updates and multifamily restructuring in the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 code.

While project compliance margins using a CO2 refrigerant heat pump water heating system are high, the Reach Code Team found lower compliance margins using other heat pump water heater system designs.

Focusing on supporting projects to electrify water heating is expected to support the market shift towards more central heat pump water heaters.
• For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings, a mixed fuel efficiency and PV package (and battery for the 3-story prototype) was found to be cost-effective based on TDV in all cases and cost-effective On-Bill in most climate zones. This path, referred to as “Electric-Preferred”, allows for mixed fuel buildings but requires a higher building performance than for all-electric buildings. The efficiency measures evaluated in this study did not provide significant compliance benefit. As a result, the Reach Codes Team recommends establishing a compliance margin target based on source energy or total TDV. This would allow for PV and battery above minimum code requirements to be used to meet the target. • Jurisdictions interested in increasing affordable multifamily housing should know that applying the CARE rates has the overall impact of increasing utility cost savings for an all-electric building in most climate zones compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness.

Table ES-1 summarizes results for each prototype and depicts the efficiency TDV compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. All results presented in the table have a positive compliance margin (greater than zero percent). Cells highlighted in green depict cases with a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches. Cells highlighted in yellow depict cases with a positive compliance margin and 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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Executive Summary
3 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 Table ES-1. Summary of Efficiency TDV Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
3-Story 5-Story
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
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. 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].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Multifamily New Construction Introduction
4 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2023-06-20 1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed multifamily buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Codes Team. The CA IOU Codes and Standards Program is comprised of IOUs representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) – Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU), The analysis considers low-rise and mid-rise multifamily building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) 1 Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) (California Energy Commission, 2022a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2022a)). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.
1 See Appendix 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations.