Santa Cruz City Council
October 28, 2025

5.1.2 SZAC Package Results ......................................................................................27

5.1.3 SZHP Package Results ......................................................................................28

5.2 Medium Retail ...........................................................................................................29

5.2.1 Individual Efficiency Measure Results.................................................................29

5.2.2 SZAC Package Results ......................................................................................30

5.2.3 SZHP Package Results ......................................................................................31 6 Reach Code Options.....................................................................................................32 7 Conclusions and Next Steps........................................................................................36 8 References ....................................................................................................................38

31.43 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 2 2025/07/07
9 Appendices ...................................................................................................................39

9.1 Map of California Climate Zones ...............................................................................39

9.2 Mixed-Fuel Baseline Energy Figures.........................................................................40

9.3 Long-Term Systemwide Cost (LSC) Impacts .............................................................54

9.3.1 Small Office ........................................................................................................54

9.3.2 Medium Retail.....................................................................................................55

9.4 Utility Rate Schedules ...............................................................................................56

9.4.1 Pacific Gas & Electric..........................................................................................57

9.4.2 Southern California Edison .................................................................................59

9.4.3 Southern California Gas......................................................................................62

9.4.4 San Diego Gas & Electric ...................................................................................63

9.4.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities ......................................................................................65

9.4.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) .........................................70

9.4.7 Fuel Escalation Rates.........................................................................................70

9.5 Prototype Characteristics ..........................................................................................72

9.6 Occupancy Schedules and Building Types................................................................75

9.7 Interview Guide .........................................................................................................75 List of Tables
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ................................................................ 8 Table 2. Existing Building Prototype Characteristics ...............................................................11 Table 3. Small Office (SO) Prototype Characteristics, by Vintage...........................................12 Table 4. Medium Retail (RE) Prototype Characteristics, by Vintage .......................................13 Table 5. Summary of Measure Packages ...............................................................................15 Table 6. Lighting Retrofit Lighting Power Density Efficiency Measure Specifications ..............17 Table 7. Applicability and Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures ...............................................17 Table 8. Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures .........................................................................18 Table 9. Small Office Retrofit Costs (Example: Climate Zone 14) ...........................................20 Table 10. Medium Retail HVAC Retrofit Costs (Example: Climate Zone 12)...........................20 Table 11. Cost-Effectiveness for Individual Efficiency Measures: Small Office........................26 Table 12. Cost-Effectiveness for SZAC Packages: Small Office .............................................27 Table 13. Cost-Effectiveness for SZHP Package: Small Office...............................................28 Table 14. Cost-Effectiveness for Individual Efficiency Measures: Medium Retail ....................29 Table 15. Cost-Effectiveness for SZAC Packages: Medium Retail .........................................30 Table 16. Cost-Effectiveness for SZHP Packages: Medium Retail .........................................31

31.44 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 3 2025/07/07
Table 17. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 1 Applicability .................................33 Table 18. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 2 Applicability .................................34 Table 19. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 3 Applicability (Retail only)..............35 Table 20. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1980.................................................40 Table 21. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1990.................................................41 Table 22. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 2000.................................................42 Table 23. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 1980 ........................................43 Table 24. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 1990 ........................................44 Table 25. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 2000 ........................................45 Table 26. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1980...........................46 Table 27. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1990...........................47 Table 28. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 2000...........................48 Table 29. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1980 ....................................................49 Table 30. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1990 ....................................................50 Table 31. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 2000 ....................................................51 Table 32. Small Office: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1990 ..............................53 Table 33. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions .......................................................71 Table 34. Non-res Roof U-Value by CZ for three vintages ......................................................72 Table 35 Non-res Exterior Wall U-Value by CZ for three vintages...........................................73 Table 36. Non-res Window U-Value, SHGC and VT for all vintages .......................................74 Table 37. Equipment Turnover Assumptions ..........................................................................74 List of Figures
Figure 1. Packaged RTU Images ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 2. Seasonal PG&E Historical Gas Rates ...................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Equipment Costs by Fuel Type and Unit Capacity...................................................19 Figure 4. Peak Heating Demand as a Percent of Peak Cooling Demand, and Unmet Heating Load Hours ............................................................................................................................23 Figure 5. Heating Capacity as a Percent of Peak Heating Demand from CBECC ..................24 Figure 6. Map of California climate zones. .............................................................................39 Figure 7. Small Office LSC Impacts: MF-EFF vs HP ..............................................................55 Figure 8. Medium Retail LSC Impacts: MF-HRVDCV vs HP ..................................................55 Figure 9. Medium Retail LSC Impacts: MF-EFF vs HP-DCV ..................................................56 Figure 10. Occupancies in 141.0-E-1 Schedules....................................................................75

31.45 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 4 2025/07/07
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 emissions 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.

The Reach Code Team evaluated the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of various measures in three different vintages (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s) of the Small Office and Medium Retail prototypes for this report. The Team analyzed measures include packaged rooftop unit (RTU) replacements as well as efficiency measures, including cool roof, window film, lighting retrofit, HRV, DCV, and economizer FDD.

For packaged rooftop units, the Team found that Single Zone Heat Pump (SZHP) replacements of Single Zone Air Conditioners (SZAC) achieve energy savings and are generally cost-effective. For SZHP up to 20 tons, depending on the climate zone, some additional efficiency measures may be required to achieve cost-effectiveness, while SZHP up to 10 tons are cost-effective without additional efficiency measures. The energy savings and cost-effectiveness of individual energy efficiency measures applied to an existing building without an RTU retrofit or bundled with RTU replacements (both SZACs and SZHPs), vary by prototype, climate zone, and vintage.

Figure 1. Packaged RTU Images
Local jurisdictions may 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. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the California Building Code, it is important 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].

31.46 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 5 2025/07/07
1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum requirements of the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2026, for existing nonresidential buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Reach Codes Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of measure packages to increase energy performance in existing nonresidential buildings. The Reach Code Team analyzed packages with different combinations of SZHP space heating equipment replacements, HVAC-related efficiency measures, envelope, and lighting efficiency measures.

Analysis used the CBECC (California Building Energy Code Compliance) 2025 software. The Reach Code Team conducted stakeholder interviews and collected cost data for each measure analyzed to determine the cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility of the proposed measures.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Energye rgy Code) (CEC, 2025) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24, Part 6. 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 [1]. 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 or appliances. 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 higher performance.

31.47 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 6 2025/07/07
2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team used the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section to analyze two prototype designs representing a medium retail building and a small office using, as described in Section 3.

The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available for 2025 Energy Code compliance analysis, CBECC 2025 Subversion (SVN) Revision 8219. LSC results using 2025 software will provide a forward-looking indication of the feasibility of SZHP replacements and efficiency measure packages.

2.1 Cost-Effectiveness
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both on-bill and Long-term Systemwide Cost (LSC) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both the on-bill and LSC approaches require estimating energy savings and quantifying costs (incremental measure costs and energy costs) associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and LSC is how energy is valued:
• On-Bill: This approach uses a customer-based lifecycle cost method that values energy based on estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings. It incorporates electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year period for the prototypes, accounting for a 3% discount rate and energy cost inflation as outlined in Appendix 10.3.2.
• LSC: LSC, formerly Time Dependent Valuation (TDV), was developed by the Energy Commission. LSC savings are calculated using hourly LSC factors for both electricity and natural gas provided by the Energy Commission These LSC hourly factors are projected over the 30-year life of the building and incorporate the hourly cost of marginal generation, transmission and distribution, fuel, capacity, losses, and cap-andtrade-based CO2 emissions. 1 2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the 30-year lifecycle, which is consistent with the Energy Commission’s approach to evaluating measures when the Energy Code is updated. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2025 Energy Code minimum requirements or standard industry practices. 1 See Hourly Factors for Source Energy, Long-term Systemwide Cost, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions at https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors

31.48 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 7 2025/07/07
The Reach Code Team obtained measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance and replacement costs are included.

2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics.
• NPV: Equation 1 demonstrates how lifetime NPV is calculated. If the NPV of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. A negative value represents a net increase in costs over the 30-year lifetime. • B/C Ratio: This is the ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (present value benefits divided by present value costs). A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 2.

Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases, the benefit is represented by annual on-bill utility or LSC savings. 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”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the CA IOU rate team, and the publicly available information for several Publicly Owned Utilities (POUs), the Reach Code Team determined appropriate utility rates for each Climate Zone and package. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package and the most prevalent rate in each territory. A time-of-use (TOU) electric rate was applied to all cases.

For a more details on the rates selected refer to Appendix 9.3.2 - Utility Rate Schedules.

The analysis assumes that utility rates escalate over time for commercial buildings, as described in Appendix 9.4.7. Escalation rates above inflation for electricity beyond 2023 are assumed to be between 0.2% and 0.7%, before dropping to a steady 0.6% escalation per year in 2030. Natural gas is assumed to escalate at a relatively higher rate, peaking at 7.7% in 2024, then escalating more slowly to a rate of approximately 2% in the latter years of the analysis period.

31.49 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 8 2025/07/07
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone
Climate
Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) B-1 / B-10 G-NR1 6, 8-10, 14, 15 Southern California Edison (SCE) /
Southern California Gas Company (SCG)
TOU-GS-1 / TOUGS-2 / TOU-GS3 GN-10
5 PG&E / SCG B-1 / B-10 GN-10
7, 10, 14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDG&E) TOU-A / AL-TOU GN-3
POUs
4 City of Palo Alto (CPAU) E-2 G-2
12 Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) / PG&E CITS-0 / CITS-1 G-NR1
The Reach Code Team conducted an analysis of the gas rates by month to determine seasonal fluctuations. An example of the historical gas rates for PG&E are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Seasonal PG&E Historical Gas Rates
To develop the seasonal gas rates for each utility, the Reach Code Team used an average seasonal curve based on 5-year historical data. The Team then applied the seasonal trend to the current month’s gas rate to reflect the most recent market conditions. In this study, the Reach Code Team collected gas rates from September 2024 for each utility and applied a factor for each month to normalize the monthly gas rate fluctuations. $0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
$ / Therm
PG&E Historical Gas Rates
2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019

31.50 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 9 2025/07/07

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The GHG emissions are calculated using the latest applicable GHG Emissions hourly factors published by the Energy Commission and used by the Energy Commission’s reference code compliance software CBECC, and largely represent California IOUs. GHG emissions associated with community choice aggregators or POUs are not integrated into these multipliers and require a custom analysis, using the energy impacts in this report as a starting point.

31.51 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 10 2025/07/07
3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and
Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis conducted by the Reach Code Team.

3.1 Prior Reach Code Study Research
In 2021, the Statewide CA IOU Reach Codes Team analyzed the cost-effectiveness of nonresidential alterations projects for mixed-fuel plus efficiency, SZHP replacements plus efficiency, and demand flexibility packages (Statewide Reach Codes Team 2021). Using this analysis, the Reach Code Team presented reach code options for jurisdictions to consider adopting based on cost-effectiveness. The Reach Code Team leveraged some information from the previous report to develop the results and conclusions in this report, including prototype and vintage characteristics, potential efficiency measures, package combinations, and cost data.

3.2 Prototype Characteristics
The Reach Code Team used modified versions of the Department of Energy (DOE) building prototypes for Medium Retail and Small Office to evaluate cost-effectiveness of measure packages. Existing retail and office occupancies are two of the occupancies that are prescriptively required to have SZHP rooftop units for new or replacement applications under 65,000 BTU/h according to 2025 Energy Code, Section 141.0(b)2Cii and Table 141.0-E-1.

This study analyzes retail and office prototypes specifically because they represent the largest portions of the existing building stock and represent similar occupancy schedules and load profiles as the other occupancies in Table 141.0-E-1, including grocery, school, financial institution, and library occupancies.

To identify appropriate characteristics, the Team created three vintages of each building prototype to represent historical construction practices by leveraging data and methodologies from previous IOU studies, Senate Bill 350 (SB350) analysis2 , and Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)3 . These datasets include estimates of retrofits/upgrades to older buildings as well as field data on existing conditions. The three vintages that the Reach Code Team analyzed include:
• 1980s: represents buildings built prior to 1990 (code reference year 1982). • 1990s: represents buildings built during the 1990 era (code reference year 1992). • 2000s: represents buildings built during the 2000 era (code reference year 2006). 2 This references an unpublished analysis developed in support of the Energy Commission’s Senate Bill 350:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-energy-and-pollutionreduction-act-sb-350. 3 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/.

31.52 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 11 2025/07/07
The analysis presented in this report assumes a certain set of existing conditions within each prototype, and that buildings operate as-intended (i.e., no faulty conditions4 ). Real building
existing conditions are often a variety of old and new components, and equipment performance degrades over time. The analysis assumes some equipment replacement over time based on building system and envelope component, using assumptions from the SB350 analysis.

The Reach Code Team’s prototypes and cost-effectiveness results represent a range of vintages to account for the variety of existing conditions in real buildings in a simplified way.

Jurisdictions should consider how measure-specific findings would apply to the existing conditions in the buildings within their area.

Table 2 through Table 4 summarize the existing building prototype characteristics, with more detail available in Appendix 9.5.

Table 2. Existing Building Prototype Characteristics
Small Office Prototype Medium Retail Prototype
Conditioned floor
area (ft2) 5,502 24,563
Number of stories 1 1
Window-to-floor
area ratio 24% 7%
Number of Conditioned
Thermal Zones 5 4
4 The economizer FDD individual measure analysis only assumes a faulty economizer in the existing building baseline.

31.53 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 12 2025/07/07
Table 3. Small Office (SO) Prototype Characteristics, by Vintage Vintage 1980s 1990s 2000s
HVAC System Type Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Cooling System Direct Expansion (DX)
EER: 8.2
DX
EER: 8.8
DX
EER: 10.3
Heating System Gas Furnace
AFUE: 67.5%
Gas Furnace
AFUE: 78.1%
Gas Furnace
AFUE: 78.1%
Supply Fan Constant volume (CV)
Fan Efficiency: 47.5%
CV
Fan Efficiency: 50.8%
CV
Fan Efficiency: 55.0%
Economizer Control
No Economizer if
cooling capacity < 134
kBtuh,
Otherwise, Economizer
with Differential Dry Bulb
control
No Economizer if cooling capacity < 75 kBtuh,
Otherwise, Economizer with Differential Dry Bulb
control
Service Hot Water
Heating
Electric Conventional Small Storage
Energy Factor: 0.95
Roof Insulation
(U-Value) Vary by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
Steep-Sloped Roof
Solar Reflectance
CZ01: 0.105
Others: 0.117
CZ01: 0.104
Others: 0.114
CZ01: 0.102
Others: 0.2
Metal-Framed Wall
Insulation (U-Value) Vary by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
Windows Vary by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
LPD (W/ft2) 1.2

31.54 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 13 2025/07/07
Table 4. Medium Retail (RE) Prototype Characteristics, by Vintage Vintage 1980s 1990s 2000s
HVAC System Type Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Single Zone Packaged
Rooftop Unit (RTU)
Cooling System DX
EER: 8.2
DX
EER: 8.8
DX
EER: 10.3
Heating System Gas Furnace
AFUE: 0.675
Gas Furnace
AFUE: 0.781
Supply Fan Control Method: CV
Fan Efficiency: 47.5%
Control Method: CV
Fan Efficiency: 50.8%
Control Method: CV
Fan Efficiency: 55.0%
Economizer Control
No Economizer if
cooling capacity < 134
kBtuh, Otherwise,
Economizer with
Integrated, Differential
Dry Bulb control
No Economizer if cooling capacity < 75 kBtuh,
Otherwise, Economizer with Integrated, Differential
Dry Bulb control
Service Hot Water
Heating
Electricity Conventional Small Storage
Energy Factor: 0.95
Roof Insulation
(U-Value) Varies by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
Low-Sloped Roof
Solar Reflectance 0.182 0.166 0.552
Metal-Framed Wall
Insulation (U-Value) Varies by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
Windows Varies by CZ, see Appendix 9.5
LPD (W/ft2)
Retail spaces: 1.7
Back Space: 0.6
Front Entry: 1.5

3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs
The Reach Code Team analyzed the efficiency measures and HVAC retrofit measures described in this section as applied to the Medium Retail and Small Office prototypes. The sources of measure definitions and associated costs are related to stakeholder interview findings and interpretation discussed in Section 4.

3.3.1 Baseline and Measure Packages

3.3.1.1 Individual Measures
The Reach Code Team analyzed several scenarios. Individual energy efficiency measures were analyzed compared to the existing building baseline. • Existing Building Baseline: Mixed-fuel existing building including a packaged SZAC RTU with a gas-fired furnace, prescriptively built at the time of initial construction, assuming equipment turnover rates. See Appendix 9.5 for more details. • Existing Building + Individual Efficiency Measures: Mixed-fuel existing building, with the following individual efficiency measures.

31.55 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 14 2025/07/07
o Cool roof (Medium Retail only)
o Window film
o Lighting retrofit
o Economizer fault detection and diagnostics (Medium Retail only) All measures assume that the building system alteration is not already included in the proposed alteration scope, except Cool Roof which assumes a roof replacement is already occurring.

3.3.1.2 RTU Replacement + Measure Packages
The Reach Code Team analyzed several scenarios that include a RTU replacement. The baseline for these packages is defined below:
• MF (Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min Baseline): Mixed-fuel existing building that is replacing all RTUs in accordance with 2025 Energy Code prescriptive requirements.

For units that are 5-ton and below in Climate Zones 3-13 and 15, RTUs are replaced with a single zone heat pump (SZHP) with efficiency set at federal code minimum and economizer. Units above 5-ton and in other Climate Zones will be replaced with a new code minimum single zone air conditioner (SZAC) packaged RTU including a gas-fired furnace.

The RTU replacement packages examined against the MF baseline package are defined below:
• MF-EFF (Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min + Bundled Efficiency Measures): Mixed-fuel existing building replacing the packaged RTU with a new code minimum SZAC where prescriptively allowed. The following efficiency measures are applied to the package:
o Demand controlled ventilation (DCV, Medium Retail only) o Window film
o Lighting retrofit
• MF-HRV, MF-DCV, and MF-HRVDCV (Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min + HVAC Measures): Mixed-fuel existing building replacing the packaged RTU with a new code minimum SZAC where prescriptively allowed. The following HVAC efficiency measures are applied to the package:
o Demand controlled ventilation (DCV, Medium Retail only) o Heat recovery ventilation (HRV)
• HP (SZHP Code Min): Mixed-fuel existing building that is replacing all RTUs with a federal code minimum efficiency SZHP up to 20 tons. Units 5 tons and below in Climate Zones 3-13 and 15 are already SZHPs with economizers in the Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min Baseline, so this package measures impacts from SZHP replacements in the 6-20 ton range and other Climate Zones. • HP-10 (SZHP Code Min ≤10-Ton): Mixed-fuel existing building that is replacing all RTUs with a federal code minimum SZHP up to 10 tons. Units 5 tons and below in

31.56 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 15 2025/07/07
Climate Zones 3-13 and 15 are already SZHPs in the Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min Baseline, so this package measures impacts from SZHP replacements in the 6-10 ton range and other Climate Zones. Note that this package is the same as HP for the Small Office prototype, because all units are below 10 tons. • HP-DCV (SZHP Code Min + HVAC Measures): Mixed-fuel existing building that is replacing the packaged RTU with a federal code minimum SZHP for units up to 20 tons. The following HVAC efficiency measures are applied to the package:
o Demand controlled ventilation (DCV, Medium Retail only) o Heat recovery ventilation (HRV)
The packages analyzed over the MF baseline are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Summary of Measure Packages
Package Name SO RE Baseline
Package
Proposed HVAC
System5
HVAC
Efficiency
Measures
Energy
Efficiency
Measures
Individual Measures
COOLROOF X Existing Existing SZAC - Cool roof
WINDOWFILM X X Existing Existing SZAC - Window
LIGHTING X X Existing Existing SZAC - Lighting
ECONOMIZERFDD X Existing6 Existing SZAC - Economizer
FDD
Mixed-Fuel SZAC Replacement Packages

MF-EFF X X
MF SZHP for units ≤ 5-tons in
Climate Zones 3-13 and

15. SZAC elsewhere.

DCV (RE
only)
Window,
Lighting
MF-HRV X X MF Same as above HRV -
MF-DCV X MF Same as above DCV -
MF-HRVDCV X MF Same as above HRV, DCV -
SZHP Replacement Packages
HP X X MF SZHP (≤ 20 tons) - -
HP-10 X MF SZHP (≤ 10 tons) - -
HP-DCV X MF SZHP (≤ 20 tons) HRV, DCV -

3.3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures
The Reach Code Team identified and investigated efficiency measures applicable in alterations scenarios through stakeholder interviews and literature review. 5 All replacement equipment is assumed to be code minimum. This is 81% AFUE and 14 SEER for SZAC packages, and 8 HSPF for SZHP packages. 6 This measure assumes the baseline to be the existing building with a faulty economizer. The measure would restore the economizer on the existing HVAC equipment and add FDD.

31.57 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 16 2025/07/07

3.3.2.1 Measure Descriptions

3.3.2.1.1 Envelope
Cool roof (low-sloped): This measure specifies solar reflectance exceeding 2025 Energy Code Section 141.0(b)2.B for low-sloped requirements when the renovation scope already includes replacing the roof.
o For Medium Retail (low-sloped roof), Climate Zones 2 and 4 through 16: The minimum aged solar reflectance is increased from 0.63 to 0.70. o Climate Zones 1 and 3: No proposed roof measure.

The cool roof individual measure is compared to the minimum aged solar reflectance requirements.

This measure does not apply to steep-sloped Small Office prototype, as cool roof is already required by the Energy Code.

Window Film: This measure reduces window SHGC of existing windows to 0.39 by adding window film. In addition to reducing heat gain, window films can serve as safety and security measures by stabilizing broken glass. Please see Appendix 9.5 for the existing window SHGC, which varies by building type, Climate Zone, and by vintage.

3.3.2.1.2 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
Economizer repair and fault detection and diagnostics (FDD): This measure restores existing economizers to be fully functional and installs standalone economizer FDD on existing air handling units with cooling capacity greater than 134,000 Btu/hr in vintage 1980s and 75,000 Btu/hr in vintage 1990s/2000s. The measure recognizes that existing economizers are often non-functional, with the dampers often either failed closed or partially open (DNV KEMA, 2013). This is a standalone measure that can be installed without RTU replacements.

Demand control ventilation (DCV): This measure uses CO2 sensors to reduce ventilation based on actual occupancy for intermittent- or high-occupancy spaces. The DCV measure applies to retail spaces in the Medium Retail prototype. It doesn’t apply to the Small Office prototype since there are no packaged units serving only conference room zones, and the occupancy profile is otherwise relatively flat, leaving no opportunities for occupancy-based savings. This measure is part of RTU replacements.

Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV): This measure is a mechanical device intended to remove air from buildings, simultaneously replace it with outdoor air, and in the process transfer heat from the warmer to the colder of the simultaneous airflows. This measure adds a wheel-type HRV to the space conditioning system to reduce the heating and cooling demands of the building. The modeling assumptions include fixed temperature control method, fixed supply temperature of 75°F, and a return fan. This measure is implemented on SZAC RTU replacements only.

31.58 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 17 2025/07/07

3.3.2.1.3 Lighting
Lighting retrofit: This measure is an additional improvement beyond the planned renovation scope, which replaces the existing luminaires. The measure reduces the existing LPD in select areas to the following, representing 2025 code-minimum upgrades:

Table 6. Lighting Retrofit Lighting Power Density Efficiency Measure Specifications Prototype Baseline LPD (W/ft2) LPD (W/ft2)
Small office 1.2 0.60
Medium Retail 1.7 0.95

3.3.2.2 Measure Applicability and Costs
The Reach Code team used the efficiency measures summarized in Table 7 below by Climate Zone and prototype. Measure application varies due to existing building and HVAC system characteristics, as well as the retrofit scenario being analyzed.

Table 7. Applicability and Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures Measure Name Applicable
Climate Zones
Existing Building +
Individual Measures
MF-HRV or MFHRVDCV
MF-EFF
Prototype SO RE SO RE SO RE
Cool roof (low-sloped) CZ 2,4-16 X
Window film 1980s vintage
1990s vintage X X X X
Economizer FDD CZ 2-16 X
DCV All X X
HRV All X X
Lighting retrofit All X X X X

31.59 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 18 2025/07/07
Table 8 summarizes the incremental measure costs, including cost data sources and total cost per prototype. Cost sources from previous years have been adjusted for inflation.

Table 8. Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures
Measure
Name
Primary cost
source(s)
Incremental
Cost
Description
Incremental
First Cost for
Small Office
Prototype*
Incremental
First Cost for
Retail
Prototype*
Useful Life /
Replacement
Year
Cool roof
(low-sloped) Distributor/online $0.04/ft
2 of roof
area
N/A $1,263 30
Window film RS Means $8.83/ft
2 of window
area $7,884 $10,053 30
Lighting
retrofit7 Distributor/online RE: $3.93/ft2
SO: $4.29/ft2 $20,807 $87,735 15
DCV
IL TRM8,
adjusted for
location
$1,764 per unit N/A $8,639
Same as HVAC
equipment
(15 years)
Economizer
FDD Distributors
$1,425 - $4,050 per
unit depending
on capacity
N/A $8,861
Same as HVAC
equipment
(15 years)
HRV Market data $4,773 per unit $23,867 $14,320
Same as HVAC
equipment
(15 years)
*When costs differ by vintage, the Team used the 2000s vintage as an example, except Window Film which uses the 1990s vintage. When costs differ by Climate Zone, CZ 12 is used as an example.

3.3.3 HVAC Retrofit
The Team examined the potential for all-electric heat pump retrofits of packaged single zone (SZ) rooftop HVAC where the system size is less than 240,000 kBtuh (20 tons).9 This threshold aligns with 2025 Energy Code new construction prescriptive requirements in section 140.4(a)2 and is representative of manufacturer HVAC products capable of heat pump heating.

The Team received cost estimates for all HVAC equipment from wholesale distributors and contractors. A mechanical contractor provided labor costs for typical new installations and noted that retrofit labor costs are highly variable due to building-specific considerations such as tight working conditions, prepping surfaces, elevated work, material handling, specialty rigging, and protecting existing finishes. The Team assumed the labor for a retrofit would be 25% more than a non-retrofit installation for both the mixed-fuel SZAC and the SZHP HVAC 7 The lighting costs include upgrading compact lighting, upgrading linear lighting, and adding luminaire level lighting controls. 8 2024 IL-TRM Version 12.0 Volume 1: Commercial and Industrial Measures, accessed at https://icc.illinois.gov/downloads/public/il-trm-12/ILTRM_Effective_010124_v12.0_Vol_2_C_and_I_09222023_FINAL_clean.pdf. 9 For the purposes of this study, the SZHP retrofit package may have some gas usage depending on the vintage and climate zone. Space heating equipment over 20 tons are outside the scope of the analysis, and units of this size will remain the existing mixed-fuel HVAC equipment.

31.60 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 19 2025/07/07
retrofits because in both cases, the packaged units are drop-in replacements at the system level, with no demolition required. No HVAC distribution changes are required as part of the heat pump retrofit.

The HVAC retrofit package costs are shown by unit capacity in Figure 3. This graph does not include labor costs, which are $4,568 for each unit, regardless of fuel type. Additionally, this graph does not include markups for overhead or Climate Zone specific adjustment factors.

Figure 3. Equipment Costs by Fuel Type and Unit Capacity For these building types, we assume no impact on electrical infrastructure because equipment capacity is driven by the cooling load and not the heating load. Therefore, the equipment capacity (and the electrical infrastructure required) would be the same for the all-electric case as the mixed-fuel/existing building case.

The Team assumed that both SZAC HVAC equipment and SZHP HVAC equipment have a 15- year useful life [2]. We assume that HVAC equipment is replaced at the end of its useful life.

The Team assumed that the maintenance requirements would be the same in the SZAC and SZHP scenarios, and do not have incremental impact.

3.3.3.1 Small Office
The existing HVAC system includes five packaged SZACs. The Reach Code Team selected packaged SZHPs to replace the existing packaged RTUs for the Small Office SZHP retrofit.

Table 9 shows an example of the incremental cost associated with the SZHP package for Small Office over the 30-year lifecycle. In Climate Zones 3-13 and 15, all units are 5 tons or less which are SZHPs in the baseline for the 1990s and/or the 2000s vintage, so the table below uses Climate Zone 14 costs as an example to show the comparison across vintages. -$5,000
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
3 4 5 6 7.5 8.5 10 12.5 15 20
Equipment Cost
Capacity (Tons)
SZAC SZHP Incremental Cost

31.61 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 20 2025/07/07
Table 9. Small Office Retrofit Costs (Example: Climate Zone 14) Vintage
SZAC
Measure
SZAC
Cost
SZHP
Retrofit
Measure
SZHP
Retrofit Cost
SZHP
Incremental
First Cost
Equipment
Capacities
1980s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$93,733 Packaged
SZHP $87,422 - $6,311
One 4-ton unit,
three 5-ton units,
one 6-ton unit
1990s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$85,744 Packaged
SZHP $75,052 - $10,693
One 3-ton unit,
three 4-ton units,
one 5-ton unit
2000s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$85,164 Packaged
SZHP $75,229 - $9,936
Two 3-ton units,
two 4-ton units, one
5-ton unit
As shown in Table 9, the incremental costs across vintages do not vary as much for Small Office compared to the Medium Retail prototype because all HVAC units have a capacity of less than 10 tons.

3.3.3.2 Medium Retail
The existing HVAC system includes four packaged SZ rooftop air-conditioners (AC) with gas furnaces which are less than 20 tons. Note that the core zone in the Medium Retail has a unit over 20 tons and is thus excluded from the analysis. The Reach Code Team selected packaged SZHPs to replace the three existing packaged RTUs below 20 tons for the Medium Retail SZHP retrofit. Table 10 shows an example of the incremental first cost associated with the SZHP package for Medium Retail over the 30-year lifecycle.

Table 10. Medium Retail HVAC Retrofit Costs (Example: Climate Zone 12) Vintage
SZAC
Measure
SZAC
Cost
SZHP
Retrofit
Measure
SZHP
Cost
SZHP
Incremental
First Cost
Equipment
Capacities
1980s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$94,531 Packaged
SZHP $111,596 $17,065 Three 12.5-ton units
1990s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$82,431 Packaged
SZHP $84,368 $1,937 Three 10-ton units
2000s
Packaged
SZAC + gas
furnace
$78,147 Packaged
SZHP $79,204 $1,057 Two 9-ton units, one 10-ton unit
As shown in Table 10, the incremental cost can vary significantly across the vintages, which is mainly driven by the equipment capacities. In the 2000s vintage example, there is a modest incremental cost, and all HVAC units are 10 tons or less. More recent vintages often have smaller equipment capacities because of the efficiency improvements from code. In the 1980s vintage example, the incremental cost is significant due to the HVAC units all having a capacity of greater than 10 tons.

31.62 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 21 2025/07/07
4 Stakeholder Interviews
To support the code pathway options, the Reach Code Team interviewed five HVAC designers, three HVAC contractors, and two equipment distributors/ manufacturer representatives (“reps”) to gather information regarding their experience with replacing units within this size range, and their opinions of the challenges associated with replacing packaged SZAC + gas furnaces with packaged SZHP.

4.1 Objectives and Research Questions
The team conducted ten interviews focusing on the major factors that influence the replacement of a gas-fired packaged unit with a heat pump including physical constraints, electrical concerns, and capacity issues. The interview questions are provided in Appendix

9.6. 4.2 Results
Overall, eight of ten interviewees related challenges when replacing gas packs with heat pumps. Those challenges included:
• Leaving air temperature of heat pump being lower than a gas pack, • Condensate production on the outdoor coil during heating cycle, • Cool air being delivered to the space during the defrost cycle, particularly in occupancies with large outdoor air changes per hour and in colder climates, • Difficulty handling high outside air loads and associated electrical upgrades, and • Physical constraints, such as structural, footprint, existing duct configuration, and height issues.

The most common physical constraint reported by interviewees (n=6) was the need for an adapter curb during replacement, which has some minimal cost associated with configuration.

Two interviewees noted that this was necessary about 50% of the time regardless of whether the retrofit involved a SZAC or SZHP.

All of the designers and contractors the team interviewed (n=8) noted electrical issues as being concerns during retrofit, but generally uncommon. While power for the cooling for the packaged SZ AC + gas furnace is equal to or larger than the power demand from a heat pump during heating mode, the main electrical concern had to do with the installation of electric resistance for defrost control. Defrost cycles occur when the outdoor coil freezes during heating, and the unit needs to switch to air-conditioning mode for three to five minutes to melt the frost and improve heating efficiency. This concern is minimal as it may only trigger a circuit upgrade and not a building service upgrade. One contractor, however, did state that electrical power is more of a concern in older buildings because of prior improvements to the building, and the potential for the building service to not have the capacity to handle an additional electrical upgrade.

31.63 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 22 2025/07/07
The necessity of electric resistance for defrost control is debatable according to interview responses:
• There was no consensus as to a particular rule of thumb used for specification by designers. One cited an outside air load of more than 30-50%, another cited less than 20°F ambient conditions, and another mentioned specifying electric resistance as a precaution against minor discomfort.
• Similarly, there was no real consensus among contractors as two mentioned humid conditions in cold Climate Zones and another would simply include it as a precaution. • Distributors had consistent answers. Two mentioned that it was installed for back up heat, and another mentioned cold ambient conditions less than 33°F. However, neither distributor interviewed had encountered a situation where a heat pump was not able to maintain the space setpoint because electric resistance hadn’t been installed.

Interviewees commented that heating capacity is an issue during a heat pump retrofit.

However, different interviewee groups cited varying issues:
• Designers had concerns with high outside air capacities and low ambient conditions hindering heat pump heating capacity.
• Contractors mainly cited the defrost cycle as the biggest heating issue with heat pumps since the supply air temperature is cooler during the defrost cycle. • Distributors and manufacturer representatives also mentioned system performance at low outdoor ambient conditions and the defrost cycle as being heating concerns for heat pumps.

Two interviewees cited leaky building envelope issues as a heating concern, but this was unrelated to heat pump retrofits.

4.3 Interpretation
The Reach Code Team considered the issues raised by interviewees and concluded they do not result in significant cost implications, as described below:
• The lower leaving air temperature of heat pumps relative to gas packs increases heating duration but does not necessarily lead to comfort or feasibility issues. • Condensate production during the heating cycle is normal and can be routed in a similar way as the cooling cycle condensation.
• Cool air being delivered to the space during the defrost cycle is likely to happen only during peak heating events when overnight temperatures approach freezing, which is limited in commercial applications that primarily have daytime occupancy and operation.
• Physical constraints, such as structural, footprint, and height issues occur when replacing old equipment with similar size new models and manufacturers and are not associated specifically with heat pump retrofits.

31.64 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 23 2025/07/07
Due to conflicting interviewee feedback on the potential need for electric resistance for supplemental heat as well as defrost cycles, the Team performed additional analysis using CBECC.

Figure 4 depicts the auto-sized single-zone heat pump (SZHP) peak heating demand as a percentage of the peak cooling demand, along with the unmet heating load hours (UMLH) for units without electric resistance backup. In all Climate Zones, peak cooling demand is larger than peak heating demand and thus drives compressor sizing. Furthermore, for electrical supplemental heat, there are very limited UMLH, barely breach 200 hours in CZ16. This data suggests that backup electrical heat is not necessary in all California Climate Zones, except perhaps CZ16.

In Figure 5 the need for electric resistance heating for the purpose of defrost is tested by measuring the heating capacity of the heat pump unit, compared to the actual peak heating demand. Because the default heating capacity of the rooftop units is at least 120% of the peak heating demand for the building in all Climate Zones, the Team estimates that heat pumps will be able to defrost relatively quickly and without causing sustained discomfort.

Based on these two assessments, the need for electrical upgrades associated with heat pump retrofits appears to be minimal, and thus does not require inclusion in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Figure 4. Peak Heating Demand as a Percent of Peak Cooling Demand, and Unmet Heating Load Hours
-
50 100
150
200
250
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
cz01 cz02 cz03 cz04 cz05 cz06 cz07 cz08 cz09 cz10 cz11 cz12 cz13 cz14 cz15 cz16 Unmet Heating Load Hours
H/C Ratio
Climate Zone
Medium Retail Small Office Medium Retail Unmet Heating Load hours

31.65 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 24 2025/07/07
Figure 5. Heating Capacity as a Percent of Peak Heating Demand from CBECC 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
cz01 cz02 cz03 cz04 cz05 cz06 cz07 cz08 cz09 cz10 cz11 cz12 cz13 cz14 cz15 cz16 Peak Heating Capacity/Peak Heating
Demand
Climate Zone
Medium Retail
Small Office

31.66 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 25 2025/07/07
5 Cost-effectiveness Results
Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section

3. The LSC and On-Bill based, cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV section. What constitutes a benefit or a cost varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as benefits, while incremental construction costs are treated as costs. In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit, while the utility bill negative savings are as the cost. In Table 11 through Table 13, the results Both (shown in green shading) indicates that the result is cost-effective in both On-Bill and LSC. The result On-Bill or LSC (shown in yellow shading) indicates that the result is either cost-effective in On-Bill or LSC, respectively. The result [-] (results with no shading) indicates that the result is not cost-effective On-Bill or LSC. Results that are blank (shown in gray shading) indicate that the package or measure is not applicable, for example, if there are not relevant tonnage of equipment in a vintage.

There are several overarching factors to keep in mind when reviewing the results including:
• SZHP packages will have lower GHG emissions than SZAC packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes must have at least one pathway that is cost-effective and exceeds the energy performance budget using LSC (i.e., have a positive compliance margin). Other pathways must also exceed the energy performance budget but are not required to be cost-effective. To emphasize these two important factors, the modeling results that have demonstrated both LSC savings or are cost effective are highlighted in green in the figures within this section.
• As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness. Utility rate updates can affect cost-effectiveness results.
• As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel SZAC baseline energy figures are provided in Appendix 9.2.

For each prototype, the Reach Code Team assessed the viability of achieving a cost-effective outcome when combining efficiency measures with heat pump packages (e.g., the Heat Pump HVAC + Bundled Efficiency Measures packages) based on the NPVs achieved from each individual efficiency measure.

31.67 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 26 2025/07/07

5.1 Small Office

5.1.1 Individual Efficiency Measure Results
Table 11 shows cost-effectiveness results of individual efficiency measures applied to the existing mixed-fuel Small Office prototype. Window Film and Lighting Retrofit are mostly On-Bill cost-effective in most Climate Zones across the vintages.

Table 11. Cost-Effectiveness for Individual Efficiency Measures: Small Office Climate
Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E Window
Film 1980s ─ OnBill
OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ Both ─ Window
Film 1990s ─ OnBill
OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ Both ─ Window
Film 2000s
Lighting
Retrofit
1980s
OnBill OnBill OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ LSC OnBill Lighting
Retrofit
1990s
OnBill OnBill OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ ─ OnBill Lighting
Retrofit
2000s
OnBill OnBill OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─ OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ ─ OnBill

31.68 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 27 2025/07/07

5.1.2 SZAC Package Results
Table 12 shows the cost-effectiveness results of the Small Office for SZAC packages. The MF-EFF package is mostly either On-Bill or LSC costeffective in all applicable Climate Zones across the three vintages. Due to package optimization, there are some Climate Zones excluded because no cost-effective measures are applicable. The MF-HRV package is not presented in this table because it is not cost-effective in any Climate Zones across the three vintages. However, the results are included in the Results Workbook for reference.

Table 12. Cost-Effectiveness for SZAC Packages: Small Office Climate
Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E MF-EFF
1980s LSC LSC OnBill
OnBill OnBill OnBill ─ On-Bill LSC OnBill On-Bill ─ OnBill OnBill OnBill LSC ─ LSC MF-EFF
1990s LSC LSC OnBill
OnBill OnBill OnBill OnBill On-Bill LSC OnBill On-Bill ─ OnBill OnBill OnBill LSC ─ LSC MF-EFF
2000s LSC LSC OnBill
OnBill OnBill OnBill On-Bill On-Bill OnBill OnBill OnBill LSC LSC

31.69 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 28 2025/07/07

5.1.3 SZHP Package Results
Table 13 shows the cost-effectiveness results of the Small Office for SZHP packages. The HP package is cost-effective in both metrics across most Climate Zones and vintages. In vintage 1990s and 2000s, only select Climate Zones are applicable, as most units are 5 tons or below and are prescriptively required to be SZHPs under the 2025 code.

Table 13. Cost-Effectiveness for SZHP Package: Small Office Climate
Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E HP
1980s Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both HP
1990s Both Both OnBill
OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both
HP
2000s Both Both Both Both Both

31.70 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 29 2025/07/07

5.2 Medium Retail

5.2.1 Individual Efficiency Measure Results
Table 14 shows cost-effectiveness results of individual efficiency measures applied to the existing mixed-fuel Medium Retail prototype. The Cool Roof, Lighting Retrofit, and Economizer FDD measures as individual measures are On-Bill and LSC cost-effective in most Climate Zones and vintages where they are applicable. Window Film is mostly On-Bill and LSC cost-effective in selected Climate Zones and vintages.

Table 14. Cost-Effectiveness for Individual Efficiency Measures: Medium Retail Climate Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E Cool Roof 1980s OnBill
OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both ─ Cool Roof 1990s OnBill
OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both ─ Cool Roof 2000s OnBill
OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill On-Bill Both Both Both Both ─ Window Film
1980s ─ OnBill
OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ Both ─ Window Film
1990s ─ OnBill ─ OnBill ─ OnBill
OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill On-Bill ─ Both ─ Window Film
2000s
Lighting Retrofit
1980s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Lighting Retrofit
1990s LSC Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Lighting Retrofit
2000s LSC Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Economizer FDD
1980s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Economizer FDD
1990s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Economizer FDD
2000s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both

31.71 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 30 2025/07/07

5.2.2 SZAC Package Results
Table 15 shows the cost-effectiveness results of the SZAC Medium Retail measure packages. The MF-EFF package is cost-effective in terms of LSC and On-Bill in most Climate Zones and vintages. The MF-HRVDCV package is partially cost-effective in terms of On-Bill due to the smaller savings compared to the incremental package cost.

Table 15. Cost-Effectiveness for SZAC Packages: Medium Retail Climate
Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E MF-EFF
1980s LSC Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both MF-EFF
1990s LSC Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both MF-EFF
2000s LSC Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both MFHRVDCV
1980s
Both Both OnBill Both Both Both Both ─ On-Bill OnBill OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both MFHRVDCV
1990s
Both Both ─ Both Both Both Both ─ ─ OnBill
OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill Both MFHRVDCV
1990s
Both Both ─ Both Both Both Both ─ ─ OnBill
OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill Both MFHRVDCV
2000s
Both Both Both Both Both Both Both ─ ─ OnBill
OnBill Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill LSC

31.72 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 31 2025/07/07

5.2.3 SZHP Package Results
Table 16 shows the cost-effectiveness results of the SZHP packages for Medium Retail. The HP package is mostly cost-effective in terms of On-Bill in some Climate Zones in the 1980s and 1990s vintages. The Climate Zones where the package is not cost-effective is partly due to the large incremental first cost of switching to a SZHP HVAC system for larger capacity units over 10 tons. SZHP retrofits become cost effective in most Climate Zones in the 2000s vintage because of the lower incremental costs associated with smaller system sizes. Comparing this with the HP-10 package where only units at 10-ton or below are replaced with SZHPs, we can see improvements in the cost-effectiveness in terms of LSC and On-bill in applicable Climate Zones.

Table 16. Cost-Effectiveness for SZHP Packages: Medium Retail Climate
Zone CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ4 CZ5 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility PG&E PG&E PG&E PG&E CPAU PG&E SCG SCE SDG&E SCE SCE SDG&E SCE PG&E PG&E SMUD PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E HP 1980s Both OnBill Both OnBill
OnBill Both LSC OnBill ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ OnBill OnBill OnBill OnBill ─ OnBill ─ OnBill HP 1990s Both OnBill Both OnBill
OnBill OnBill ─ ─ ─ ─ OnBill ─ ─ Both Both Both Both LSC Both ─ OnBill HP 2000s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both ─ OnBill HP-10
1980s Both Both Both Both Both Both
HP-10
1990s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both On-Bill OnBill Both HP-10
2000s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both OnBill OnBill
HP-DCV
1980s Both Both Both Both Both Both LSC OnBill ─ ─ OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both Both Both LSC Both OnBill OnBill
HP-DCV
1990s Both OnBill Both Both Both OnBill ─ ─ ─ OnBill OnBill On-Bill OnBill Both Both Both Both LSC Both ─ OnBill HP-DCV
2000s Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both ─ Both Both ─ Both Both ─ ─ OnBill

31.73 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 32 2025/07/07
6 Reach Code Options
Adopting a reach code based on this package of measures is feasible in Climate Zones where:

1. There is an LSC compliant package. This report prioritizes SZHP LSC compliance; and

2. SZHP and SZAC packages have equivalent LSC savings, allowing for both a SZHP and SZAC pathway; and

3. At least one of the SZHP or SZAC is either LSC or on-bill cost-effective.

If one package is cost-effective and the other package achieves LSC equivalency with the costeffective package, then this reach code pathway could be considered within that Climate Zone.

HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Options include:
• Option 1: HP OR MF-HRV OR MF-HRVDCV: This reach code would require a SZHP up to 20 tons, or SZAC with additional HVAC efficiency measures. • Option 2: HP-10 OR MF-HRV OR MF-HRVDCV: This reach code would require SZHP replacements for units up to 10 tons or require additional HVAC efficiency measures for SZAC replacements.
• Option 3: HP-DCV OR MF-EFF: This reach code option increases the number of efficiency measures required as part of the RTU replacement and higher upfront costs and thus could be considered where Options 1 or 2 cannot be adopted. This reach code requires additional efficiency measures, including HVAC, as well as envelope and lighting if SZAC systems are installed.

The RTU replacement reach code options are evaluated in each Climate Zone and vintage and categorized based on the cost-effectiveness and LSC savings of the two pathways. For each reach code option, the primary pathway should be cost-effective under the assumption that the RTU will be replaced as part of the proposed project scope, and the alternative pathway should achieve at least as much LSC savings. The team evaluated several tiers of this reach code option with different requirements for the primary pathway. The primary pathway is a SZHP replacement for Option 1, SZHP replacements for units up to 10 tons only for Option 2, and SZHP replacements with additional HVAC measures for Option 3. If Option 1 is cost-effective, it will cover the broadest set of equipment with the simplest requirements for the SZHP. If Option 1 is not cost-effective, Options 2 or 3 may be considered.

The tables presented in this section show the results for each reach code option and Climate Zone. The primary pathway shows the number of prototypes that are cost-effective, and the number of prototypes analyzed. The alternative pathway shows the number of prototypes that meet or exceed the LSC savings of the primary pathway, regardless of whether they are cost-effective, and the number of prototypes that were analyzed. Note that due to differences in the prototypes, RTU capacities, and measure applicability, not all packages were able to be modeled for all Climate Zones, vintages, and building types.

31.74 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 33 2025/07/07
Table 17 shows the results for the RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 1, where the SZHP replacement is the primary pathway. The alternative pathways analyzed for energy equivalency are the SZAC replacement with HRV only, which is not consistently costeffective in all cases, and the SZAC replacement with HRV and DCV measures. The DCV measure was not modeled in the small office prototype because there are no packaged units serving only conference room zones and the occupancy profile is otherwise relatively flat. Because DCV was modeled in only one prototype, there are three modeled scenarios for this pathway (the Retail vintages) rather than six scenarios for the other pathways (both Small Office and Retail). However, because offices will have conference rooms and thus can achieve occupancy-based savings for DCV, the results are presented below and treated as widely applicable. Results show that the primary SZHP pathway is cost-effective for more than half of all Climate Zones and vintages.

Table 17. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 1 Applicability Primary Pathway – Count
of prototypes that are C/E
Alternative Pathway - Count of
prototypes that achieve LSC equivalency
Climate Zone Utility HP MF-HRV MF-HRVDCV
CZ1 PG&E 6 / 6 3 / 6 3 / 3
CZ2 PG&E 6 / 6 5 / 6 3 / 3
CZ3 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ4 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ4-2 CPAU 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ5 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ5-2 SCG 3 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ6 SCE 3 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 3
CZ7 SDG&E 2 / 4 2 / 4 3 / 3
CZ8 SCE 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 3
CZ9 SCE 4 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 3
CZ10 SDG&E 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 3
CZ10-2 SCE 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 3
CZ11 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ12 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ12-2 SMUD 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ13 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ14 SDG&E 5 / 6 6 / 6 3 / 3
CZ14-2 SCE 3 / 6 6 / 6 3 / 3
CZ15 SCE 1 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ16 PG&E 6 / 6 6 / 6 3 / 3

31.75 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 34 2025/07/07
The Reach Code Team evaluated the cost-effectiveness as it relates to the average capacity of each variation and determined that the SZHP alone is generally cost-effective when the average capacity is around 10 tons or less. The Reach Code Team re-ran the above packages implementing a limit of 10 tons. For the RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 2 results presented in Table 18, the primary pathway is a SZHP replacement for units 5-10 tons, and units 10-20 tons remain the same as the baseline. The same measures are considered for the alternative SZAC pathway as RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 1.

Table 18. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 2 Applicability Primary Pathway –
Count of
prototypes that are
C/E
Alternative Pathway - Count of
prototypes that achieve LSC
equivalency
Climate Zone Utility HP-10 MF-HRV MF-HRVDCV
CZ1 PG&E 6 / 6 3 / 6 3 / 3
CZ2 PG&E 5 / 5 4 / 5 2 / 2
CZ3 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ4 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ4-2 CPAU 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ5 PG&E 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ5-2 SCG 4 / 4 4 / 4 3 / 3
CZ6 SCE 4 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 3
CZ7 SDG&E 4 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 3
CZ8 SCE 4 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 2
CZ9 SCE 4 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 2
CZ10 SDG&E 4 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 2
CZ10-2 SCE 4 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 2
CZ11 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ12 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ12-2 SMUD 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ13 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 2
CZ14 SDG&E 5 / 5 5 / 5 2 / 2
CZ14-2 SCE 2 / 5 5 / 5 2 / 2
CZ15 SCE 2 / 2 2 / 2 1 / 1
CZ16 PG&E 5 / 5 5 / 5 2 / 2
RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 3 results, summarized in Table 19, show the SZHP replacement with DCV as the primary pathway and the mixed-fuel SZAC replacement with DCV, lighting retrofit, and window film as the alternative pathway. The HRV measure is

31.76 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 35 2025/07/07
excluded from the primary pathway because it is not cost-effective across all Climate Zones.

For Climate Zones and vintages that are cost-effective and energy equivalent for multiple reach code options, Option 1 is the more stringent option. Because there is an Option 1 RTU Replacement Reach Code available for all Climate Zones and vintages for Small Office, Option 3 was only evaluated for the Retail prototype.

Table 19. HVAC RTU Replacement Reach Code Option 3 Applicability (Retail only) Primary Pathway – Count
of prototypes that are
C/E
Alternative Pathway -
Count of prototypes that
achieve LSC equivalency
Climate Zone Utility HP-DCV MF-EFF
CZ1 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ2 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ3 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ4 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ4-2 CPAU 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ5 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ5-2 SCG 2 / 3 3 / 3
CZ6 SCE 2 / 3 3 / 3
CZ7 SDG&E 1 / 3 3 / 3
CZ8 SCE 2 / 3 3 / 3
CZ9 SCE 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ10 SDG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ10-2 SCE 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ11 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ12 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ12-2 SMUD 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ13 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ14 SDG&E 2 / 3 3 / 3
CZ14-2 SCE 3 / 3 3 / 3
CZ15 SCE 1 / 3 3 / 3
CZ16 PG&E 3 / 3 3 / 3

31.77 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 36 2025/07/07
7 Conclusions and Next Steps
The Reach Codes Team developed packages with SZHPs and energy efficiency measures, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the costeffectiveness 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.

Jurisdictions statewide can adopt a variety of building reach codes using the results in this report. While results are nuanced by vintage, Climate Zone, and utility, the overarching takeaways by prototype using the assumptions in this report are summarized below:
• Small Office: Code minimum packaged SZHP space conditioning replacements are cost-effective in all Climate Zones and vintages. The bundled efficiency measure package is cost-effective for both SZAC (like-for-like) and SZHP replacements. The HRV measure is not cost-effective with the SZHP replacement. There are some individual efficiency measures that are cost-effective, depending on Climate Zone and vintage, including window film and lighting retrofit. • Medium Retail: Code minimum packaged SZHP space conditioning replacements are mainly cost-effective in the 2000s vintage, and where HVAC replacements are ≤ 10 tons. In the 1980s and 1990s vintages, which require larger equipment (>10 tons), SZHPs show more variation in cost-effectiveness based on the larger incremental cost of SZHP equipment. With the bundled efficiency measures, code minimum SZAC space heating replacements are cost-effective in all Climate Zones.

There are several cost-effective individual efficiency measures, depending on Climate Zone and vintage, including cool roof, economizer FDD, window film, and lighting retrofit.

Based on these results, the Reach Code Team has identified the following potential measure packages that jurisdictions in most Climate Zones and utility territories may consider adopting based on cost-effectiveness during RTU replacements. The RTU Replacement Reach Code options are as follows:
• Option 1: SZHP Code Min (up to 20 tons) or Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min + HVAC Measures
• Option 2: SZHP Code Min (up to 10 tons) or Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min + HVAC Measures
• Option 3: SZHP Code Min + HVAC Measures or Mixed-fuel SZAC Code Min + Bundled Efficiency Measures
Generally, the Reach Code Team found that at least one RTU Replacement Reach Code option may be considered for adoption for all Climate Zones, although in several Climate Zones the option may not be cost-effective across all vintages and prototypes modeled. The

31.78 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 37 2025/07/07
Reach Code options may be applied to a wider set of prototypes, including libraries, grocery, banks, and schools, as described in Section 3.2.

This analysis was limited to the measure packages and building types described. There may be other energy efficiency measures that are cost effective in some or all climate zones, and other building prototypes relevant to what is being retrofit in a particular region of California.

To request custom analysis, please contact [email protected].

31.79 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 38 2025/07/07
8 References
[1] E-CFR, "https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431 &r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431 &r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197.
[2] California Energy Commission, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=256847&DocumentContentId=92661. [3] Statewide Reach Code Team, "2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy," 2019.
[4] California Energy Commission, "2025 Energy Code Date and Hourly Factors", 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-date-and-hourlyfactors [5] U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)", 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ [6] California Energy Commission, "Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act - SB 350", 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliersreporting/clean-energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350 [7] Illinois Statewise Technical Reference Manual, "Volume 2: Commercial and Industrial Measures", 2024. [Online]. Available: https://icc.illinois.gov/downloads/public/il-trm-12/ILTRM_Effective_010124_v12.0_Vol_2_C_and_I_09222023_FINAL_clean.pdf. [8] City of Palo Alto, "City of Palo Alto Monthly Gas Volumetric and Service Charges", 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/29/utilities/business/business-rates/monthlygas-volumetric-and-service-charges-commercial.pdf [9] California Energy Commission, "2025 Nonresidential HVAC Heat Pump Baseline Report," 2024.

31.80 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 39 2025/07/07
9 Appendices

9.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 6. Map of California climate zones. The map in Figure 6. Map of California climate zones. along with a zip-code search directory is available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 6. Map of California climate zones.

31.81 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 40 2025/07/07

9.2 Mixed-Fuel Baseline Energy Figures
Table 20. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1980 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 362,829 3,411 $129,201 $6,796 $135,996 41
CZ2 PG&E 440,689 2,431 $162,498 $4,956 $167,454 39
CZ3 PG&E 405,363 1,690 $147,666 $3,423 $151,089 33
CZ4 PG&E 479,116 2,287 $176,888 $4,726 $181,613 40
CZ4-2 CPAU 479,116 2,287 $104,157 $6,375 $110,532 40
CZ5 PG&E 399,754 1,599 $148,036 $3,215 $151,252 32
CZ5-2 SCG 399,754 1,599 $148,036 $2,436 $150,473 32
CZ6 SCE 427,133 590 $114,657 $1,041 $115,698 28
CZ7 SDG&E 435,608 435 $160,261 $623 $160,884 27
CZ8 SCE 498,649 656 $139,534 $1,147 $140,681 31
CZ9 SCE 496,146 846 $140,014 $1,420 $141,434 32
CZ10 SDG&E 518,627 826 $192,271 $1,083 $193,353 33
CZ10-2 SCE 518,627 826 $144,216 $1,388 $145,604 33
CZ11 PG&E 511,565 2,767 $186,733 $5,736 $192,469 44
CZ12 PG&E 471,069 2,466 $172,369 $5,121 $177,490 40
CZ12-2 SMUD 471,069 2,466 $80,619 $5,121 $85,739 40
CZ13 PG&E 524,977 1,865 $190,257 $3,959 $194,217 39
CZ14 SDG&E 518,931 2,349 $180,950 $2,873 $183,824 42
CZ14-2 SCE 518,931 2,349 $135,571 $3,350 $138,920 42
CZ15 SCE 660,960 448 $174,838 $844 $175,682 37
CZ16 PG&E 444,960 4,278 $158,233 $8,542 166,775 51

31.82 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 41 2025/07/07
Table 21. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1990 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 337,880 2,543 $119,821 $5,120 $124,941 35
CZ2 PG&E 405,987 1,667 $149,136 $3,384 $152,520 33
CZ3 PG&E 370,768 1,094 $135,276 $2,258 $137,534 28
CZ4 PG&E 435,229 1,559 $160,056 $3,203 $163,258 33
CZ4-2 CPAU 435,229 1,559 $94,425 $4,945 $99,370 33
CZ5 PG&E 378,344 1,033 $139,394 $2,123 $141,517 28
CZ5-2 SCG 378,344 1,033 $139,394 $1,681 $141,075 28
CZ6 SCE 405,100 325 $107,392 $656 $108,048 25
CZ7 SDG&E 408,992 233 $148,909 $390 $149,299 25
CZ8 SCE 458,178 410 $122,006 $785 $122,792 28
CZ9 SCE 456,026 560 $122,445 $1,001 $123,446 29
CZ10 SDG&E 472,282 564 $173,098 $779 $173,876 29
CZ10-2 SCE 472,282 564 $125,599 $1,007 $126,606 29
CZ11 PG&E 458,080 1,808 $166,630 $3,726 $170,356 36
CZ12 PG&E 426,105 1,613 $155,174 $3,334 $158,508 33
CZ12-2 SMUD 426,105 1,613 $72,021 $3,425 $75,446 33
CZ13 PG&E 464,002 1,248 $167,727 $2,623 $170,350 33
CZ14 SDG&E 459,171 1,609 $159,827 $2,007 $161,834 34
CZ14-2 SCE 459,171 1,609 $118,811 $2,422 $121,233 34
CZ15 SCE 550,370 250 $141,683 $551 $142,234 30
CZ16 PG&E 406,009 3,099 $144,458 $6,244 $150,702 42

31.83 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 42 2025/07/07
Table 22. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 2000 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 331,055 2,964 $116,618 $5,889 $122,507 37
CZ2 PG&E 368,892 2,133 $133,976 $4,359 $138,335 33
CZ3 PG&E 347,589 1,472 $125,426 $2,982 $128,409 29
CZ4 PG&E 389,542 2,098 $141,959 $4,340 $146,299 34
CZ4-2 CPAU 389,542 2,098 $84,047 $6,003 $90,050 34
CZ5 PG&E 352,283 1,414 $128,191 $2,841 $131,031 29
CZ5-2 SCG 352,283 1,414 $128,191 $2,194 $130,384 29
CZ6 SCE 367,634 518 $94,579 $934 $95,513 24
CZ7 SDG&E 370,947 404 $132,002 $587 $132,589 24
CZ8 SCE 407,793 625 $106,172 $1,101 $107,273 27
CZ9 SCE 407,765 825 $106,932 $1,388 $108,320 28
CZ10 SDG&E 414,731 658 $148,951 $886 $149,837 27
CZ10-2 SCE 414,731 658 $107,541 $1,142 $108,683 27
CZ11 PG&E 418,772 2,167 $151,246 $4,529 $155,775 36
CZ12 PG&E 391,670 1,996 $141,560 $4,177 $145,738 34
CZ12-2 SMUD 391,670 1,996 $65,293 $4,177 $69,470 34
CZ13 PG&E 424,029 1,561 $152,401 $3,249 $155,650 33
CZ14 SDG&E 415,063 2,050 $142,703 $2,522 $145,226 35
CZ14-2 SCE 415,063 2,050 $105,480 $2,980 $108,459 35
CZ15 SCE 489,705 344 $124,170 $689 $124,860 28
CZ16 PG&E 378,759 3,736 $133,970 $7,450 $141,421 44

31.84 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 43 2025/07/07
Table 23. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 1980 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E
CZ2 PG&E 454,429 2,431 $166,955 $4,957 $171,911 39
CZ3 PG&E 410,069 1,718 $149,667 $3,477 $153,144 33
CZ4 PG&E 493,340 2,268 $181,340 $4,689 $186,029 40
CZ4-2 CPAU 493,340 2,268 $107,191 $6,337 $113,528 40
CZ5 PG&E 420,845 1,595 $153,940 $3,208 $157,147 33
CZ5-2 SCG 420,845 1,595 $153,940 $2,431 $156,371 33
CZ6 SCE 453,474 595 $116,544 $1,048 $117,591 29
CZ7 SDG&E 465,024 444 $165,911 $633 $166,545 29
CZ8 SCE 520,726 650 $142,311 $1,138 $143,449 32
CZ9 SCE 515,751 842 $142,484 $1,413 $143,897 33
CZ10 SDG&E 535,283 820 $194,944 $1,076 $196,019 34
CZ10-2 SCE 535,283 820 $146,313 $1,380 $147,693 34
CZ11 PG&E 521,719 2,769 $189,851 $5,734 $195,584 44
CZ12 PG&E 484,282 2,462 $176,675 $5,112 $181,787 41
CZ12-2 SMUD 484,282 2,462 $82,124 $5,112 $87,236 41
CZ13 PG&E 538,085 1,868 $194,411 $3,961 $198,371 40
CZ14 SDG&E 530,607 2,345 $184,263 $2,868 $187,132 42
CZ14-2 SCE 530,607 2,345 $137,213 $3,344 $140,557 42
CZ15 SCE 671,269 450 $176,129 $846 $176,975 37
CZ16 PG&E 459,029 4,288 $163,083 $8,558 $171,641 51

31.85 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 44 2025/07/07
Table 24. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 1990 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 343,733 2,534 $123,444 $5,104 $128,548 35
CZ2 PG&E 418,947 1,649 $153,333 $3,350 $156,683 33
CZ3 PG&E 390,900 1,085 $141,990 $2,241 $144,231 29
CZ4 PG&E 447,994 1,542 $164,034 $3,168 $167,202 33
CZ4-2 CPAU 447,994 1,542 $97,159 $4,911 $102,070 33
CZ5 PG&E 398,742 1,007 $145,166 $2,075 $147,241 29
CZ5-2 SCG 398,742 1,007 $145,166 $1,645 $146,811 29
CZ6 SCE 431,799 326 $109,424 $657 $110,081 26
CZ7 SDG&E 437,821 238 $154,396 $395 $154,790 26
CZ8 SCE 477,680 408 $124,303 $782 $125,085 28
CZ9 SCE 473,486 559 $124,510 $999 $125,510 29
CZ10 SDG&E 487,233 562 $175,501 $775 $176,276 30
CZ10-2 SCE 487,233 562 $127,366 $1,002 $128,368 30
CZ11 PG&E 466,851 1,808 $169,374 $3,722 $173,095 36
CZ12 PG&E 437,293 1,611 $158,828 $3,326 $162,154 33
CZ12-2 SMUD 437,293 1,611 $73,304 $3,417 $76,721 33
CZ13 PG&E 474,897 1,252 $171,129 $2,626 $173,755 33
CZ14 SDG&E 469,042 1,603 $162,673 $2,001 $164,674 35
CZ14-2 SCE 469,042 1,603 $120,229 $2,415 $122,645 35
CZ15 SCE 559,124 255 $142,698 $558 $143,255 31
CZ16 PG&E 418,885 3,099 $148,862 $6,244 $155,106 42

31.86 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 45 2025/07/07
Table 25. Medium Retail: Existing Mixed-Fuel FDD Baseline 2000 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 334,133 2,955 $118,836 $5,874 $124,710 37
CZ2 PG&E 376,400 2,109 $136,465 $4,316 $140,781 34
CZ3 PG&E 359,362 1,460 $129,290 $2,962 $132,252 29
CZ4 PG&E 397,033 2,072 $144,339 $4,293 $148,632 34
CZ4-2 CPAU 397,033 2,072 $85,661 $5,953 $91,615 34
CZ5 PG&E 364,695 1,383 $131,734 $2,785 $134,519 29
CZ5-2 SCG 364,695 1,383 $131,734 $2,151 $133,885 29
CZ6 SCE 384,244 510 $96,104 $923 $97,028 25
CZ7 SDG&E 388,971 403 $135,619 $585 $136,205 25
CZ8 SCE 419,809 621 $107,602 $1,094 $108,696 27
CZ9 SCE 418,105 817 $108,172 $1,377 $109,548 28
CZ10 SDG&E 423,876 653 $150,475 $880 $151,355 27
CZ10-2 SCE 423,876 653 $108,644 $1,134 $109,778 27
CZ11 PG&E 424,497 2,169 $153,029 $4,528 $157,557 36
CZ12 PG&E 398,822 1,988 $143,941 $4,161 $148,103 34
CZ12-2 SMUD 398,822 1,988 $66,124 $4,161 $70,285 34
CZ13 PG&E 431,259 1,566 $154,654 $3,252 $157,906 33
CZ14 SDG&E 421,138 2,041 $144,521 $2,512 $147,033 35
CZ14-2 SCE 421,138 2,041 $106,356 $2,968 $109,324 35
CZ15 SCE 495,422 347 $124,838 $693 $125,531 29
CZ16 PG&E 387,411 3,733 $136,960 $7,444 $144,405 44

31.87 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 46 2025/07/07
Table 26. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1980 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 330,146 3,634 $117,538 $7,104 $125,029 40
CZ2 PG&E 386,517 3,028 $142,626 $6,061 $148,784 39
CZ3 PG&E 350,383 2,205 $128,615 $4,472 $132,777 33
CZ4 PG&E 422,921 2,793 $156,411 $5,683 $162,326 39
CZ4-2 CPAU 422,921 2,793 $91,914 $7,369 $99,283 39
CZ5 PG&E 357,588 2,112 $133,079 $4,244 $137,183 32
CZ5-2 SCG 357,588 2,112 $133,079 $3,085 $136,164 32
CZ6 SCE 380,747 850 $102,047 $1,415 $103,121 26
CZ7 SDG&E 390,599 669 $144,977 $891 $145,908 26
CZ8 SCE 438,518 930 $119,049 $1,532 $120,395 29
CZ9 SCE 437,803 1,166 $120,876 $1,857 $122,464 31
CZ10 SDG&E 458,750 1,148 $173,011 $1,453 $174,689 31
CZ10-2 SCE 458,750 1,148 $125,076 $1,826 $126,902 31
CZ11 PG&E 456,417 3,295 $167,066 $6,765 $174,237 43
CZ12 PG&E 416,712 2,963 $152,974 $6,076 $159,597 40
CZ12-2 SMUD 416,712 2,963 $71,498 $6,076 $77,574 40
CZ13 PG&E 466,474 2,324 $169,400 $4,867 $174,919 38
CZ14 SDG&E 470,503 2,871 $165,898 $3,474 $170,600 41
CZ14-2 SCE 470,503 2,871 $122,830 $3,959 $126,790 41
CZ15 SCE 577,811 677 $153,714 $1,182 $154,982 33
CZ16 PG&E 399,719 4,978 $144,332 $9,824 $156,858 51

31.88 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 47 2025/07/07
Table 27. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1990 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 322,594 2,731 $114,844 $5,381 $120,348 35
CZ2 PG&E 379,888 1,773 $139,052 $3,542 $142,545 32
CZ3 PG&E 344,512 1,518 $125,878 $3,054 $128,693 29
CZ4 PG&E 395,103 1,991 $145,396 $4,119 $149,382 33
CZ4-2 CPAU 395,103 1,991 $85,705 $5,794 $91,498 33
CZ5 PG&E 350,123 1,464 $129,954 $2,918 $132,715 29
CZ5-2 SCG 350,123 1,464 $129,954 $2,262 $132,217 29
CZ6 SCE 375,743 527 $99,724 $947 $100,368 24
CZ7 SDG&E 378,545 412 $138,486 $595 $138,989 24
CZ8 SCE 420,056 609 $113,165 $1,076 $113,920 27
CZ9 SCE 418,250 791 $113,537 $1,338 $114,473 28
CZ10 SDG&E 431,007 806 $161,040 $1,058 $162,204 28
CZ10-2 SCE 431,007 806 $116,142 $1,358 $117,500 28
CZ11 PG&E 425,508 2,241 $155,289 $4,668 $159,824 36
CZ12 PG&E 402,141 1,692 $146,265 $3,461 $149,864 32
CZ12-2 SMUD 402,141 1,692 $67,348 $3,552 $70,900 32
CZ13 PG&E 429,557 1,578 $155,836 $3,276 $159,386 32
CZ14 SDG&E 439,219 1,630 $153,147 $2,024 $155,666 33
CZ14-2 SCE 439,219 1,630 $112,586 $2,450 $115,036 33
CZ15 SCE 508,300 345 $129,173 $692 $129,792 29
CZ16 PG&E 375,366 3,762 $135,625 $7,477 $144,980 43

31.89 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 48 2025/07/07
Table 28. Medium Retail: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 2000 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 321,233 3,071 $113,854 $5,975 $120,295 36
CZ2 PG&E 361,254 2,169 $131,810 $4,369 $136,118 33
CZ3 PG&E 330,971 1,926 $120,584 $3,914 $124,282 30
CZ4 PG&E 370,393 2,535 $136,586 $5,163 $141,648 35
CZ4-2 CPAU 370,393 2,535 $80,268 $6,862 $87,130 35
CZ5 PG&E 335,034 1,890 $123,792 $3,800 $127,347 30
CZ5-2 SCG 335,034 1,890 $123,792 $2,817 $126,609 30
CZ6 SCE 355,508 762 $93,744 $1,285 $94,620 25
CZ7 SDG&E 358,170 627 $130,391 $842 $131,108 24
CZ8 SCE 395,918 856 $105,868 $1,436 $106,879 27
CZ9 SCE 395,348 1,093 $106,814 $1,763 $108,063 28
CZ10 SDG&E 405,367 905 $149,399 $1,169 $150,412 27
CZ10-2 SCE 405,367 905 $107,416 $1,498 $108,914 27
CZ11 PG&E 417,708 2,183 $151,320 $4,538 $155,852 35
CZ12 PG&E 387,330 2,018 $140,877 $4,181 $145,153 33
CZ12-2 SMUD 387,330 2,018 $65,115 $4,181 $69,296 33
CZ13 PG&E 423,172 1,594 $152,705 $3,294 $156,178 32
CZ14 SDG&E 414,645 2,014 $144,695 $2,469 $147,726 34
CZ14-2 SCE 414,645 2,014 $106,914 $2,936 $109,850 34
CZ15 SCE 486,731 447 $123,568 $843 $124,277 28
CZ16 PG&E 369,114 3,405 $132,583 $6,739 $141,949 40

31.90 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 49 2025/07/07
Table 29. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1980 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 75,261 778 $31,724 $1,597 $33,321 9
CZ2 PG&E 100,788 373 $42,553 $834 $43,387 8
CZ3 PG&E 91,453 248 $38,556 $589 $39,145 7
CZ4 PG&E 110,793 350 $46,904 $797 $47,701 9
CZ4-2 CPAU 110,793 350 $24,048 $2,569 $26,618 9
CZ5 PG&E 91,961 267 $38,743 $622 $39,366 7
CZ5-2 SCG 91,961 267 $38,743 $569 $39,312 7
CZ6 SCE 99,673 67 $26,098 $278 $26,376 6
CZ7 SDG&E 101,642 44 $35,577 $171 $35,747 7
CZ8 SCE 114,050 81 $31,431 $299 $31,730 7
CZ9 SCE 114,398 105 $31,901 $334 $32,235 8
CZ10 SDG&E 118,460 102 $43,632 $239 $43,871 8
CZ10-2 SCE 118,460 102 $33,047 $329 $33,376 8
CZ11 PG&E 117,108 425 $49,743 $950 $50,693 10
CZ12 PG&E 106,223 394 $44,995 $888 $45,883 9
CZ12-2 SMUD 106,223 394 $20,060 $888 $20,948 9
CZ13 PG&E 119,384 287 $50,724 $680 $51,404 9
CZ14 SDG&E 118,563 427 $41,525 $621 $42,146 10
CZ14-2 SCE 118,563 427 $32,206 $809 $33,015 10
CZ15 SCE 152,540 56 $40,238 $263 $40,501 9
CZ16 PG&E 103,301 832 $43,580 $1,716 $45,296 11

31.91 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 50 2025/07/07
Table 30. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 1990 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 72,021 438 $30,381 $953 $31,334 7
CZ2 PG&E 89,947 235 $37,988 $565 $38,553 7
CZ3 PG&E 83,347 147 $35,157 $392 $35,549 6
CZ4 PG&E 97,565 217 $41,303 $534 $41,837 7
CZ4-2 CPAU 97,565 217 $21,160 $2,309 $23,469 7
CZ5 PG&E 83,667 154 $35,270 $404 $35,674 6
CZ5-2 SCG 83,667 154 $35,270 $406 $35,675 6
CZ6 SCE 90,245 30 $23,698 $224 $23,921 6
CZ7 SDG&E 92,140 19 $32,220 $141 $32,362 6
CZ8 SCE 102,681 40 $28,184 $239 $28,423 6
CZ9 SCE 103,712 59 $28,728 $266 $28,994 7
CZ10 SDG&E 107,528 56 $39,322 $185 $39,507 7
CZ10-2 SCE 107,528 56 $29,772 $262 $30,034 7
CZ11 PG&E 100,240 236 $42,565 $573 $43,138 7
CZ12 PG&E 91,849 222 $38,909 $545 $39,454 7
CZ12-2 SMUD 91,849 222 $17,610 $545 $18,156 7
CZ13 PG&E 101,569 159 $43,140 $422 $43,563 7
CZ14 SDG&E 102,817 234 $36,438 $396 $36,835 7
CZ14-2 SCE 102,817 234 $28,177 $526 $28,703 7
CZ15 SCE 123,910 21 $33,089 $212 $33,301 7
CZ16 PG&E 92,250 482 $38,948 $1,041 $39,989 9

31.92 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 51 2025/07/07
Table 31. Small Office: Existing Mixed-Fuel Baseline 2000 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 68,456 493 $28,883 $1,055 $29,938 7
CZ2 PG&E 79,179 293 $33,447 $677 $34,123 7
CZ3 PG&E 76,464 208 $32,260 $510 $32,770 6
CZ4 PG&E 88,126 296 $37,294 $691 $37,986 7
CZ4-2 CPAU 88,126 296 $19,064 $2,464 $21,528 7
CZ5 PG&E 76,492 220 $32,254 $532 $32,786 6
CZ5-2 SCG 76,492 220 $32,254 $501 $32,755 6
CZ6 SCE 81,829 50 $21,808 $254 $22,062 5
CZ7 SDG&E 83,863 33 $29,630 $158 $29,788 5
CZ8 SCE 91,235 65 $24,986 $276 $25,263 6
CZ9 SCE 92,122 90 $25,427 $313 $25,739 6
CZ10 SDG&E 89,493 67 $32,760 $198 $32,957 6
CZ10-2 SCE 89,493 67 $24,833 $278 $25,111 6
CZ11 PG&E 91,473 288 $38,808 $675 $39,483 7
CZ12 PG&E 84,414 277 $35,745 $655 $36,400 7
CZ12-2 SMUD 84,414 277 $16,165 $655 $16,820 7
CZ13 PG&E 92,371 201 $39,199 $507 $39,706 7
CZ14 SDG&E 93,481 297 $32,954 $470 $33,424 7
CZ14-2 SCE 93,481 297 $25,404 $619 $26,023 7
CZ15 SCE 110,070 30 $29,189 $224 $29,413 7
CZ16 PG&E 86,242 553 $36,412 $1,176 $37,588 9

31.93 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 52 2025/07/07
Table 30. Small Office: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1980 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 74,317 717 $31,326 $1,478 $32,805 9
CZ2 PG&E 84,591 488 $35,754 $1,049 $36,803 8
CZ3 PG&E 78,044 125 $32,919 $338 $33,257 6
CZ4 PG&E 94,705 166 $40,082 $420 $40,502 7
CZ4-2 CPAU 94,705 166 $20,479 $2,208 $22,687 7
CZ5 PG&E 78,443 135 $33,060 $351 $33,411 6
CZ5-2 SCG 78,443 135 $33,060 $374 $33,434 6
CZ6 SCE 83,582 43 $23,243 $242 $23,485 5
CZ7 SDG&E 85,477 31 $31,621 $155 $31,776 5
CZ8 SCE 96,775 48 $26,998 $250 $27,248 6
CZ9 SCE 97,201 62 $27,298 $271 $27,569 6
CZ10 SDG&E 100,456 63 $37,125 $193 $37,318 6
CZ10-2 SCE 100,456 63 $28,164 $271 $28,436 6
CZ11 PG&E 102,343 218 $43,454 $531 $43,985 8
CZ12 PG&E 92,336 198 $39,102 $488 $39,590 7
CZ12-2 SMUD 92,336 198 $17,582 $488 $18,070 7
CZ13 PG&E 103,162 156 $43,841 $411 $44,252 7
CZ14 SDG&E 102,851 511 $35,742 $719 $36,460 9
CZ14-2 SCE 102,851 511 $27,774 $931 $28,705 9
CZ15 SCE 121,320 123 $32,905 $362 $33,267 7
CZ16 PG&E 88,974 992 $37,598 $2,014 $39,612 11

31.94 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 53 2025/07/07
Table 32. Small Office: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 1990 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 72,012 430 $30,378 $937 $31,315 7
CZ2 PG&E 88,161 235 $37,233 $565 $37,798 7
CZ3 PG&E 82,180 0 $34,654 $0 $34,654 5
CZ4 PG&E 96,068 0 $40,621 $0 $40,621 6
CZ4-2 CPAU 96,068 0 $20,735 $0 $20,735 6
CZ5 PG&E 82,723 0 $34,858 $0 $34,858 5
CZ5-2 SCG 82,723 0 $34,858 $0 $34,858 5
CZ6 SCE 88,041 0 $23,392 $0 $23,392 5
CZ7 SDG&E 89,827 0 $31,698 $0 $31,698 6
CZ8 SCE 88,742 30 $24,858 $224 $25,082 5
CZ9 SCE 89,591 41 $25,393 $239 $25,632 6
CZ10 SDG&E 92,812 42 $34,544 $168 $34,712 6
CZ10-2 SCE 92,812 42 $26,132 $240 $26,372 6
CZ11 PG&E 98,184 0 $41,613 $0 $41,613 6
CZ12 PG&E 90,993 0 $38,498 $0 $38,498 6
CZ12-2 SMUD 90,993 0 $17,003 $0 $17,003 6
CZ13 PG&E 98,807 0 $41,898 $0 $41,898 6
CZ14 SDG&E 99,107 232 $34,189 $394 $34,583 7
CZ14-2 SCE 99,107 232 $26,343 $523 $26,866 7
CZ15 SCE 115,611 0 $30,127 $0 $30,127 7
CZ16 PG&E 91,003 471 $38,419 $1,019 $39,438 9

31.95 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 54 2025/07/07
Table 32. Small Office: Mixed-Fuel SZAC Code Minimum Baseline 2000 CZ Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Annual
Natural
Gas
Cost
Total
Annual
Utility
Cost
Annual
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ1 PG&E 68,453 484 $28,882 $1,038 $29,920 7
CZ2 PG&E 79,039 288 $33,386 $666 $34,052 6
CZ3 PG&E 76,443 204 $32,251 $502 $32,753 6
CZ4 PG&E 87,575 291 $37,051 $680 $37,731 7
CZ4-2 CPAU 87,575 291 $18,925 $2,454 $21,379 7
CZ5 PG&E 76,461 216 $32,241 $524 $32,765 6
CZ5-2 SCG 76,461 216 $32,241 $495 $32,736 6
CZ6 SCE 81,803 49 $21,763 $252 $22,016 5
CZ7 SDG&E 83,831 33 $29,562 $158 $29,720 5
CZ8 SCE 89,680 67 $24,461 $279 $24,740 6
CZ9 SCE 90,572 92 $24,860 $315 $25,175 6
CZ10 SDG&E 88,870 65 $32,096 $196 $32,292 6
CZ10-2 SCE 88,870 65 $24,294 $276 $24,570 6
CZ11 PG&E 90,527 282 $38,386 $665 $39,050 7
CZ12 PG&E 83,984 272 $35,554 $645 $36,198 7
CZ12-2 SMUD 83,984 272 $15,937 $645 $16,582 7
CZ13 PG&E 91,394 198 $38,761 $500 $39,260 7
CZ14 SDG&E 92,520 292 $32,310 $464 $32,774 7
CZ14-2 SCE 92,520 292 $24,839 $611 $25,450 7
CZ15 SCE 107,550 29 $28,186 $224 $28,410 6
CZ16 PG&E 85,337 542 $36,030 $1,152 $37,182 9

9.3 Long-Term Systemwide Cost (LSC) Impacts
This section compared LSC impacts of efficiency measure SZAC packages with SZHP Code Min package. These results help inform the energy-equivalency of the packages being analyzed.

9.3.1 Small Office
Figure 7 shows the LSC impacts results of the MF-EFF package compared to the HP code min package. The MF-EFF package for Small Office prototype includes window film and lighting retrofit measures where they have positive LSC impacts and are cost-effective. This package has LSC impacts exceeding the HP code min package in all applicable Climate Zones and vintages.

31.96 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 55 2025/07/07
Figure 7. Small Office LSC Impacts: MF-EFF vs HP

9.3.2 Medium Retail
Figure 8 shows the LSC impacts results of the MF-HRVDCV package compared to the HP code min package. The MF-HRVDCV package for Medium Retail prototype includes DCV and HRV measures.

The package has LSC impacts meeting or exceeding the HP code min package in all Climate Zones and vintages.

Figure 8. Medium Retail LSC Impacts: MF-HRVDCV vs HP
Figure 9 shows the LSC impacts results of the MF-EFF package compared to the HP-DCV. In addition to the HVAC measures, the MF-EFF package for the Medium Retail prototype includes DCV, window film and lighting retrofit measures in Climate Zones where they have positive LSC impacts and are cost-effective. This package has LSC impacts exceeding the HP-DCV in all Climate Zones and vintages.

31.97 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 56 2025/07/07
Figure 9. Medium Retail LSC Impacts: MF-EFF vs HP-DCV

9.4 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.

31.98 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 57 2025/07/07

9.4.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company·
Revised
Cancelling Revised
Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.

Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.
58719-E
58550-E
U 39 Oakland, California
RATES:

Advice
Decision
ELECTRIC SCHEDULE B-1

SMALL GENERAL SERVICE
Sheet 3
Total bundled service charges are calculated using the total rates shown below. Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) charges shall be calculated in accordance with the paragraph in this rate schedule titled Billing.

Total Bundled Time-of-Use Rates B-1 Rates B1-ST Rates
Total Customer Charge Rates
Customer Charge Single-phase
($ per meter per day)
Customer Charge Poly-phase
($ per meter per day)
Demand Charge (for B1-ST only)
Total Demand Rate (per metered kW/month
assessed from 2:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. only)
Summer
Winter
Total TOU Energy Rates($ per kWh)
Peak Summer
Part-Peak Summer
Off-Peak Summer
Peak Winter
Partial-Peak Winter (for B1-ST only)
Off-Peak Winter
Super Off-Peak Winter
PDP Rates (Consecutive Day and Five-Hour
Event Option)'
PDP Charges($ per kWh)
All Usage During PDP Event
PDP Credits
Energy($ per kWh)
Peak Summer
Part-Peak Summer
• See PDP Detail, section g, for corresponding
reduction in PDP credits and charges if other
option(s) elected.
7382-E Issued by
Shi/pa Ramaiya
$0.32854
S0.82136
$0.49466
$0.44543
S0.42462
$0.41924
S0.40312
$0.38670
S0.60
($0.05841)
(S0.01735)
(I)
(I)
(1)
(I)
(I)
(I)
$0.32854
$0.82136
$8.01
$8.01
$0.52281
$0.38151
$0.33418
$0.42486
$0.39536
$0.30631
$0.28989
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(Continued)
Submitted September 30, 2024
Effective October 1, 2024
Vice President
Regulatory Proceedings and Rates
Resolution

31.99 2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 58 2025/07/07
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company·
Revised
Cancelling Revised
Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.

Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.
58721-E
58552-E
u 39 Oakland, California
RATE:

Advice
Decision
ELECTRIC SCHEDULE B-10 Sheet 3

MEDIUM GENERAL DEMAND-METERED SERVICE
Total bundled service charges shown on customers' bills are unbundled according to the component rates shown below. Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) charges shall be calculated in accordance with the paragraph in this rate schedule tilled Billing.

TOTAL BUNDLED TIME-OF-USE RATES
Secondary Primary Transmission
Voltage Voltage Voltage
Total Customer Charge Rates
Customer Charge $11 .51068 (I) $11 .51068 (I) $11.51068 (I) ($ per meter per day)
Total Demand Rates{$ [!er kW}
Summer $21 .53 (I) $20.84 (I) $14.28 (I)
Winter $21 .53 (I) $20.84 (I) $14.28 (I)
Total Energl,'. Rates {$ 11er kWh}
Peak Summer $0.36862 (I) $0.34745 (I) $0.25044 (I)
Part-Peak Summer $0.30694 (I) $0.28915 (I) $0.19370 (I) Off-Peak Summer $0.27437 (I) $0.25832 (I) $0.16363 (I)
Peak Winter $0.29236 (I) $0.27460 (I) $0.19739 (I)
Off-Peak Winter $0.25688 (I) $0.24097 (I) $0.16456 (I)
Super Off-Peak Winter $0.22054 (I) $0.20463 (I) $0.12822 (I) PDP Rates (Consecutive Dal,'. and Five-Hour
Event O[!tion
PDP Charges{$ 11er kWh}
All Usage During PDP Event $0.90 $0.90 $0.90
PDP Credits
Energy ($ per kWh)
Peak Summer ($0.08103) ($0.08103) ($0.08103)
Part-Peak Summer ($0.02807) ($0.02807) ($0.02807)
• See PDP Details, section g, for
corresponding reduction in PDP credits
and charges if other option(s) elected.
(Continued)
7382-E Issued by Submitted September 30, 2024
Shi/pa Ramaiya
Vice President
Regulatory Proceedings and Rates
Effective October 1, 2024
Resolution

31.100
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 59
2025/07/07

9.4.2 Southern California Edison
E:i EoisoN _,...,so~ •>n-r:a-.ArlOJ'IIALCanSouthern Californ ia Edison Rosemead , California (U 338-E)
RATES (Continued )
En!!tvr ~ • SlkWl1
Fdties ~ OW'R#ldCh¥Qlll • SAW
T~RetadDem.n:ICh.1198-Mi:W
TllA!e-f'tmJflSeNc.e-W;Jy
Vcbg&Disccul. En!fv, - S.t.Wh
Vol:aO&Drttotn. Demand• SAW
.2J1lillD..l1
Ftom2kV10501CV
From ~1 tv\02191.V
220lV;ind.D;l'lltllt
F~R.-a
From2W1050W
,'b:w't50Wtiutbelbw2201CV .. ,,..,, V01tagt0b,ccu11,$l.lmlel"Or, P$;11:~ • $tk'W Fl'Offl2 t.Vl0 501.V
N!ole50Wtiutbeklw220t.'V
/IJ220 .. V
vcaave, Disc.~ WMtdats (4-9pm) Dam.n:I • SNN
From2 ~'Vll050t'V
"blNtSOWtiutbEttiw220fN
Al2201.V
~AlemaR.Mesllor
~Oaicxvt-~
calllolliaCll'r'«.eOlcffl-$hneW
Trans'
0).0000,)
(IUl0003)
(O.OIXI03)
(D.00003}
(0.00003)
(0.00003}
, _.,
, ......
000000

0.00000

0.00 0.00

0.00 Revised
Cancelling Revised
Schedule TOU-GS-1

TIME-OF-USE

GENERAL SERVICE
(Continued)
oer Oistrbtn'" NOC PPPC
-' WF< .. -
01lol099(1) 0.00809 O.ll0009 o..o,a,e(R) 0.00561
"""""'0) 0.00809 .....,. o..o,a,e(R) 0.00!561
001704 (1) 000809 000000 001i 18{Rl 000561
o..o.&099(1) 0.00809 .....,. o.o,a,e(R) 0.00561

0.01704(1) 0.00809 O.ll0009 o.o,a,e(R) 0.00561 0..00524 (1) 0.00809 .....,. o..o,a,e(R) 0.00561 .....
105(1)
01 (11

0.00 '-"•

0.00000

0.00000
f0..Cl238no>
l'Q.3,4)(1)
(1.32)(1)
(16.65)(1)
(0.08)
(U41(I)
(1.441(1)

0.00 0.00
000
100.00-
(95.00)
Cal. PUC Sheet No. 88873-E
Cal. PUC Sheet No. 88283-E
Sheet 5
Generauon
D'l\'RA • PUCRF" Totar UG" OWREC'~

0.00000 0.00100 0.0745l(ll 0. 11,880(R) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00100 0.07453(1) 0.10728(R) 0.00000

0.00000 0,00100 0.050Si(I) 007'C3-1 {R) 000000

0.00000 0.00100 0..07•5l{ll 0.11182(A) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00100 0.Cl5068{1J 0.078'M{R) 000000 0.00000 0.00100 0.03973(1) 0.OS90l5(R) 0.00000 O.IXIU8
000050
o ...
19,58{0

4..81 (11 15..7.ol (A'I
000 S.1-4 (R)
o .. ,

0.00000 (OtXl0"81(R)

0.00000 (O.OXl931(R)
to..0238nm (000051'51(R)
{0.l41(1)
(1.321(1)
(Ul.661(1)
(008) (0.20)
( 1.441(1) (0.<17)
( 1.441(1) (OA7)
000 (0.20)
000 (0.<17)
o_oo (0.<1 7)
100.00"
{SUN>)
Represents 100% of the discount percentage as shown in the applicable Special ConditK>n of this Schedule. '" The ongoing Compelition Transdton Charge (CTC) of $(0.00028) per kWh ,s recovered in lhe UG componenl of Generation. 1 Trans = Transmission and the Transmission Owners Tariff Charge Adjustments (TOTCA) which are FERC approved. The TOTCA represents the Transmission Revenue Balancing Accounl Adjustmenl (TRBAA) of $(0.00360) per kWh, Reliability Services Balancing Account Adjustmenl (RSBAA) of $(0.00006) per kWh , and Transmiss10n Access Charge Balanc,ng Accounl Adjustmenl (TAC BAA) of $0.00351 per kWh 2 Distrbtn = Oistnbution
3 NSGC • New System Generation Charge
4 NOC = Nuclear Decommissioning Charge
5 PPPC = Public Purpose Programs Charge (includes California Alternate Rates for Energy Surcharge where applicable.) 6 WFC = Wildfire Fund Non-Bypassable Cha~ge. The Wildfire Fund Non-Bypassable Charge supports the Callfomia Wild Ite Fund and is not applicable to exempt Customers pursuant to 0 .19--10-056. 7 PUC RF= The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule RF•E. 8 Tola! = Tolal Delivery Service mies are applicable to Bundled service, Direcl Access (DA) and Communily Choice Aggregalion service (CCA Service) Customers, excepl DA and CCA Service Customers are not subject to the DWRBC rate component or lhis Schedule but instead pay the DWRBC as provided by Schedule OA.CRS or Schedule CCA-CRS. 9 Generation= The Generalion mies are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers. See Special Condition below for PCIA recovery. 10 DWREC = Department of Water Resources (DWR) Energy Credit - FOf' more information on lhe DWR Energy Credil, see the Bllling Calculation Special Condition or this Schedule.
11 DWRA = A refund from the California Departmenl of Water Resources (DWR) relaling to the purchase of power during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.
12 The Modified Cost Allocation Mechanism (MCAM} charge recovers the net cost associated 'With system reliability procurement ordered by the CPUC that SCE has procured on behalf of customers whose generation services are provided by certain EJectric Service Providers or Communtty Choice Aggregalors.
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 5379-E ------------- Decision
5C9
(Continued )
Issued by
Michael Backstrom
Vice President
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Date Submitted Sep 27, 2024
Effective Oct 1, 2024
Resolution

31.101
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 60
2025/07/07
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling
Schedule TOU-GS-2
Revised
Revised
Cal. PUC Sheet No.

Cal. PUC Sheet No.

Sheet 4

TIME-OF-USE - GENERAL SERVICE - DEMAND METERED
(Continued)
RATES (Continued)
88885-E
88295-E
~"' ra"°"
lllU..el>;iJo.

En.gyet>arge-M.Wh
Fbt..t~Chaf99 • SA.Wh
O2t120 QI O9Jl9P P..CPP
~-W~{4-Grpm)
F-Z
·--l V W:,~ • v
~50 W bulbelow-2l0 \ V
Al220 t.V
F,om2 l V I000 l V
~SO W bulbeiow-220..V
Al220W
~~w--w~~-$NW
~....,_R.Mnior
e-;y~ . .... TOU°"'°'
~Cln.-o.clil-~
oooon o.cpp Cf'Pe.-en.t9)'~- lo'\-
S....-Cf"Pl~c...ll
On-P.at.o..n..lC...tl • lltt.W
F_,.21.VtOOO t.V
At,o.,,t50 bulbelow220 l V
Al220 t.V
F_,.2 1.V IOOO IIV
Aboi<e50 kV bul below 2lO kV
Al22011V
-......
.,...,,, .,...,,, (0.0000,)
(0.00003) .,...,,,
- ·
""

0.00 0.00

0.00 000

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 000000

0.00000

0.00000
,n·

0.01~7 {1 ) o,..., o""""' 0.018'7{R)
o.01n• <o 0 .0094) 0.- O-01A7{R)

0.017'3tl (I) O.OOM3 0.00000 0.01U7(R)

0.011U7 {1) 0.0080 000000 001887{R)
o.o,n• <•> 0.00943 0.00000 O.01U7{R)
o.o,e.111 (11 O.00M3 0.00000 O.01U7(R)
ZlQ.:J.4 (1)
::!C.71 (1)
U'.18 (1)

2.1, (l)
(~)(A )
(0 42)(1)
(9. 13)(0
(20.77)(1)
l'O~)(I)
(6.-48) (1)
( 17. 18 )(1)
{0.00)
( 1.CM )(I)
(2.."78) (1)
(0.G0030HJ)
(O~(I)
(0.01«18)(0
ioo.oo·
3e.36 4t)
(M.00)
Represents t00% ot the dIsoounl percentage as shown in tile applicable SpeaaJ CoodrtlOO of Ills Sclledule.

0.0000 • o.oo,o , 0.0000 ,
o_, .. ..,.,
....,.,
The ongoing Competition Transilion Charge (CTC) ol S(0.00029) per kWh io 18COY8fed in the UG component ol Generation.

0.00000 0,00100

0.00000 0.00100

0.00000 D.00100
~00000 0.00100
~00000
~
o.ocnoo

0.00100
The MaximuTI Available Crd is the capped aeat amoonl (o, CPP Customers dual participalng in othef demand response protJrams. uu·•
O~(l) 0.11,WO(RJ 000000 0.0Cl17 1(1 ) 0.10'.)0(R) 0.00000 CUllll.13 (1 ) .__(RJ 000000

0.0IU34 (1 ) 0.OTne(R) 000000
O.Oei17 1(1) o..orn:t(R) 0.00000
o..oeo7& (1) 0.tMOt l (R) 0.00000
0001)7

0.0000,
2311.34 0)
~A? (I)
1?. 18 (1) 2t..24(R)

2.71 (1) ......
(8..:5) 1;A I
(0.<12)(11 0.00
(9.13)(11 0.00 (20,77) (1) 0.00
(0,.30)(11 l'0,4ij) (RJ
(6.48)(11 (l. ll ) (R)
( 17.18) (1) ( 1. l:2) (R)
., ... , {O. l2) (R)
( I.CM J(IJ (0.20) (R)
(2.78:J(IJ (0.20J(A)
(0000:)t)(I) (O..OCIC»o' )
(0.0082ll)(I) (O..oo:207 (A)
(0.01«18 )(1) (0.-002C»14"1)
100..00·
..... ,, ... ,., 0.,0000
.._ .. ,
(21.24)(R)
Trans = Transmission and lhe Transmission Owners Tariff Charge Adjustments (TOTCA) which are FERC approved. The TOTCA represents the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment (TRBAA) of $(.00360) per kWh, Reliability Services Balancing Account Adjustment (RSBAA) or S(0.00006) per kWh, and Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment (TAC BAA) or $0.00351 per kWh. 2 Dislrbln = Distribution
3 NSGC = New System Generation Charge
4 NDC = Nuclear OecommisstOning Charge
5 PPPC = Public Purpose Programs Charge (includes California Alternate Rates for Energy Surcharge where applicable.) 6 W FC = Wildfire Fund Non-Bypassable Charge. The Wildfire Fund Non-Bypassable Charge supports the California Wildfire Fund and is not applicable to exempt Customers pursuant to D.19-10-056. 7 PUCRF = The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule RF-E. 8 Total = Total Delivery Service rales are applicable to Bundled Service, Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation Service (CCA Service) Customers, except DA and CCA Service Customers are not subject to the DWRBC rate component of this Schedule but instead pay the DWRBC as provided by Schedule DA-CRS or Schedule CCA-CRS. 9 Generation = The Generatton rates are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers. See Special condition below for PCIA recovery. 10 DWREC = Department or Water Resources (DWR) Energy Credit - For more information on lhe DWR Energy Credit, see lhe Billing Calculation Special Condition ol lhis Schedule.
11 DWRA = A refund from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) relating to the purchase of power during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.
12 The Modified Cost Allocation Mechanism (MCAM) charge recovers the net cost associated with system reliability procurement ordered by the CPUC that SCE has procured on behalf or customers wtiose generation services are provided by certain Electric Service Providers or Community Choice Aggregators.
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 5379-E
------------ Decision
(Continued)
Issued by
Michael Backstrom
Vice President
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Date Submitted Sep 27, 2024
Effective Oct 1, 2024

31.102
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 61
2025/07/07
~ EoisoN ,.. , 111 Q .v, ,,._,.,. ,,o ~,u.c--,
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E)
Revised
Cancelling Revised
Cal. PUC Sheet No. 88900-E
Cal. PUC Sheet No. 88310-E
Schedule TOU-GS-3 Sheet 3

TIME-OF-USE - GENERAL SERVIC E - DEMAND METERED
(Continued )
RA TES (Continued) Ll'ffl!Verv;:Mlfl ioe
""' -tn)tn·
Opli,pftQ/OpliqnR:Ctt
~CNtOt-Mwt<i
'"""""'' 0 ,0 1&>1 (1) ., .. ,.. 000000 0 .O172:0(R) o.ooee, 000000 0,00100 O.oe,oQS (I) D, 10008 (RI ....... .. _.._, o.01e?O <•> .,,.,.. 0.00000 0.O1720(A) 0.0000, 0.00000 0.00100 0.0.UO (l} 0 _006?)(111: ) <LOOOCIO .. _.._, 0.0 1~(1) 0.007" 000000 0 0 1no tR1 o_, 0 00000 0.001 00 O.b4ttO (ll o.~c1111 1 0 OOOCIO '"""""'' 0.01~(1) .,,.,.. 000000 o.01no(R1 0.00&61 0 .00000 0.00100 o.oeioos (I) 007!539 (RI <LCIOOCIO '"""""'' 0.0IOlV (I) .,,.,.. 000000 0.01720(RI
""""' 0-00000 0.00100 0~(1) 007~(RI <LCIOOCIO
- · 0.01~1 (1) .,,.,.. 0 .00000 0.01no(R1 """"' 0-00000 0 .00100 0 .0"7&2 (1) O.Ql09.l (R ) QOOOCIO 000110 o.oooe,
=:::i•MWof~~
~~ ~
.... 702.22(1)
11i> Ool (I)
=••

22.27 (1)

10.0- (1) Ul.cM III ,..,,'"' ..,.., ~:la-Cl) ...... ,
V,olu,g,tO- ~ • Sll<W
IF'tum2
·-- WV lo~kV
At,o,.,.50kV bull-:2:N) kV
F,_ :l:WIIO,OhV
-!IO bull-Z?OkV
Al 220kV

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
(Q.31!11(1)
ctM)CII
( Ht,041(1)
(0..Xl)(I)
(e.56)(1)
( 10-04)(()
(0.36) {1)
(1.N}Cll
( Ul.(M)(I)
l'0.2-5)(1) (O..oi2)(A)
~ S&)(I) (O.O?)(AI
(10.(M)(I) (Q.NH R I
~Ch-.. WirMWW....S.:,. (.....,_,0...-. M,W
From::t,V 111>50kV
,.._!IOt.V bl.il-Z!OhV
Al:nl>kV

0.00 0.00
0,00
co. .. ,
(1 10)(1)
CU8)(1)
(0.00) (O. IOH AI
( t 14){l) (0.2,5)(R I
(3.:la-){l) (0...36)(R I
Ft'Offl ::t •V IIOSO~V
-tlOkV bull- 220 kV
Al220 W

OOOOCIO

QOOOCIO
0_00000
(0~)(1)
( 0.0M3e)(I)
(0.01~ (1)
(0.00020) (1) (O~)(R)
CO.0053eJ(II (O.al.."OO)(R}
co..01.s&t,(11 (O.~ ){R)
,,_F_....__M V.A.R
GN.»IM-.!lOhV
l50 1tiVor..._
.... .. ., .... . ..,
~.-....-~ .. ~OMo..-
~
- •
100.00" 100.00'
~~~~~wt, . ...,.. On,,Pw,,at;O...-C.- - Mtw (1.e-5)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 (ta..22:l(A)
Represents 100% of the discount percentage as shown in the applicable Special Condition of this Schedule.

The ongoing Compelition Transition Charge (CTC) or $(0.00029) per kWh is recovered in the UG componenl or Generation.

The Maximum Available Credit is the capped credit amount for CPP Customers dual participating in other demand response programs Trans= Transmission and the Transmission OWners Tariff Charge Adjustments (TOTCA) which are FERC approved. The TOTCA represents lhe Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment (TRBAA) of $(0.00360) per kWh, Reliability Services Balancing Account Adjustment (RSBAA) or $(0.00005) per kWh, and Transmission Access Charge Balancing Accounl Adjustment (TACBAA) or $0.00351 per kWh .

Distrbtn = Distribution
NSGC = New Syslem Generation Charge
NOC = Nuclear Decommissioning Charge
PPPC = Public Purpose Programs Charge (including California Alternate Rates for Energy Surcharge W'here applicable.) WFC == Wildfire Fund Non•Bypassable Charge. The Wildfire Fund Non•Bypassable Charge supports the California Wildfire Fund and is not applicable lo exempt Customers P<,Jrsuant lo 0 .19-10-056.

PUC RF= The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule RF-E.

Total == Total Delrvery Seivice rates are applicable to Bundled Service, Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation Service (CCA Service) Customers, except DA and CCA Service Customers are not subject lo lhe OWRBC rate component of this Schedule but instead pay the OWRBC as provided by Schedule OA-CRS or Schedule CCA-CRS.

Generation == The Generation rates are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers. See Special Condition below for PCIA recovery.

OWREC == Department of Water Resources (OWR) Energy Credit - For more information on the OWR Energy Credit, see the Billing Calculation Special Condition of this Schedule.

OWRA = A refund from lhe California Oepartmenl or Water Resources (OWR) relaling to the purchase or Power during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The Modified Cost Allocation Mechanism (MCAM) charge recovers the net cost associated with system reliability procurement ordered by the CPUC that SCE has procured on behalf of customers whose generation services are provided by certain Electric Seivice Providers or Community Choice Aggregators
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by
Michael Backstrom
Vice President
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Advice 5379-E Date Submitted Sep 27, 2024 ------------- Decision Effective Oct 1, 2024 3C9 Resolution

31.103
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 62
2025/07/07

9.4.3 Southern California Gas
SOD~R!"{ CALlFORl IIA GAS COllP . .\J.""I,: Revised CAf... !l.U.C. SHEE'FNO. 62162-G LO.<; . .\NGE1.£S, CALIFORNIA C.o\NCEUNG Revised CAf... !l.U.C. SHEE'FNO. 62131-G Schedule No. G-10
OORE OOMMERCLJ\L AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
(Jndudes GN-10. G -IOC and GT-10 Rates)
(Continued)
R.I\TES (Continued)
All ~ocurement, Transmission, and Commodity Giarges are billed perthenn.

Tier ll11
Sheet 2
GN- 10:., Applicable to natural gas proc,urement se1Vice t.o non-tesidential core cnst.omers, including se1.-vice not provided under any other rate scbeduile.

Procurement Charge: v
Tiansmission Charge:

Commodity Charge:

G-CPNR .... .... ....... ....... .. 27 .626¢
GPT-10 ........................ H3.275¢
GN- 10 .................. ..... 140.901¢

27.626¢
66: 41¢

94.36 ¢

27.626¢

35.540¢

63.166¢
GN-1 0C" : Core procurement service for previous non-resSidential transportati.on~only customers retnmi.ng to core procurement setvice, inchidiug CAT crnfomer with annual cow,1:imption over 50,000 therms as further de:fined in Schedule No. G-CP.

Procurement Charge: v
Tiansmission Charge:

Commodity Charge:

G-CPNRC ................. . _8.095¢
GPT-10 ............. H3.2 5¢
GN-IOC .................... 141.3 0¢
_8.095¢

66. 4U

94.836¢

28.095

35.540¢

63.635
GT-I 0-': Applicable to non~residential tranq>ertatiou-on1y service inclnding CAT service, as set forth in Special Coudi:tion 13.

Tiansmission Charge: GT-10 .......................... 113.275¢11 66. 41¢11 35.540¢11 11 Tier I rates are applicahle for the fu:st 250 fuerms used per wonfu. Tier II rate,;;. Me appl!icable for usage abO\'e Tier I quantities and up throogh4,167 therms permomh. I ier ID.rates are apphc.able for all usage above4,167 themJs per month. Under tb.i:s schedule, fue winter season shall be defirned as December I through March 31 and the summer sea;;on as April 1 through Noveni.ler 30.
11 11ms cha!rge is appli able for service to Utility Proc.tll'emen! Customers as sho\m in Schedule iNo. G-CP, in the lllllllll.erapproved by D.96-0&-037, and &ubject to cbange,montbly, as set forth in Specill] C-ondi1ion 5. 31 These charges are equal to tire coTe commodity rate less the foMowmg two components as approved in D.97-04- 082: (I) the weighted average ooot of gas; and (2) fue oore brokerage fee. (Footnotes. can±imre ne.'\Jt page.)
{TO, BE IN'SERTED BY ITTILJiYJ
AUVIC£ LETTER NO. 6369~G
OECISIONNO. D20-02-045; D24-
1H1 07-013
Continued

ISSUBOSY
Dao Skope~
Senior Vi President
Re,gula1Dry Affai"s
0 BE INSEITTIEID SY CAL. PUG.I
SUBMITTED Sep 26 2024
EFFECTIVE Oct I, 2024
RESOlUTION NO. -------
R
R
R
R
R

31.104
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 63
2025/07/07

9.4.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
sos/' ..,..'E San Diego Gas & Electric Comr,any
San Diego, California
RATES• /Continued\
Description - AL-TOU Transm
Enemi Q!a,~ ,~Wh}
Qa-ei:lals - Summi:lc
Secondary (0.01945)
Primary (0,01945)
Secondary Substalion (0.01945)
Primary Substation (0.01945)
Transmission (0,01945)
Off-Peak - Summer
Secondary (0,01945)
Primary (0.01945)
Secondary Substation (0.01945)
Primary Substation (0,01945)
Transmission (0,01945)
SU!!!!• Off-Peak
Secondary (0.01945)
Primary (0.01945)
Secondary Substation (0,01945)
Primary Substation (0,01945)
Transmission (0.01945)
Qn-Peak - Winter
Secondary (0,01945)
Primary (0,01945)
Secondary Substalion (0,01945)
Primary Substation (0.01945)
Transmission (0.01945)
Qf!-PHk - JMn!!!f
Secondary (0.01945)
Primary (0.01945)
Secondary Substation (0.01945)
Primary Substation (0.01945)
Transmission (0,01945)
~ll!lcQ!l-e~at
Secondary (0,01945)
Primary (0.01945)
Secondary Substation (0.01945)
Primary SUbstation (0,01945)
Transmission (0.01945)
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 62379-E
Canceling Revised Cal PUC .. Sheet No 61921-E
SCHEDULE AL-TOU Sheet4

GENERAL SERVICE - TIME METERED
Dlstr PPP ND CTC LGC RS TRAC UDC
Total

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0,00047 0.01798 0.00001 0,01874

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0,00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717
0,00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717
0,00177 0.01789 I 0,00007 0,00047 0.01798 0.00001 0,01874 0,00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0,00047 0.01798 0.00001 0,01874 0,00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717
0,00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717
0,00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0,00047 0.01798 0.00001 0,01874

0.00177 0.01789 I 0.00007 0.00047 0.01798 0.00001 0.01874 0,00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0,01717

0.00130 0.01726 I 0.00007 0.01798 0.00001 0.01717
Notes: Transmission Energy charges include Ille Transmission Revenue Balancing Accounl Adjuslment (TRBAA) of S(0.00289) per kWh and the Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Acjuslmenl (TACBAA) of S(0.01656) per kWh. The PPP rale is composed of Energy and Demand charges. For all voltage levels, the PPP Energy charges irldudes Low Income PPP rate (LI-PPP) SQ.01515/kWh, Nonlow Income PPP rate (Non-LI-PPP) S0.00211/kWh (pursuant to PU Code Seciion 399.8, the Non-LI-PPP rate may not exceed January 1, 2000 levels). For Secondary and PYimary voltage levels, the PPP Energy charge also indudles CalJornia Solar Initiative rate (CSI) of $(0.00045)11<Wh and Self-Generation lnoentive Program rate {SGIP) S 0.00108 /kWh. For Secondary Substation, Prrnary Substation and Transmission voltage levels, the PPP rate irlcludes Demand charges for CSI of S{0.16Y"Wand SGIP of SQ.39 /kW. "These rates are nol applicable to TOU Period Grandfalhering Eligible Customer Generalors, please refer to SC 20 for applicable rates . {Continued)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4C8 Issued by Submitted See 30, 2024
Advice Ur. No. 4507-E Dan Skopec Effective Oct 1, 2024
Senior Vice President
Decision No. 0 .24-07-013 Regulatory Affairs Resolution No.

31.105
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 64
2025/07/07
_'E sos/'
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
San Diego, CalHomla
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.

Canceling Revised Cal P U C Sheet No

SCHEDULE TOU-A

GENERAL SERVICE - TIME OF USE SERVICE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (continued)
TO!,.l GRANDFATHERING RATES
Description Transm 0lstr PPP NO CTC LGC TOU-A
Ba.sic Service Fae ll/m
C:.W-ondarv
0-5kW 11.45
>5-20 kW 18.32
>20-50kW 34.35
>50kW 85.87
~
0-5kW 11.45
>5-20kW 18.32
>20-50kW 34.35
>50kW 85.87
•norov Charaos ,t"'Wh
On-Peak - Summer
Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Primary 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Semi-Peak. Summer
Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I io.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Primary 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I I0.00007 0.00052 0.01760 nt1-Peak - Summer
Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Primary 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Qn-Peak - Winter
Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 000052 0.01760 Primary 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I I0.00007 0.00052 0.01760 ~m~P!i!i!k • Winlfi:

Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I io.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Primary 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Qff•P!i!i!!s • :tiln!fi:

Secondary 0.02991 0.15287 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 Primarv 0.02991 0.15209 I 0.01696 I lo.00007 0.00052 0.01760 TOU Grandfathering Time Periods
62371-E
61914-E
Sheet6
T
RS R uoc A Total C

11.45 18.32

34.35 85.87

11.45 18.32

34.35 85.87

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I

0.00001 0.21794 I

0.00001 0.21716 I
All time periods listed are applicable to local time. The definition of time will be based upon the date service is rendered.

Summer - June 1 - October 31 Winter - November 1 - Mal£ 31 On-Peak 11 a.m. - 6 p.m. Weekdays 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. Weekdays Semi-Peak 6 a.m. - 11 a.m. Weekdays 6 a.m. - 5 p.m. Weekdays 6 p.m. - 10 p.m. Weekdays 8 p.m. - 10 p.m. Weekdays
Off-Peak 10 p.m. - 6 a.m. Weekdays 10 p.m. - 6 a.m. Weekdays Plus Weekends & Holidays Plus Weekends & Holidays
6C7 Issued by Submitted See 3o, 2024
Advice Ltr. No. 4507-E Dan Skopec Effective Oct 1, 2024 Senior Vice President
Decision No. 0 .24-07-013 Regulatory Affairs Resolution No.

31.106
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 65
2025/07/07

9.4.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities

RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED A TIAL ELECTRIC

SERVICE
UTILITY RA TE SCHEDULE E-2
A. APPLICABILITY:

This Rate Schedule applie to the following Cu tomers receiving Electric Service from the City of Palo Alto tilitie :

1. on-residential Customers receiving on-Demand metered Electric Service; and

2. Customer with Account at Master-Metered multi-family facilities receiving onDemand metered Electric Service.

B. TERRITORY:

This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.

C. :NBUNDLED RATES:

Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total Summer Period $ 0.14926 0.09735 $ 0.00549 $ 0.25210
Winter Period 0.09242 0.06623 0.00549 0.16414
Customer Charge ($/month) 5.60
D. SPECIAL OTES:

1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated ba ed on the applicable rate in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Customer's bill tatement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate component a calculated under Section C.

2. Sea onal Rate Change

CITY OF P
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from ovember 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use in both the ummer and the Winter Periods, the u age will be prorated ba ed on the nun1ber of day in each seasonal period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.

TILITIES
Issued by the City Council QCITYOF
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-1
dated 7-1-2023

PALO ALTO
UTILITIES Sheet o E-2-1
Effective 7-1-2024

31.107
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 66
2025/07/07
APP LI ABILITY:

ERVICE
UTILITY RA TE CHEDULE E-4
This Rate chedule applie to Demand metered econdary Electric ervice for Cu tomer with a maximum D mand below I 000 kilowatt . Thi Rat ch dule may includ ervice to ma termetered multi-family facilitie or other facilitie requiring Demand metered Service, a deten11ined by the City.

B. TERRITORY:

D.

Thi rate chedule applie everywhere the City of Palo Ito provide Electric erv1ce.

UNB IDLED RATE:

Rate per kilowatt (kW) and kilowatt-hour (kWh):

Commodity Di tribution
ummer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) 10.98 34.31
nergy harge (per kWh) 0.123 18 0.02520
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $ 2.57 21.16
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.07949 0.02520
u tomer harge ( /month)
PECIAL NOTES:

1. Calculation of Co t Components
Public
Benefit

0.00549

0.00549
$ 45.29

0.153 7
$ 23.73

0.11018
I 13.73
The actual bill amount i calculated ba ed on the applicable rate in above and adju ted for any applicable di count urcharge and/or taxe . n a cu tomer' bill tatement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate component a calculated under ection C.

CITY OF PALO AL TO TILITIES
I ued by the City ouncil

PALO ALTO
Supersedes Sheet
dated 7-1 -2023

QCITYO F
No E-4-1 UTILITIES Sheet 1o E-4-1
Effective 7-1-2024

31.108
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 67
2025/07/07
MEDI 1 NO -RE ID TIAL ELECTRIC TIME OF E ERVICE
UTILITY RA TE SCHEDULE E-4 TOU
A. APPLICABILITY:

Thi volunta1y Rate chedule applie to Demand metered econdaiy lectric Service for Cu tomers with Demand behveen 500 and 1,000 kilowatt per month and who have u tained this level of usage for at least three consecutive months during the most recent 12 month period.

This Rate Schedule may include Service to Master-Metered multi-family facilitie or other facilities requiring Demand metered Service, as detennined by the City.

B. TERRITORY:

Thi rate chedule applie eve1ywhere the ity of Palo Alto provide Electric erv1ce.

C. UNBUNDLEDRATES:

Rates per kilowatt (kW) and kilowatt-hour (kWh):
ummer Period
Demand Charge (per kW)
Peak
Max Demand
Energy harge (per kWh)
Peak
Mid-Peak
Off-P ak
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW)
Peak
Max Demand
Energy Charge (per kWh)
Peak
Mid-Peak
Off-Peak
Customer Charge
( /month)
D. SPECIAL NOTES:

CITY OF PALO AL TO
Issued by the City Council
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-TOU-1
dated 7-1-2023
Commoditv
$ 9.72

1.29 $0.17038

0.14041

0.10556

1.30 1.30
$ 0.11976

0.09452

0.06525
Di tribution
$17.18

17.18 $ 0.02538

0.02538

0.02538
$ 10.73

10.73 $ 0.02500

0.02500

0.02500

OCITYOF

PALO ALTO

UTILITIES
Public Benefit
$ 0.00549

0.00549

0.00549
$ 0.00549

0.00549

0.00549
Total
$ 26.90

18.47 $ 0.20125

0.17128

0.13643
$ 12.03

12.03 $ 0.15025

0.12501

0.09574
113.73
Sheet o E-4-TO -1
Effective 7-1-2024

31.109
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 68
2025/07/07
RE IDENTIAL MA TER-METERED AND CO lMERCIAL GA
APP LI ABILITY:

This schedule applies to the following ustomer receiving Gas Service from the City of Palo Alto Utilitie :

1. ommercial Customer , ho use I than 250,000 thenn p r y ar at one ite·

2. Ma ter-metered residential ustomers in multi-family residential facilitie .

B. TERRITORY:

Thi chedule applie anywhere the City of Palo Ito provide Ga Service.

UNBUNDLED RA TE :
onthly ervice Charge: .. .................................................... ...... .................. ...... ................. $ 156.90 upply Charge :
l.

2. ommodity onthly Mark t Ba ed) ............................ ............ .

Cap and Trad Compliance Charg .......................................... .

3. Transpo1tation Charge ............................ .................................... .

4. arbon Offi et barge ......................... .... ........ ............................ .

Di tribution Charge: ......... .. .. ........................................................ ... ......................... .

D. SPECIAL OTES:

1. Calculation of Cost Components
PerThenu

0.10-$4.00

0.00-$0.25

0.00-$0.25

0.00-$0.10
l.0809
The a tual bill amount i calculated ba ed on the applicable rate in ection above and adju ted for any applicable di counts, urcharge an or Taxe . On a Cu tom r' bill tat m nt, th bill amount may be brok n down iJ1tO appropriat compon nt a calculated under ection
The ommodity Charge i ba ed on the monthly natural ga Bidweek Price Index for delivery at PG&E itygate, adju ted to a count for delivery lo e to the Cu tomer' Meter. The ommodity barge al o include adju tment to account for ouncilapproved program implemented to reduce the co t of Ga , including a municipal purcha e discount 1, and a maximum 0.15/per therm co t for capped price winter natural 1 Adopted via Re olution 9451 , on eptember 15. 2014.

ITY OF PALO AL TO UTILITIE
I ued by the City ouncil
Supersedes Sheet No G-2-1
dated 11-1-2023 QCITYOF

PALO ALTO

UTI LITIES
Effective 7-1-2024
heet o G-2-1

31.110
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 69
2025/07/07
The ‘Commodity and Volumetric Rates’ are selected for the latest available month of December 2020.10
10 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/29/utilities/business/business-rates/monthly-gasvolumetric-and-service-charges-commercial.pdf •

CITY OF I PALO ALTO

UTILITIES
10/1/2024 0.4450
9/1/2024 0.3411
8/1/2024 0.5179
7/1/2024 0.4197
6/1/2024 0.1918
5/1/2024 0.2142
4/1/2024 0.2388
3/1/2024 0.2956
2/1/2024 0.5967
1/1/2024 0.4805
12/1/2023 0.6901
11/1/2023 0.7383
10/1/2023 0.4065
9/1/2023 0.4928
8/1/2023 0.5263
7/1/2023 0.4486
6/1/2023 0.3627
5/1/2023 0.5197
4/1/2023 0.6634
3/1/2023 0.7706
2/1/2023 1.2588
1/ 1/2023 4.0000
12/1/2022 1.4153
11/1/2022 0.7310
City of Palo Alto
Utility Rate Schedule G-2 - Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service Monthly Gas Volumetric and Service Charges
$ per Therm

0.1182 0.2500 0.0700

0.1451 0.2500 0.0700

0.1451 0.2201 0.0700

0.1451 0.2206 0.0700

0.1638 0.2206 0.0700

0.1638 0.2206 0.0700

0.1638 0.2206 0.0700

0.1534 0.2104 0.0700

0.1534 0.2022 0.0700

0.1534 0.2022 0.0700

0.1309 0.1350 0.0700

0.1309 0.1350 0.0700

0.1309 0.1350 0.0700

0.1132 0.1350 0.0700

0.1132 0.1345 0.0700

0.1132 0.1344 0.0700

0.1033 0.1345 0.0700

0.1033 0.1345 0.0700

0.0768 0.1345 0.0700

0.0768 0.1345 0.0700

0.0768 0.1345 0.0700

0.0768 0.1584 0.0700

0.0768 0.1584 0.0700

0.0768 0.1584 0.0700

0.8832

0.8062

0.9531

0.8554

0.6462

0.6686

0.6932

0.7294

1.0223

0.9061

1.0260

1.0742

0.7424

0.8110

0.8440

0.7662

0.6705

0.8275

0.9447

1.0519

1.5401

4.3052

1.7205

1.0362

1.0809

1.0809

1.0809

1.0809

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.8941

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365

0.7365
Total Volumetric Charge
(e)+(f)

1.9641

1.8871

2.0340

1.9363

1.5403

1.5627

1.5873

1.6235

1.9164

1.8002

1.9201

1.9683

1.6365

1.7051

1.7381

1.6603

1.4070

1.5640

1.6812

1.7884

2.2766

5.0417

2.4570

1.7727
S per Month
156.90
156.90
156.90
156.90
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
129.78
i 129.78
129.78
129.78 f106.90
106.90
106.90
106.90
106.90
106.90
106.90
106.90

31.111
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 70
2025/07/07

9.4.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only)

9.4.7 Fuel Escalation Rates
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3). As stated by E3 in the TDV report, this latter assumption “does not presuppose specific new investments, changes in load and gas throughput, or other measures associated with complying with California’s climate policy goals” (i.e., business-as-usual is assumed).

Table 33 below demonstrates the escalation rates used for nonresidential buildings.

II. Firm Service Rates
A. OlDlDtl'rinl & ludu lrinl Tiloe-of-Dny Rnte
CITS-0: C&I SecondaQ O 20 kW
~OD- ummt-1· ea,on (October • May)
~·srem lnfrnsrru<"lllrt- fb':td Chari:e par mo,1th per merer ~fosimum Dem•nd Cb•re• $ per mom/1/y max kW
Elf'<'fl'id~· UsAjf' lrnref'
Pe•k SlkWI,
Off-Penk SlkWI,
Off-Peak Saver SlkW11
nmmer easou (June • September)
S~·stem Infrnstrncture- Fixed Chargt per monrh per merer '.\fo1:imum De-mand Chn1·s;it S per montlily max kW
Ele-enki~• Usai:e Cbriri:e
Peok SlkWI,
Off-Peak SlkWI,
CITS-I: C&I Secondary 21 -299 kW
:\"on- umme-r ea,on (October• May)
ysrtm lnfra srrutturt flxed Cbari:e per mo,irh per merer ire lufr. ,i; 11·11 r1ure Ch!l1·a• pe,· J 2 months ma:r kW or contract capacfr:,1 [lf'('f.-iC'i()," l.isaie b::irae
Peak 5/kWI,
Off-Peak SlkWI,
Off-Peak Sa.-er SlkW11
mnmt."r e-a soo (June • September)
ys1err1 Infr:1 s1ruNure fil':l d Ch:u·ee per momlt per merer Sile lufra <tj l1·11C'turt Charge pe,· I 2 months max kW or contract capacfry Summer Ptak Demand Chril'ge S per momlrl)' Peak max k-W Eltctl'id~- Usag,t b:irgt
Peak SlkWI,
Off-Peak S/kW11
Commercial & Industrial Time-of-Day
Rate Schedule CI-TOD1
EfftNh·r as of Effe<"rin as of
Jauuan· 1, 2023 Jauua1·v 1. 2024
S35.15 $36.65
S0.000 S0.713
S0.1440 $0.1446
S0.1364 $0.1335
S0.1323 $0.12 6
S35.15 $36,65
S0.000 S0.713
S0.2554 $0.2718
S0.1349 $0.1359
Sl58.30 S231.60
S .568 $ .106
S0.1230 $0.1283
S0.1158 $0.11 0
S0.1030 S0.09 I
SISS.30 SBI.60
S .568 $ .106
S3.468 $ .3 1
S0.1983 $0.2056
S0.1119 $0.1129
Efft<"tfre- a'§. of
~Ia,· 1, 2024
$3 .65
$0, 33
so. 1485
S0.13 I
S0.131 1
$3 .65
S0.733
$0.2 92
so 1396
$237.95
s .302
S0.1319
$0, 1202
S0.0998
S237.95
$ .302
s .498
S0.2 113
S0.1160
Effe-C'tfrt as of Efft<'ti\'f' as of
Januai·v I. 2025 Ma,· I, 2025
$39.20 $40.30
S1.505 Sl.5~6
$0.1491 S0.1532
$0. 1341 S0.13
$0.1261 S0.129
$39.20 $40.30
$1.505 Sl.546
$0.2968 S0.3049
$0.1410 S0.1448
S31 .30 5326.05
S6.806 $6.993
$0.13 4 S0.1412
$0.1214 S0.1248
$0,0932 S0.0958
$31 .30 S326.05
S6.806 $6.993
S .525 s 32
$0,2192 S0.2252
$0,1171 S0.1203
Co111111ercial rates beyond 2025 are ejfectii-e as sho..-11 in Section VIII. Tra11sitio11 Schedule.

31.112
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 71
2025/07/07
Table 33. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Year
Statewide Electric
Nonresidential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Statewide Natural Gas
Nonresidential Core
Rate
(%/year, real)
2024 0.7% 7.7%
2025 0.5% 5.5%
2026 0.7% 5.6%
2027 0.2% 5.6%
2028 0.6% 5.7%
2029 0.7% 5.7%
2030 0.6% 5.8%
2031 0.6% 3.3%
2032 0.6% 3.6%
2033 0.6% 3.4%
2034 0.6% 3.4%
2035 0.6% 3.2%
2036 0.6% 3.2%
2037 0.6% 3.1%
2038 0.6% 2.9%
2039 0.6% 3.2%
2040 0.6% 2.9%
2041 0.6% 3.5%
2042 0.6% 3.4%
2043 0.6% 3.4%
2044 0.6% 3.4%
2045 0.6% 3.5%
2046 0.6% 2.0%
2047 0.6% 1.8%
2048 0.6% 2.1%
2049 0.6% 1.7%
2050 0.6% 2.1%
2051 0.6% 2.8%
2052 0.6% 2.8%
2053 0.6% 2.8%
Source: Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019, Reach Code Team

31.113
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 72
2025/07/07

9.5 Prototype Characteristics
Table 34. Non-res Roof U-Value by CZ for three vintages (Wood Framed and Other Roof)
1980 vintage 1990 vintage 2000 vintage
Assembly
U-value
Assembly
U-value
Assembly
U-value
CZ1 0.076 0.056 0.051
CZ2 0.085 0.056 0.051
CZ3 0.085 0.056 0.051
CZ4 0.086 0.056 0.051
CZ5 0.085 0.056 0.051
CZ6 0.093 0.077 0.075
CZ7 0.093 0.077 0.075
CZ8 0.093 0.077 0.075
CZ9 0.092 0.076 0.075
CZ10 0.089 0.074 0.051
CZ11 0.086 0.056 0.051
CZ12 0.086 0.056 0.051
CZ13 0.086 0.056 0.051
CZ14 0.085 0.056 0.051
CZ15 0.088 0.056 0.051
CZ16 0.08 0.056 0.051

31.114
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 73
2025/07/07
Table 35 Non-res Exterior Wall U-Value by CZ for three vintages 1980 vintage 1990 vintage 2000 vintage
Medium
Retail
Small
Office
Assembly
U-value
Assembly
U-value
CZ1 0.277 0.333 0.182 0.216
CZ2 0.329 0.382 0.189 0.216
CZ3 0.331 0.384 0.189 0.223
CZ4 0.339 0.392 0.189 0.223
CZ5 0.329 0.382 0.189 0.223
CZ6 0.402 0.451 0.189 0.223
CZ7 0.381 0.431 0.189 0.223
CZ8 0.399 0.448 0.189 0.223
CZ9 0.368 0.419 0.189 0.223
CZ10 0.358 0.409 0.189 0.216
CZ11 0.338 0.39 0.182 0.216
CZ12 0.335 0.387 0.182 0.216
CZ13 0.34 0.393 0.182 0.216
CZ14 0.325 0.378 0.182 0.216
CZ15 0.389 0.438 0.182 0.216
CZ16 0.294 0.349 0.182 0.216

31.115
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 74
2025/07/07
Table 36. Non-res Window U-Value, SHGC and VT for all vintages Window Assembly U-Value Window SHGC Window VT
1980
vintage
1990
vintage
2000
vintage
1980
vintage
1990
vintage
2000
vintage
1980
vintage
1990
vintage
2000
vintage
CZ1 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.568 0.549 0.427 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ2 1.179 1.143 0.468 0.73 0.668 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ3 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.735 0.672 0.407 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ4 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.735 0.672 0.407 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ5 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.735 0.672 0.407 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ6 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.733 0.671 0.387 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ7 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.733 0.671 0.387 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ8 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.733 0.671 0.387 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ9 1.209 1.168 0.763 0.733 0.671 0.387 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ10 1.179 1.143 0.468 0.73 0.668 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4
CZ11 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.561 0.544 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4 CZ12 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.561 0.544 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4 CZ13 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.561 0.544 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4 CZ14 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.561 0.544 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4 CZ15 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.561 0.544 0.358 0.36 0.383 0.4 CZ16 1.144 0.689 0.468 0.568 0.549 0.427 0.36 0.383 0.4 Table 37. Equipment Turnover Assumptions
Measure
Category
1980 Vintage 1990 Vintage 2000 Vintage
1980 1990 2000 2016 1980 1990 2000 2016 1980 1990 2000 2016 HVACSHW 71% 9% 14% 5% 0% 84% 12% 4% 0% 0% 97% 3%
Roofs 74% 8% 13% 5% 0% 86% 10% 4% 0% 0% 98% 2%
Windows 80% 7% 10% 4% 0% 89% 8% 3% 0% 0% 98% 2%
Walls 92% 3% 4% 1% 0% 96% 3% 1% 0% 0% 99% 1%
Process 63% 12% 19% 7% 0% 79% 15% 6% 0% 0% 96% 4%
Ltg 45% 15% 28% 12% 0% 67% 24% 9% 0% 0% 94% 6%
ExtLtg 71% 9% 14% 5% 0% 84% 12% 4% 0% 0% 97% 3%
The equipment turnover assumptions in Table 37 are based on SB350 Appendix B2-NR Vintage Data and represent best estimates for equipment replacements, not direct data.

Existing equipment efficiencies were estimated by weighting the code minimum requirements by the replacement rates. For example, the AFUE was assumed to be 63% for 1980, 78% for 1990 and 2000, and 80% for 2016. Using the equipment turnover assumptions above, this calculates to a weighted average of 67.5% AFUE for the 1980s vintage, and 78.1% for the 1990s and 2000s vintages.

31.116
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 75
2025/07/07

9.6 Occupancy Schedules and Building Types
The Reach Code Team explored how the results could apply to other building types with similar occupancy schedules. Figure 10 shows that Small Office shares similar occupancy schedules with Large Office, Library, and Financial Institutions, while Medium Retail aligns closely with Grocery. School, however, exhibits slightly different occupancy patterns, so the results may not be directly applicable to this building type. Other building types with significantly different occupancy schedules are not considered to be applicable.

Figure 10. Occupancies in 141.0-E-1 Schedules

9.7 Interview Guide
The Reach Code Team used the following guide for the market actor interviews. This guide asks similar questions for all market actors. For some questions, the wording is different for designers (“Des”) and contractors (“Cont”) — who work directly on projects, compared to distributors (Dist) and manufacturer reps (MFR) — who sell equipment, but still have an understanding of project challenges and opportunities through their involvement with the construction process and communication with their clients.

Introduction
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. As a reminder, we are conducting this interview on behalf of the California investor-owned utilities to understand HVAC retrofits.

Specifically, we are interested in your experience with the retrofit of rooftop units. This would include replacing gas-fired rooftop units (gas packs) with packaged heat pumps, and your experience with other efficiency measures. All answers will be kept anonymous. 0 0. 2

0. 4

0. 6

0. 8
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Occu p an cy Fr act io n
Hour of Da y
Me d iu m Re t a il
Gro c e ry
Sm a ll Offic e
La rge Offic e
Lib ra ry
Fina nc ia l Ins
Sc hool

31.117
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 76
2025/07/07
Do we have your permission to record this interview? This is solely for note-taking purposes. a. Yes [RECORD CONTACT INFORMATION; SETUP INTERVIEW
TIME; EMAIL INTERVIEW TOPICS]
b. No [DISCUSS CONCERNS; ANSWER QUESTIONS; ATTEMPT TO
CONVERT TO “YES”]

1. (All) What is your role withing your organization?

2. (Cont/Des) What types of commercial projects have you worked on in the past year? a. (Dist/MFR) For what types of commercial projects have you sold HVAC products in the past 5 years?

3. (All) What area of California do you typically work in?

4. (Cont) Do you replace gas packs with heat pumps? How many replacements have you performed in the past year?
a. (Dist/MFR) Do you sell equipment for replacing gas packs with heat pumps? i. If yes, how often is this equipment sold? (Always, almost always, sometimes, rarely, never)
Research Topic A: Replacing gas packs with heat pumps

1. (Des/Cont) In general, have you faced challenges replacing gas packs with heat pumps? Y/N
a. If yes, what are those challenges?

2. (Dist/MFR) In general, have your customers faced challenges replacing gas packs with heat pumps? Y/N
a. If yes, what are those challenges?
If they don’t mention them, then probe:

3. (All)Are there any physical concerns or space constraints? Y/N a. If yes, what are those challenges? (don’t ask, but if they don’t volunteer, then probe)
Probe for: unit footprint, curb height, equipment weight b. How often is a curb adapter required? What are the cost implications?

4. (Cont/Des) Are there electrical concerns? Y/N (Interviewer can skip this section for Dist/MFR as these questions are geared for designers and contractors) a. If yes, what are those concerns?
b. What type of electrical upgrades are typical when replacing gas packs with heat pumps?
c. Is the additional capacity of electric resistance defrost enough to require electrical upgrades?

5. (All) Are there building heating capacity issues with replacing gas packs with heat pumps? Y/N
a. If yes, what are the issues? (don’t ask, but if they don’t volunteer, then probe) Probe for: meeting the building’s space heating loads.

31.118
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 77
2025/07/07
b. Under what conditions is electric resistance for defrost necessary? i. (If they don’t specify, then ask): Is this unique to specific locations or climates?
c. (Dist/MFR) Have you ever not been able to keep up with heating setpoint temperature because electric resistance for defrost was not installed? Research Topic B: Non-preempted ECMs for gas-for-gas HVAC unit replacement
We are looking to identify additional efficiency measures that could be installed as part of a gas-for-gas retrofit.

1. The first technology we’re considering is an ERV/HRV. a. (All) Are you familiar with the technology? Y/N
i. (Cont/Des): If Yes, how many times have you installed/specified them in the past year?

1.(Dist/MFR): How many have you sold in the last year?
ii. (All) Where in California are ERV/HRV most effective/appropriate? iii. (All) Are there areas of California where ERV/HRV would NOT be effective? b. (Des/Cont) Would you design/install an ERV/HRV separate from the rooftop unit or integrate them?
c. (Dist/MFR) [If integrated]: By percentage, how many ERV/HRV units have you sold with gas pack replacements? (Provide the multiple-choice ranges only if they are unwilling to estimate a value.)
i. <25%
ii. Between 25% and 75%
iii. More than 75%
iv. Not sure
d. (Dist/MFR) [If separate]: By percentage, how many ERV/HRV units have you sold with gas pack replacements? (Provide the multiple-choice ranges only if they are unwilling to estimate a value.)
v. <25%
vi. Between 25% and 75%
vii. More than 75%
viii. Not sure

2. Demand control ventilation (DCV) is another measure we are considering. a. Are you familiar with the technology?
b. Is this a good measure for retrofits?
c. (If time) Are there areas of California where this would NOT be effective?

3. We are also considering RTU fan ECM motor with staged controls. a. Are you familiar with the technology?
b. Is this a good measure for retrofits?

31.119
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 78
2025/07/07
c. (If time) Are there areas of California where this would NOT be effective?

4. We are also considering options for making a programmable thermostat more effective, such as by having it programmed by the installer.
a. (Des/Cont) When you install/specify thermostats, how often do you set a schedule or setpoints?
b. How do you determine a schedule for a thermostat when you program one? c. How often are you called back to reset a schedule for a programmable thermostat? d. (All) Which type of thermostat would be less likely to be overridden by the customer so that energy savings are actually achieved? Programmable where installer programs it according to customer preferences? Smart? Something else?

5. Do you have recommendations for any other efficiency measures to consider? (if they don’t volunteer, probe for DCV, RTU fan ECM motor with staged controls, DOAS)

6. (If time) Another measure we are considering is a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS). a. Are you familiar with the technology? Y/N
i. If Yes, how often have you installed/specified them in the past year? b. What is your opinion on DOAS systems?
i. Are there areas of California where DOAS saves more energy? Are there areas of California where DOAS would NOT be effective?

7. Are you able to provide some cost estimates for the measures discussed today as a followup via email? Section C: Closing
Great! Thank you so much for your time. Those are all the questions we have for you today. For taking the time to speak to me today we will be emailing you a $150 e-gift card which you should receive in the next ten business days as a thank you. Before we finish, do you have any questions for me, or anything else you would like to add?

31.120
2025 Nonresidential Alterations Reach Code Study 79
2025/07/07
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
Explore
The Cost-Effectiveness
Explorer is a free resource to
help California local
governments and
stakeholders develop energy
policies for buildings.

Follow
us on Linkedin
Revision: 1.0
Last modified: 2025/07/07

31.121
Energy Efficient Air
Conditioning Reach Code
City Council First Reading | October 28, 2025
Existing Nonresidential

31.122
Policy Background
Resolution NS-30-042 (2022) adopts a
community-wide goal of carbon neutrality by
2035; legal target of 40% reduction in
emissions by 2030 from 1990 levels.
 Increase resiliency through equitable
energy efficiency and local solar programs
HVAC = Heating, Ventilation + Air Conditioning

31.123
Energy Efficient AC Ordinance Overview
When replacing or adding single zone rooftop
HVAC, choose one to install:
› A single zone heat pump (cooling + heating)
and comply with State Code;
OR
› A single zone air-conditioner (cooling only)
and furnace
» PLUS a Heat recovery ventilator
Source: Trane Heat Pump Rooftop Units

31.124
When does the reach code apply?
New or replacement single-zone space cooling in:

Offices, retail, grocery, schools, libraries, and financial institutions 5-20 Ton
Systems
Include heat
recovery ventilator
Reach requirement
5 Ton Systems
Include variable
speed fan +
economizer
If replacing a furnace only
Reach code does not apply
State Code
Path A Path B
Install air conditioner
Install a heat
pump
No additional
requirements
State Code State Code

31.125
Source: 2025 Nonresidential Alterations and AC to HP Cost 31.126 -effectiveness Study, CZ 3 Policy Impacts
• ~1,400 existing nonresidential
buildings (1/4 of all building area)
• ~400 with central air
conditioning and gas heating
• ~1/3 of permits for cooling related
being pulled are already complying
with policy
• Good opportunity to capture other
2/3 of cooling related permits

31.127
Policy Description Ordinance
Number
Adoption Date/
Projected
Council Date(s)
Status
2022 Existing Single Family
Flexpath and New
Construction Energy
Performance + Correction
2024-21
2025-04
12/10/2024
3/11/2025
In effect but expires on
January 1, 2026. The existing
SF portion will be replaced by
the 2025 Existing Single
Family Flexpath update
2025 Existing Single Family
FlexPath update
2025-19 9/9/2025 Under CEC review and will be
enforceable once it is
approved, anticipated for
January 1, 2026.
2025 Nonresidential Energy
Efficient AC
TBD 10/28/2025 and
11/18/2025
Will go into effect January 1,
2026, pending CEC and CBSC
review.
2025 New Construction
Energy Performance
TBD TBD City staff will develop
requirements once the costeffectiveness results are
available later this year. This
ordinance will take effect as
soon as Q1 of 2026.
2025 Multifamily Residential
Reach Code
TBD TBD Will be in development in
~Q1 of 2026
Past + Future
Cost Effective
Reach Code
Summary

31.128
Recommendation - Motion to:

1. Acknowledge the CEQA determinations that ordinance is consistent with Negative Declaration for the 2030 Climate Action Plan adopted on September 13, 2022 and exempt under the general rule, CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) and per Section 15308; and

2. Introduce for publications an ordinance amending Muni Code Chapter 18.15 to adopt local amendments to Title 24, Part 6 of the CA Code of Regulations creating an energy reach code for existing nonresidential buildings that requires either the installation of a heat pump to State code minimum standards or additional energy measures for new and replacement AC
systems. 31.129
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/08/2025
AGENDA OF: 10/28/2025
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: Year-End Budget Adjustment for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 - Budget Adjustment (FN)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget to adjust annual revenue and expenditure budgets in various funds.

BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council Policy 12.6, new appropriations, transfers of appropriations between departments or funds, and transfers between Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects over $100,000 must be approved by the City Council. At the end of the fiscal year, an analysis performed to determine expenditures within funds and departments that have exceeded appropriations and/or need budget adjustments from other funds or departments. An annual budget adjustment is presented to the City Council to address those components of the budget.

DISCUSSION: The year-end budget adjustment attached to this Agenda Report lists all proposed budget adjustments and has them grouped by those related to the City’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects, listed by department, and then are grouped by changes to the operating budget of the City’s departments.

Descriptions of the purpose for each budget adjustment listed are provided before the financial detail. This is meant to provide transparency to the community and the City Council regarding the various budgetary changes being made. The full impact of the budget adjustments on the City’s funds, if greater than $0, is listed in the “fiscal impact description” at the end of this Agenda Report.

Overall for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, the City’s General Fund expenditures were less than the adjusted budget amount and the General Fund’s revenues slightly exceeded its expenditures.

While the ability to spend and receive funds attributable to the 2025 fiscal year has ended, the City is currently conducting its annual audit and preparing its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).. Once that process has been completed, staff can provide definitive figureson how the City closed out it’s FY 2025 General Fund, Enterprise Fund, and other funds. The Finance Department will present City Council with the FY 2025 ACFR in January 2026.

32.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The annual year-end budget adjustment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15061 (b)(3) of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). This section states the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. The annual year-end budget adjustment does not have this potential. Individual projects listed in the FY 2025 Year-End Budget Adjustment have performed a CEQA analysis and determination already or will require their own CEQA analysis and determination as they move forward.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The cumulative effect of these budget adjustments supports the Health in All Policies Workplan by supporting the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) community impacts of increased economic vitality; higher levels of self-sufficiency; increased social, economic, and occupational mobility; connection to others; climate change resiliency; a safe, affordable, and accessible transportation system, and neighborhoods and communities are safe.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: Yes

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: This year-end budget adjustment impacts the General Fund as well as several other Citywide funds. All adjustments are one-time in nature. The revenues and expenditures for the impacted funds are as follows:

Fund Revenue Expenditure Net (Rev - Exp)
101 651,578 1,037,298 (385,720)
103 6,197 - 6,197
108 185,900 - 185,900
112 555,813 - 555,813
136 - 417,116 (417,116)
137 - 4,400,000 (4,400,000)
170 (30,083) (30,083) -
221 (28,532,851) (26,831,400) (1,701,451)
224 - (100,000) 100,000
228 - 1,656,619 (1,656,619)
241 - 674 (674)
242 - 6,325 (6,325)
249 - 151,564 (151,564)
253 (9,201) 1,383 (10,584)
261 12,572 22,658 (10,086)
277 - - -
291 749,693 - 749,693
295 14,546 - 14,546
311 34,802,243 30,667,975 4,134,268
317 - - -

32.2 Fund Revenue Expenditure Net (Rev - Exp)
711 8,000,000 - 8,000,000
713 - 8,000,000 (8,000,000)
714 59 - 59
719 600,000 600,000 -
724 (59) - (59)
751 17,324 17,324 -
842 - (630,083) 630,083
Prepared By:

Emily Burton
Finance Manager
Submitted By:

Elizabeth Cabell
Finance Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY 2025 YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BY DEPARTMENT.PDF

32.3 FY 2025 Year-End Budget Adjustment
Capital Investment Program
City Manager’s Office

1. Cover the remaining balance on a past project that went over budget, West Cliff Shoreline Adaptation, c101905, with a transfer-in from the General Fund.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c101905-912-0-0
From General Fund
West Cliff Shoreline Adaptation
9,020
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP 9,020
Citywide

2. Transfer funds to Fund 311- CIP, to cover the remaining balance on past projects that went over budget: Neighborhood Grant Program- Pilot, project c601401, City Hall Parking Lot Repairs, and c601301, SLR Mouth & Lagoon Mgmt Plan.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c601401-912-0-0
From General Fund
Neighborhood Grant Program- Pilot
5,287
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c601301-912-0-0
To General CIP
City Hall Parking Lot Repairs
180,128
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c601403-912-0-0
To General CIP
SLR Mouth & Lagoon Mgmt Plan
150,000
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP 391,325 Economic Development and Housing

3. Remove duplicated revenue and expense budgets in the Pacific Station North project.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-51-80-9990-46342
c512201-435-5025-0
Contribs – Other Agencies
Pacific Station North
(3,250,000)

32.4 General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 311-51-80-9990-57390
c512201-100-2020-0
Other Infrastructure
Pacific Station North
(3,250,000)

4. Budget 2004 Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds from Wharf Rehabilitation Projects to Wharf Resilience Project, as these had been previously, inaccurately budgeted as proceeds from 2011.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-51-80-9990-43353
c511502-509-5099-0
SA 2004 Bond Proceeds
Wharf Rehab Projects
(986,604)
Revenue 311-51-80-9990-43353
c512501-930-5099-0
SA 2004 Bond Proceeds
Wharf Resilience Improv
986,604
Expenditure 311-51-80-9990-57390
c511502-100-2020-0
Other Infrastructure
Wharf Rehab Projects
(986,604)
Expenditure 311-51-80-9990-57390
c512501-100-2020-0
Other Infrastructure
Wharf Resilience Improv
986,604

5. In FY 2025, City Council approved a decision package of $60,000 for the Midtown Plaza Infrastructure & Amenities project for repurposing part of the parking lot into a commercial site with infrastructure and amenities. A CIP project was created for this initiative and expenditures were charged to the project, c512503, but the funds for the were not moved into the project budget.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 136-51-80-5591-57290 Other building costs (60,000) Expenditure 136-51-80-5591-57290
c512503-100-2020-0
Other building costs
Midtown Plaza Infrastructure and
Amenities
60,000

6. Budget the FY 2025 and prior period revenues from the Navigation Center Phase I and Navigation Center Rental Income projects into the Navigation Center Predevelopment Phase project. Update the budget for project p512505, Navigation Center Rental Income, to reflect actuals received in FY 2025.

32.5 General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-51-80-9980-46990
c512205-107-0-0
Misc non-operating rev
Navigation Center Phase I
(150,000)
Revenue 311-51-80-9980-46990
c512504-107-0-0
Misc non-operating rev
Navigation Center Predevelopment Phase
150,000
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c512504-912-0-0
Transfer from General Fund
Navigation Center Predevelopment Phase
189,000
Revenue 101-00-00-0000-46201
p512505-467-1026-0
Rents- real property
Navigation Center Rental Income
189,000
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103
p512505-100-2020-0
Transfer to General CIP
Navigation Center Rental Income
189,000
Expenditure 311-51-80-9980-57102
c512205-100-2020-0
Land
Navigation Center Phase I
(150,000)
Expenditure 311-51-80-9980-57102
c512504-100-2020-0
Land
Navigation Center Predevelopment Phase
339,000

7. Add congressional set-aside funding as a funding source for Pacific Station North and the Downtown Mixed Use Project, as they fund capitalized City projects.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49187
c512002-969-0-0
Transfer from infra. grants and loans
Downtown Mixed Use Project
2,000,000
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49187
c512201-969-0-0
Transfer from infra. grants and loans
Pacific Station North
2,000,000
Expenditure 277-00-00-0000-59103
g512410-100-2020-0
Transfer to CIP
Library Set-Aside Loan
2,000,000
Expenditure 277-00-00-0000-59103
g512409-100-2020-0
Transfer to CIP
Pac North Set-Aside Loan
2,000,000
Expenditure 311-51-80-9990-57390
c512002-100-2020-0
Other Infrastructure
Downtown Mixed Use Project
2,000,000
Expenditure 311-51-80-9990-57390
c512201-100-2020-0
Other infrastructure
Pacific Station North
2,000,000
Expenditure 277-51-80-9990-56960
g512410-100-2020-0
Loans and Grants
Library Set-Aside Loan
(2,000,000)
Expenditure 277-51-80-9990-56960
g512409-100-2020-0
Loans and Grants
Pac North Set-Aside Loan
(2,000,000)

32.6 Fire

8. Transfer funds to Fund 311- CIP to cover balance of Fire Engine Type 1 (Pierce Pumper 1250), project c212201, a past project that went over budget.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c212201-912-0-0
From General Fund
Fire Engine Type 1 (Pierce Pumper 1250)
3,910
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP 3,910
Parks and Recreation

9. Several Parks and Recreation projects saw expenditure overruns; the revenue adjustments below will allow the department to provide the necessary funds to allow the projects to be closed.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49109
c301213-913-0-0
From Parks and Rec. Facilities Tax
Fund
DeLaveaga Golf Course Facility Imp
65,768
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49109
c301614-913-2026-7014
From Parks and Rec. Facilities Tax
Fund
San Lorenzo Park Improvement
13,865
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49109
c302006-908-0-0
From Parks and Rec. Facilities Tax
Fund
Ken W Skate Park Coping
Replacement
3,287
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49155
c302139-937-0-0
From Southwest Quadrant - P & R
Fee Fund
Laurel Park- Basketball Court
Resurfacing
6,325
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49154
c301902-913-2026-
7003
From Northwest Quadrant - P & R
Fee Fund
Harvey West Playground
674
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49109
c301913-908-0-0
From Parks and Rec. Facilities Tax
Fund
Repair Surf Museum Cupola
2,243
Expenditure 249-00-00-0000-59103 To General Capital Improvement Fund 85,163
Expenditure 242-00-00-0000-59103 To General Capital Improvement Fund 6,325
Expenditure 241-00-00-0000-59103 To General Capital Improvement Fund
674

32.7 Public Works

10. Replace the transfer budgeted in project c400809, City Arterial & Collector Street Reconstruction/Overlay, from the Gas Tax Fund, Fund 221, with a transfer from the Road Maintenance and Rehab Account, Fund 228.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 317-00-00-0000-49185
c400809-968-0
From Road Maintenance and Rehab
Account
City Arterial & Collector Street
Reconstruction/Overlay
1,656,619
Revenue 317-00-00-0000-49130
c400809-968-0
From Gas Tax Fund
City Arterial & Collector Street
Reconstruction/Overlay
(1,656,619)
Expenditure 228-00-00-0000-59126 To CIP- Arterial Streets and Road Fund 1,656,619 Revenue 221-00-00-0000-59126 To CIP- Arterial Streets and Road Fund (1,656,619)

11. Move project c401903, Downtown Intersection Improvements, from the Gas Tax Fund, Fund 221, to the Capital Investment Program Fund, Fund 311, since the project has multiple funding sources beyond Gas Tax.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 221-40-64-9320-49640
c401903-518-0-0
Capital contributions- developer
Downtown Intersection Improvements
(200,000)
Revenue 311-40-64-9320-49640
c401903-518-0-0
Capital contributions- developer
Downtown Intersection Improvements
200,000
Revenue 221-00-00-0000-49179
c401903-966-0-0
From IIG- AHSC Fund
Downtown Intersection Improvements
(4,107,232)
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49179
c401903-966-0-0
From IIG- AHSC Fund
Downtown Intersection Improvements
4,107,232
Expenditure 221-40-64-9320-57304
c401903-100-2020-0
Street systems
Downtown Intersection Improvements
(4,262,400)
Expenditure 311-40-64-9320-57304
c401903-100-2020-0
Street systems
Downtown Intersection Improvements
4,262,400
Expenditure 137-00-00-0000-59107 To Gas Tax Fund (4,107,232) Expenditure 137-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 4,107,232

12. Move project c402304, Bay Dr. Protected Bike Lanes and Ped Path, from the Gas Tax Fund, Fund 221, to the Capital Investment Program Fund, Fund 311, since the project has multiple funding sources beyond Gas Tax.

32.8 General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 221-40-64-9330-43268
c402304-113-2273-0
State capital grants- AHSC
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(4,400,000)
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49179
c402304-966-0-0
Transfer from IIG- AGHSC
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
4,400,000
Revenue 221-40-64-9330-43251
c402304-216-4000-0
State capital grants- TDA
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(250,000)
Revenue 221-40-64-9330-43251
c402304-400-4000-0077
State capital grants- TDA
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
250,000
Revenue 221-40-64-9330-43252
c402304-400-2000-4047
State capital grants- RSTP
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(399,000)
Revenue 311-40-64-9330-43252
c402304-400-2000-4047
State capital grants- RSTP
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
399,000
Revenue 221-00-00-0000-49186
c402304-967-0-0
From TDA Fund
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(120,000)
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49186
c402304-967-0-0
From TDA Fund
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
120,000
Revenue 221-00-00-0000-49169
c402304-990-0-0
From 2016 Transp Measure D
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(50,000)
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49169
c402304-990-0-0
From 2016 Transp Measure D
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
50,000
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49130
c402304-935-0-0
From Gas Tax Fund
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
51,000
Expenditure 221-40-64-9330-57307
c402304-100-2020-0
Pedestrian/bike systems
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
(5,020,000)
Expenditure 311-40-64-9330-57307
c402304-100-2020-0
Pedestrian/bike systems
Bay Dr Protected Lanes and
Pedestrian Pathways
5,020,000
Expenditure 221-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 51,000 Expenditure 291-00-00-0000-59107 To Gas Tax Fund (120,000) Expenditure 291-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 120,000 Expenditure 224-00-00-0000-59107 To Gas Tax Fund (50,000) Expenditure 224-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 50,000

32.9 General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 137-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 4,400,000

13. Reclass the construction phase component of the Murray Street Bridge project from the Gas Tax project, c409321, Murray St. Bridge Seismic Retrofits, to a Capital Investment Program project, c402519, Murray Street Bridge- Construction Phase, as this project has multiple funding sources beyond Gas Tax.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 221-40-62-9370-43150
c409321-100-1000-0
Federal capital grants and
contributions
Murray St. Bridge Seismic
Retrofits
(17,000,000)
Revenue 311-40-62-9370-43155
c402519-111-1076-0
Federal capital grants- FHWA
Murray Street BridgeConstruction Phase
17,000,000
Revenue 221-40-62-9370-43250
c409321-200-2005-0007
State capital grants and
contributions
Murray St. Bridge Seismic
Retrofits
(600,000)
Revenue 311-40-62-9370-43250
c402519-200-2005-0007
State capital grants and
contributions
Murray Street BridgeConstruction Phase
600,000
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49130
c402519-935-0-0
From Gas Tax Fund
Murray Street BridgeConstruction Phase
1,300,000
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c402519-912-0-0
From General Fund
Murray Street BridgeConstruction Phase
255,910
Expenditure 221-40-62-9370-57310
c409321-100-2020-0
Bridges
Murray St. Bridge Seismic
Retrofits
(19,475,974)
Expenditure 311-40-62-9370-57310
c402519-100-2020-0
Bridges
Murray Street BridgeConstruction Phase
19,031,884
Expenditure 221-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 1,300,000 Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund 255,910

14. Correct the anticipated revenues per the Active Transportation Plan grant agreement from MB Sanctuary Scenic Trail- Segments 8 & 9, c401804, and adjust expenditures to match revenues. The project currently has $125,129 more in revenues than in expenditures.

32.10 General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-40-64-9330-43150
c401804-111-5013-0
Federal capital grants and
contributions
MB Sanctuary Scenic Trail- Segments
8 & 9
316,392
Revenue 311-40-64-9330-43259
c401804-216-1175-0
State capital grants- ATP
MB Sanctuary Scenic Trail- Segments
8 & 9
1,311,054
Revenue 221-40-62-9370-43357
c401804-956-5019-0
Local capital grants – SCCRTC
MB Sanctuary Scenic Trail- Segments
8 & 9
(6,000)
Expenditure 311-40-64-9330-57307
c401804-100-2020-0
Pedestrian/bike systems
MB Sanctuary Scenic Trail- Segments
8 & 9
1,746,575

15. Add the Liability Fund as a funding source to fully fund the Pacific Beach Roundabout Enhancements project, c402507.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 842-14-18-7821-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services (100,000) Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49106
c402507-929-0-0
From Liability Fund
Pacific Beach Roundabout
Enhancements
100,000
Expenditure 311-40-64-9320-57390
c402507-100-2020-0
Other infrastructure
Pacific Beach Roundabout
Enhancements
100,000

16. Transfer funds to Fund 311- CIP to cover balance of LED Light ReplacementCitywide, project c401418, West Cliff Stair Repair, m401402, Mission Street Hill Utility Underground, c401004, and West Cliff Drive Stabilization, c401501:
past projects that went over budget.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c401418-912-0-0
From General Fund
LED Light Replacement- Citywide
2,949
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
m401402-912-0-0
From General Fund
West Cliff Stair Repair
99,420
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c401004-912-0-0
From General Fund
Mission Street Hill Utility Underground
96,507
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49101
c401501-912-0-0
From General Fund
West Cliff Drive Stabilization
196,871

32.11 Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP 395,747 Citywide / Non-Departmental

17. Add budget to reflect Sugar-Sweetened Beverage taxes received in FY 2025.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 112-00-00-0000-41995 Other tax- Measure Z 2025 555,813

18. The adjustments below ensure that across the General Fund, departments’ expenditures that exceeded their initial, department-level allocation are balanced by the budgets of departments that were under their allocation. The net impact of these adjustments to the General Fund is $0.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 101-01-01-1110-51210 Group health insurance 25,479 Expenditure 101-01-01-1110-52102 Legal services - internal 320,830 Expenditure 101-11-04-1220-52132 Legal services - outside 936,036 Expenditure 101-12-00-1230-52132 Legal services - outside 275,143 Expenditure 101-12-00-1230-52248 Software maintenance services 51,934 Expenditure 101-12-00-1230-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services 83,096 Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-51110 Regular full time 60,372 Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-51122 Temporary 13,143
Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-51203 PERS unfunded liability 14,693 Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-51210 Group health insurance 10,588 Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-52230 Vehicle pool car charges - internal 3,086 Expenditure 101-15-10-1251-54202 Equipment purchases - non capital 736 Expenditure 101-21-31-2202-51114 Overtime 168,186
Expenditure 101-40-66-4110-52201 Water, sewer and refuse 28,483 Expenditure 101-40-66-6105-52201 Water, sewer and refuse 33,887 Expenditure 101-40-64-4221-52226 Vehicle work order charges - internal 29,707 Expenditure 101-40-61-4210-52268 Vehicle lease - outside 13,553 Expenditure 101-40-66-4111-53311 Electricity 68,741
Expenditure 101-40-61-4210-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services 39,560 Expenditure 101-40-61-4210-57402 Vehicle equipment 13,100 Expenditure 101-51-80-5591-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services 2,091

32.12 General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 101-10-03-1214-52142 Election services (189,975) Expenditure 101-10-03-1210-52199 Other professional & technical services (150,000) Expenditure 101-10-03-1217-52199 Other professional & technical services (830,851) Expenditure 101-14-11-1241-51110 Regular full time (269,912) Expenditure 101-14-11-1241-52199 Other professional & technical services (112,985) Expenditure 101-20-22-2104-51110 Regular full time (315,000) Expenditure 101-20-20-2101-52102 Legal services - internal (197,864) Expenditure 101-20-22-6105-52199 Other professional & technical services (37,820) Expenditure 101-20-22-2103-52261 Equipment, building and land rentals (20,000) Expenditure 101-20-21-2102-52303 Evidence processing (33,042) Expenditure 101-20-23-2107-52403 Telecommunications service - outside (25,430) Expenditure 101-51-80-5590-52151 Program services (9,565) Economic Development and Housing

19. Twelve-month initiatives approved in the budget adjustment by Council resolution, NS-30,477. Placing budget into a project to carry forward remaining budget into FY 2026, the fiscal year when the project will be completed.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 136-50-81-5590-52151 Program Services (100,000) Expenditure 136-50-81-5590-52151
p512507-100-2020-0
Program Services
Movie Theater Retention Pilot
50,000
Expenditure 136-50-81-5590-52151
p512508-100-2020-0
Program Services
Vacant Storefront Windows
50,000

20. The project to operate the Santa Cruzer had an operating deficit in prior years and in FY 2025. This budget adjustment will cover this difference in the General Fund through a transfer from the Economic Development Trust Fund.

32.13 General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 101-00-00-0000-49158
p511801-946-0-0
From ED Trust
Santa Cruz Trolley
41,116
Expenditure 136-00-00-0000-59101 To General Fund 41,116

21. HOME & CDBG Admin funds are based on a formula from federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department. This adjustment aligns the budget with the admin limits set by HUD rules.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 253-51-81-0000-43110
h512001-105-1020-0
Federal operating grants &
contributions
HOME Admin & Planning
(9,201)
Revenue 261-51-81-0000-43110
h512115-105-1015-0
Federal operating grants &
contributions
CDBG Admin & Planning
12,572
Expenditure 253-51-81-5207-52121
h512001-100-2010
Interfund labor – charge
HOME Admin & Planning
(10,584)
Expenditure 253-51-81-5207-54990
h512001-100-2020
Miscellaneous supplies and services
HOME Admin & Planning
1,383
Expenditure 261-51-81-5204-52121
h512115-100-2010
Interfund labor – charge
CDBG Admin & Planning
2,080
Expenditure 261-51-81-5204-54990
h512115-100-2020
Miscellaneous supplies and services
CDBG Admin & Planning
10,492

22. Move the CDBG Housing & Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) funding to miscellaneous supplies and services, to be consistent with HUD rules and policies.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 261-51-81-6203-52132
h512502-100-2020-0
Legal services – outside
CDBG Legal Services HERA
(12,166)
Expenditure 261-51-81-5250-54990
h512502-100-2020-0
Miscellaneous supplies and services
CDBG Legal Services HERA
12,166

32.14 Finance

23. Move funds within the Liability Insurance Fund, Fund 842, to cover outside attorney legal services and legal services. This includes moving $200,000 to cover in encumbrances for Sugar-Sweetened Beverage litigation.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 842-14-18-7821-52132 Legal services- outside 300,000 Expenditure 842-14-18-7821-52924 Settlement payments (300,000)

24. Correct the movement of funds out of the Liability Insurance Fund, Fund 842, into project e302403, February 2024 Storm Repair and e302510, Storm Damage Repairs at End of Wharf, as these were not approved uses of these funds.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 170-00-00-0000-49106
e302403-929-0-0
From Liability Insurance Fund
February 2024 Storm Repair
(30,083)
Revenue 311-00-00-0000-49106
c302510-929-0-0
From Liability Insurance Fund
Storm Damage Repairs at End of
Wharf
(500,000)
Expenditure 170-30-00-0000-54990
e302403-100-2020-0
Misc. supplies and services
February 2024 Storm Repair
(30,083)
Expenditure 311-30-41-9110-57312
c302510-100-2020-0
Park improvements
Storm Damage Repairs at End of
Wharf
(500,000)
Expenditure 842-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP Fund (530,083)

25. Reduce duplicated revenues for funds budgeted in the After Hours Call Duty program. Funds were budgeted in both the accounts and the project.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 101-00-00-0000-49111 From Wastewater Fund (29,500) Revenue 101-00-00-0000-49112 From Refuse Fund (2,500)

26. Reduce duplicated expenditures budgeted for Public Art contribution.

32.15 General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59191 Intra-entity fund transfer out (118,305)

27. Correct Public Arts contribution for Water System Development fund budgeted in the wrong fund.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 724-00-00-0000-49191 Intra-entity fund transfer in (59) Revenue 714-00-00-0000-49191 Intra-entity fund transfer in 59

28. Correct missing transfers for matching adjustments made in the mid-year budget adjustment.

General
Ledger
Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 136-00-00-0000-59103 To General Capital Improvement Fund 376,000 Expenditure 224-00-00-0000-59107 To Gas Tax Fund (100,000) Planning and Community Development

29. Additional funds were allocated during the Mid-Year Budget Adjustment in 2025 to cover the cost of the 908 Ocean Environmental Impact Report. This report was prepared by Kimley-Horn Associates and paid for by the project applicants. Since only a portion of these funds was used, the revenue and expenditures will be reduced and remaining balance will be refunded to project applicants.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 101-50-71-1302-43310
g502402-127-2100-0
Grants
908 Ocean St. EIR
(86,842)
Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52199
g502402-100-2020-0
Other Professional and Technical
Services
908 Ocean St. EIR
(86,842)

32.16 30. Increase Planning and Community Development revenues based on received funds at the end of fiscal year and decrease some revenue lines based on received revenues.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 101-50-70-2305-44235 Sidewalk Vending Permit 858 Revenue 101-50-71-1302-42417 New street addresses 5,109 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44108 Coastal permit fee 23,274 Revenue 101-50-71-1302-44115 Application intake fee 2,367 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44121 Slope modification fee 2,231 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44124 Zoning clearance fee 11,522 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44133 Minor modification fee 14,062 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44135 Document handling fee 11,081 Revenue 101-50-71-1302-44141 Pre-application review fee 5,719 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44145 Demolition authorization permit fee 8,749 Revenue 101-50-71-1302-44147 Design permit fees 150,873 Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44149 Subdivision fees 27,854
Revenue 101-50-71-1302- 44150 Boundary adjustment fees 11,172 Revenue 101-50-72-1303-44153 General plan maintenance fee 354,960 Revenue 101-50-74-2301-42211 Construction permits – building 254,883 Revenue 101-50-74-2301- 42212 Construction permits - electrical 46,323 Revenue 101-50-74-2301- 42213 Construction permits - plumbing 46,821 Revenue 101-50-74-2301- 42214 Construction permits -
cement/demo (20,198)
Revenue 101-50-74-2301-42215 Construction permits - mechanical 10,497 Revenue 101-50-74-2301- 42216 Construction permits - roofing 64,750 Revenue 101-50-74-2301- 44264 Strong motion instr prog fee 11,930 Revenue 101-50-75-2302-45123 Code enforcement fines/citations 9,921 Revenue 103-50-75-2302-44269 Code compliance cost recovery 4,187 Revenue 103-50-75-2302-46920 Recovery of legal fees 2,010 Revenue 108-50-74-2301-44266 Green building education/maint fee 185,900 Revenue 295-50-00-0000-44160 Technology fee surcharge 14,546

31. Move funds within Planning and Community Development Department budget to cover discretionary spending. There is no net addition to the department allocation resulting from these adjustments.

32.17 General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-52304 Training (2,624)
Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-51122 Temporary (6,925)
Expenditure 101-50-70-1303-54990 Miscellaneous Supplies and Services (2,819) Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-54401 Office furniture/equipment - noncapital 12,368
Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-52140 Planning Services (11,155) Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-52150 Merchant Bank Fees 11,155 Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52304 Training (2,213)
Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52960 Advertising 2,213
Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services (381) Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52403 Telecommunications services - outside
381
Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52140 Planning Services (15,992) Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-51122 Temporary (2,173)
Expenditure 101-50-71-1302-52150 Merchant Bank Fees 18,165 Expenditure 101-50-72-1303-52140 Planning Services (7,314) Expenditure 101-50-72-1303-53101 Postage Charges 3,243
Expenditure 101-50-72-1303-52960 Advertising 4,071
Expenditure 101-50-72-1303-52121 Interfund labor – charge (29,700) Expenditure 101-50-70-1301-52199 Other Professional & Technical Services 29,700
Expenditure 101-50-75-2302-52268 Vehicle lease – outside (3,000) Expenditure 101-50-75-2302-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services 3,000 Expenditure 101-50-74-2301-52137 Engineering fess – outside (38,067) Expenditure 101-50-74-2301-52199 Other professional & technical services 38,067
Expenditure 101-50-74-2301-54990 Miscellaneous supplies and services (8,340) Expenditure 101-50-74-2301-51122 Temporary 8,340
Public Works

32. Add revenue to Fund 291, Transportation Development Act, that was inadvertently missed when the fund was created in the FY 2025 midyear budget adjustment.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account Account Description
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 291-40-64-9330-43251 State capital grants- TDA Funds 749,693

32.18 33. In response to a request from the Fire Department, a sand berm was constructed ahead of the Memorial Day weekend, prior to the optimal breaching schedule, to proactively mitigate river flooding risks during the summer season. The associated sand management efforts were coordinated and initially funded through the Stormwater Fund. The General Fund will reimburse the Stormwater Fund for these expenditures under the SLR Culvert and River Mouth Maintenance project, m402401.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 751-00-00-0000-49101
m402401-912-0-0
From General Fund
SLR Culvert and River Mouth
Maintenance
17,324
Expenditure 751-40-60-7501-54311
m402401-100-2020-0
Maintenance - flood control and
storm dr
SLR Culvert and River Mouth
Maintenance
17,324
Expenditure 101-00-00-0000-59133 To Storm Water fund (17,324) Water

34. Transfer fund balance from the Water Rate Stabilization Fund (713) to the Water Operations Fund (711) and the Water Equipment Replacement Reserve (Fund 719) due to lower-than-projected water rate revenue. Funds will be used to replenish Water’s Equipment Replacement Reserve and pay down the 2024 Line of Credit (LOC) as allowed by the City Council-approved 2021 Water Department Long Range Financial Plan.

General
Ledger Type
General Ledger
Account
Account Description and
Project Title
Adjustment
Amount
Revenue 711-00-00-0000-49191 Other Transfers In 7,400,000 Revenue 719-00-00-0000-49191 Other Transfers In 600,000 Expenditure 713-00-00-0000-59191 Transfer to Water Operations 8,000,000

32.19 FY 2025

YEAR END UPDATE
- Year End Budget Adjustment
- Year End Close Update
Elizabeth Cabell, Finance Director
Emily Burton, Budget Manager

32.20 Year End Budget Adjustment

• No new appropriations, no new programs, no new services • Corrections
• Move to/from accounts or projects
• Remove duplicated revenue or expenditure budget
• Move from GL into project
• Clean up closed projects with negative balances
• Update revenue/expenditure budgets to match actuals
• Balance overspent General Fund accounts

32.21 FY 2025 YEAR END BA PRESENTATION | CITY OF SANTA CRUZ FY 2023-FY 2025

OPERATING GENERAL FUND
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
126.23
146.52
161.33
127.77
147.82
160.87
Revenue Expenses

32.22 YEAR END BA PRESENTATION | CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
March 4, 2025

GENERAL FUND TAX REVENUES

13.4 12.6

26.3 26.9

14.2 13

26.1 28.1

15.8 13.3

34.6 30.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Utilty Users Tax
Transient Occupancy
Tax
Sales Tax
Property Tax
FY 2025 FY 2024 FY 2023

32.23 CC,CM,CA
$19.01

HR,FN,IT
$14.36
Public Safety
$62.57
P&R
$20.24
Library
$2.45
Public Works
$13.06
Planning
$8.42
EDH
$5.60
Capital & Debt
$5.16
Other Financing Uses
$10.00
General Fund Expenditures (in millions)

32.24 GENERAL FUND RESERVES
2025 YEAR END PRESENTATION | CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

5.648 6.547 6.793

7.167

7.005 7.233

8.555

9.601

10.759

18.83 21.83

22.64 0
5 10
15 20
25 FY 2023 Pension Reserve FY 2024 Pension Reserve FY 2025 Pension Reserve Operating Emergency Pension Goal 32.25
Recommendation
Move to approve
resolution amending the
Fiscal Year 2025 budget
to adjust revenue and
expenditure budgets in
various funds.

32.26 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/09/2025
AGENDA OF: 10/28/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0: Overview of Project and Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy (CM)
LOCATION: Districts 2, 3, 4, and 6
RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation on project overview and planned engagement and provide feedback on the Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy for the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 Project.

BACKGROUND: Funded by the Ocean Protection Council, the City of Santa Cruz (City) has launched the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 Project (Project), building on years of planning and studies to create clear, community-supported Implementation Blueprints and Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans (SAMPs) for three areas: West Cliff, Main/Cowell Beaches, and Seabright/East Cliff. The SAMPs will include specific projects, and fundable implementation plans for the next 20 years, along with recommendations for updated Local Coastal Program policies aimed at helping Santa Cruz preserve its coastline, neighborhoods, and natural and recreational resources. This project will meet Senate Bill (SB) 272 requirements for sea level rise planning, Ocean Protection Council’s Sea Level Rise Criteria, and Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance.

SAMPs will reference extensive prior work on existing conditions, future vulnerabilities, feasibility of adaptation alternatives, visioning, and equitable engagement. The work will be informed by technical, youth, and equity advisors and build upon deep and innovative engagement that is accessible with compelling visualizations of strategies and projects. The three Blueprints will be accompanied by a set of four Technical Briefs which will include level setting of information and data, financial and resourcing moves, adaptation pathways and coastal change monitoring refinements, and community engagement summaries. The Blueprints will include prioritized projects as well as Local Coastal Plan policy recommendations and explicit change management requirements that the City can immediately act upon. Leveraging considerable momentum, existing partnerships and new knowledge, this project aims to level set planning with our community across the City’s coast, align local and regional plans, further develop Local Coastal Program policies, and catalyze the City into implementation of a coastal community vision.

33.1 DISCUSSION: Staff recently kicked off the Project with competitively selected consultants AECOM and Circlepoint and have collaboratively developed an Attachment: Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy. The Project’s Equitable Engagement Strategy includes a variety of different activities designed to reach community members, businesses, local organizations, nonprofits, government agencies, and others with an interest in the Project, or who could be affected by the Project. Staff are focused on ensuring the outreach includes hard-to-reach and historically under-served and under-represented people.

Primary engagement activities include:
 An Advisory Committee with diverse representation from the three subareas, including residents from each subarea, indigenous people, government agencies, businesses, realtors, community-based organizations, local non-profits, environmental groups, coastal recreation users, and others
 Focus groups, designed to ensure input from 1) the coastal recreation and surfer community members, 2) Seabright neighbors, 3) West Cliff businesses and neighbors, and 4) the Beach Flats neighbors (in Spanish)
 Six community conversations, two in each subarea
 Collaboration with a Youth Liaison to reach youth residents.  Two online surveys
 Four City Council touchpoints, along with presentations to the Sustainability and Resiliency Committee, Transportation and Public Works Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission
 A website, with project updates, and an updated interactive GIS StoryMap  Public Opinion Polling
 Pop Up Events, such as Earth Day and First Friday events  Public Review Period for Draft Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans and Implementation Blueprints
These engagement activities will take place at four project phases.

Phase 1: Community Level Setting (Fall 2025 – Winter 2026) This phase includes the first Advisory Committee Meeting, the first three community conversations by subarea, three focus groups by subarea, the launch of the project website, initiation of youth liaison coordination, and presentations to the City Council, Sustainability and Resilience Committee, Transportation and Public Works Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission.
 Outreach Objectives: Introduce the project, share timeline and ground truth the existing conditions and vulnerability assessment, and gather feedback on the Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy
 Phase 1 Deliverables: Data Summary Technical Brief, with Executive Summary in English and Spanish
Phase 2: Refine Adaptation Pathways (Winter – Summer 2026) Phase 2 includes the second Advisory Committee Meeting, the second round of focus groups, the first online survey, presentations to the City Council and Transportation and Public Works and Parks and Recreation Commissions, and development of the GIS StoryMap.

33.2  Outreach Objectives: Gather input on project recommendations and adaptation pathways visualizations from community members and interest groups  Phase 2 Deliverables: Adaptation Pathways Technical Brief and Visualizations, with Executive Summary in Spanish and English
Phase 3: Cost and Funding Analysis (Summer 2026)
Phase 3 includes the third Advisory Committee Meeting, the second online survey, updates to the GIS StoryMap, and presentations to the City Council and Transportation and Public Works and Parks and Recreation Commissions.
 Outreach Objectives: Gather feedback on priority projects and tradeoffs, cost estimates, and funding mechanisms
 Phase 3 Deliverables: Costing and Financing Technical Brief, with Executive Summary in English and Spanish
Phase 4: Shoreline Management Plans and Implementation Blueprints (Fall 2026- Winter 2027)
Phase 4 includes the fourth Advisory Committee meeting, Public Opinion Polling, updated GIS StoryMap, and presentations to the City Council, Sustainability and Resilience Committee, Transportation and Public Works Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission.  Outreach Objectives: Gather feedback on Draft Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans and Implementation Blueprints
 Phase 4 Milestones: Draft Adaptation Management Plans, Draft Implementation Blueprints, Engagement Summary Technical Brief, with Executive Summary in English and Spanish
The Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy also includes ways the City will notify residents and interested parties about engagement opportunities including through press releases, mailers, social media, community partner newsletters, and flyers posted in neighborhoods, etc.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Not applicable. The proposed SAMPS project is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the grant administration services represent the type of activity described in Public Resources Code section 21065.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): Completion of the SAMPs for the three subareas are mitigation actions specified in the recently adopted 2025-2030 Local Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan. Completion of the SAMPs will increase equitable access to the coastline and improve public and life safety. The project will ensure equitable engagement with indigenous people and historically under-served and under-represented people and will employ best practices to facilitate their participation (e.g., stipends, food and childcare for focus groups and events).

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No

33.3 FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The engagement activities described in the agenda report are covered by the grant funds awarded from the Ocean Protection Council SB 1 grant and inkind labor from staff. There will be no impact on the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Hilary Papendick
Senior Coastal Resilience
Planner
Submitted By:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT RESILIENT COAST SC 2.0_EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY.PDF

33.4 Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0:

Shoreline Adaptation Management
Plans and Blueprints
Draft Equitable Engagement Strategy
October 9, 2025

33.5 1
Table of Contents
Project Overview.............................................................................................................. 2 Synthesis of Past Community Engagement Efforts............................................................. 2 Santa Cruz Coastal Resilience Planning + Policy Development since 2018 ........................................... 2 Interested Parties Profiles ................................................................................................ 5 Interested Parties Categories............................................................................................................. 5 Community Profiles and Context ....................................................................................................... 6 Communications and Engagement Goals.......................................................................... 9 Communications and Engagement Approach.................................................................... 9 Working with Community Based Partners......................................................................................... 10 Community Engagement Activities ................................................................................. 11 Engagement Activity Infographic ...................................................................................................... 13 Documentation and Reporting......................................................................................................... 14 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................... 14 Project Branding ............................................................................................................ 14 Communication Channels, Materials, and Messaging...................................................... 14 Communications Channels and Materials........................................................................................ 14 Messaging ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Community Engagement Implementation Table/Timeline................................................ 16 Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 18 Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans Interested Parties .............................................................. 18

33.6 2
Project Overview
To be completed by the end of 2026, the City of Santa Cruz is preparing Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans (SAMPs) and Blueprints for three coastal subareas: West Cliff, Main/Cowell Beaches, and East Cliff/Seabright Beach, collectively referred to as “Resilient Coast Santa Cruz

2.0.” Recent major storm and erosion events underscore the urgency of identifying specific strategies and projects to ensure the safety of residents, preserve Santa Cruz’s coast, and maintain community assets.

In response to this challenge, the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 initiative is designed to directly build upon the findings and momentum of the City's previous work conducted under Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 1.0 and projects like the West Cliff Drive Adaptation and Management Plan, West Cliff 50-year Vision and 5-year Roadmap, and the Living Shorelines, Nature Based Solutions and Sand Management Feasibility Study, among others. By designing a comprehensive engagement strategy to support the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 SAMPs project, the project team is prepared to facilitate intentional and equitable touchpoints for the West Cliff, Main/Cowell Beaches, and East Cliff/Seabright Beach neighborhoods. This ensures that valuable insights, local knowledge, and priorities from across the entire community will be integrated into the final Blueprints, resulting in a more holistic and unified vision for a resilient Santa Cruz coast.

Ultimately, the success of this project depends on working with communities to build trust, create transparency, and articulate the tradeoffs of differing coastal adaptation strategies to safeguard infrastructure, environment, and the communities of Santa Cruz.

Synthesis of Past Community Engagement Efforts
The City of Santa Cruz has invested years of planning, technical analysis, and public engagement to prepare for the challenges of sea level rise, stronger coastal storms, and long-term shoreline change. Collectively, these efforts established a strong foundation for the City’s nationally recognized leadership in coastal resilience. For instance, under the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 1.0 effort, the City engaged in over 1,500 touchpoints through focus groups, interviews, surveys, community events, and workshops. The project encouraged residents to identify coastal values, challenges, and priorities for adaptation strategies across beaches, West Cliff Drive, and other shoreline areas. Through a combination of detailed vulnerability studies, forward-looking planning documents, and robust community engagement, the City has created a shared vision and a policy framework that directly informs this next phase of work.

Santa Cruz Coastal Resilience Planning + Policy Development since 2018 Timeline activities color scheme: Completed Work, Current Work, Future Work The following list of projects provides the technical data, policy framework, and community input necessary to guide this next phase of resilience planning. Carrying forward the lessons and momentum of Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 1.0 and other efforts ensures that this next phase will create opportunities for impactful, comprehensive, and equitable outreach designed to support the community in collectively addressing sea level rise and coastal climate change.

33.7 3
2018
• Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment: This assessment was completed as part of the City of Santa Cruz 2018 Climate Adaptation Plan Update to help determine the scale of potential climate impacts which may threaten the community. 2019
• Resilient Coast 1.0: A comprehensive resilience planning initiative that includes a series of projects focused on the West Cliff Drive and Santa Cruz beaches including:
o the City of Santa Cruz Beaches Climate Adaptation Policy Implication and Response Strategy Evaluation Technical Report, and the City of Santa Cruz Beach Vulnerability and Adaptation Strategy
o West Cliff Drive (WCD) Existing Conditions Inventory + Future Vulnerability Assessment:
o Santa Cruz Beach Vulnerability and Adaptation Strategy: Identified management goals and adaptation priorities for beaches across Santa Cruz. 2020:
• Resilient Coast 1.0:
o Santa Cruz Beaches Urban Climate Adaptation Policy Implication + Response Strategy Evaluation Technical Report: Assessed policy responses and social vulnerability implications of adaptation strategies.
o Synthesis Summary of Outreach and Engagement: Summarized portion of the work completed under the Resilient Coast 1.0 program.
o WCD Adaptation Alternatives Analysis: Analyzed a range of adaptation strategies for the West Cliff community.
2021
• Local Coastal Program Beaches (LCP) + Bluffs Chapter: Study conducted to identify and integrate shoreline adaptation strategies and supportive policies to address climate change, sea level rise, and related hazards.
• WCD Adaptation + Management Plan – Public Works Plan: Established a 10–15-year framework of projects and policies to proactively manage erosion, sea level rise, and storm impacts along Santa Cruz’s most iconic coastal roadway. The plan balanced shoreline preservation, transportation and access improvements, habitat restoration, and recreation enhancements, while embedding community input and ongoing monitoring to guide longterm resilience. • WCD Alternative Cost-Benefit Analysis: Compared adaptation options based on costs, benefits, and tradeoffs for West Cliff Drive.
2022

33.8 4
• Coastal Change Monitoring Network Design/Development (ongoing through 2027):

Designed a smart coastal change monitoring program with 12 federal, state and local partners for future deployment of monitoring devices and a decision support tool that operationalizes the City’s adaptation pathways approach to coastal management. • Local Coastal Program Update to Integrate Adaptation Pathways (ongoing through 2025): Refined the LCP Beaches and Bluffs chapter and updated the City’s working set of adaptation pathways, triggers and thresholds.
2023
2024
• Tidal Gauge Installation at Wharf: Real-time-water-level station, part of the coastal change monitoring network.
• 50-year Community Vision for West Cliff: Developed in partnership with the community with the goal of establishing a shared vision and values for managing the City’s most vulnerable and cherished coastal corridors.
• Living Shorelines and Nature Based Solutions Feasibility Study (completed mid-2025):

Identified feasible green to green-grey solution recommendations for Main Beach and West Cliff to reduce erosion and flooding while enhancing the habitat. • USACE Silver Jacket Assistance with Federal + State Partners (ongoing through 2026):

Support for outreach and engagement on coastal adaptation and nature based solutions.

Providing support for permitting and funding opportunities through federal and state partners
2025
• 5-year Roadmap for West Cliff: Defines new priority projects identified in collaboration with the community that the City will work towards over the next five years. • 3 Coastal Restoration Projects Design + Construction funded by NOAA through 2028 (ongoing through 2027+): Supports the planning, design, and construction of resiliency projects at three critical locations.
• Lighthouse Point Hazard Analysis: Study the condition of existing caves and rock formations surrounding Lighthouse Point and recommend options to preserve, restore, and/or relocate infrastructure
2026
• Coastal Infrastructure Financing + Feasibility Study: This project will assess potential funding and financing options and provide recommendations for how the City can support infrastructure projects along West Cliff Drive.

By 2030

33.9 5
• Revision of LCP Beaches + Bluffs Policies: Updated LCP Beaches + Bluffs policies chapter.

Interested Parties Profiles
This section defines the diverse audiences that will be involved throughout the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 process. By outlining the key interested parties by category, the project team can establish a shared understanding of the institutions, agencies, community groups, businesses and other entities invested in the future of Santa Cruz and who may be impacted by shoreline changes.

This list will guide the project team to identify who should be engaged and will be refined as new interested parties are identified.

Interested Parties Categories
The working list of interested parties are found in Appendix A. • Business and Property Owners: Local businesses, employers, and property owners that may be affected by shoreline changes either because their business or properties are within close proximity to the coast and vulnerable or because their operations are dependent on the broader coastal economy and tourism. Businesses such as The Dream Inn, Seaside Company, Chardonnay Sailing, and local surf shops are a few members of this constituency.
• Coastal Recreation Clubs/Groups/Nonprofits: Local clubs and organizations that depend on coastal access for sports, recreation, and community activities who can offer insight into maintaining safe and enjoyable access and use of beaches and shoreline areas.

Sample organizations include the Main Beach Volleyball Club, Save the Waves, or Bike Santa Cruz County.
• Government Agencies: Local, county, state, and federal agencies providing technical expertise, coordination, and management support for coastal adaptation and resilience planning. Agencies such as the County of Santa Cruz, California State Parks, California State Lands Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Geological Survey are included in this category. • Neighborhood Associations and Residents: Residents, artists, and community members with everyday knowledge of coastal conditions and neighborhood-level needs. Their direct experiences with flooding, storm damage, and changing shoreline conditions provide essential insight into how various adaptation strategies will impact daily life and long-term livability.
• Social Justice and Environmental Nonprofits: Environmental and social justice nonprofits and advocacy groups contribute expertise in conservation, restoration, and climate resilience, social issues, and community engagement. Organizations such as the Surfrider Foundation, Community Bridges, and Ecology Action are examples of NGOs involved with the Santa Cruz community.
• Research and Academic Institutions: Universities and research centers provide data, modeling, and technical analysis to inform adaptation decisions. The University of California Santa Cruz and affiliates are examples of research and academic institutions in the region.

33.10 6
• Regulatory Agencies: Agencies overseeing permitting, compliance, and environmental review processes that govern shoreline projects. Key partners include the California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• Tribal Groups: Tribal people and affiliated land trusts carry ancestral ties and conduct stewardship for coastal areas. The Amah Mutsun Land Trust and Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe represent the Tribal entities that may be involved in this project. • Visitors: Non-resident coastal users also shape Santa Cruz’s shoreline dynamics through recreation and tourism.
• Youth Liaison: One Youth Liaison will be assigned to the project through the City's Youth Liaison Program. They will participate in advisory and community meetings, observe city council and commission meetings, and will conduct a survey or focus group with Santa Cruz High School Youth at a to-be-determined milestone.

Community Profiles and Context
The Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 planning process focuses on the three key coastal neighborhoods Santa Cruz in the city limits: West Cliff, Main/Cowell Beaches, and East Cliff/Seabright Beach. It is estimated that there are approximately 2,500 properties within the project planning area encompassed by these three neighborhoods. By recognizing the differences across each of these distinct neighborhoods, the City can ensure that outreach efforts are tailored, equitable, and responsive to local priorities while building upon the foundation of past planning work. This approach will lay the foundation for “level setting” between the three neighborhoods, a process which ensures each neighborhood’s interested parties will have gained an understanding of the project and provided input by the conclusion of the 2.0 engagement process.

West Cliff
The West Cliff neighborhood is a coastal, predominantly upper-middle-income community defined by its popular bluff-top multi modal corridor along West Cliff Drive, which features direct access to several beaches including Lighthouse Field State Beach and Mitchell’s Cove. These beaches are heavily used by a diverse mix of residents and visitors due to their walkability, access points and scenery, including local surfers, dog walkers, families, youth, tourists, and older adults, among others. California State Parks owns Natural Bridges State Park at the western end of West Cliff and Lighthouse Field and Lighthouse Field State Beach as well as a small portion of West Cliff Drive near Lighthouse Point. The neighborhood's assets include natural features, such as beaches, marine habitats, cliffs, tide pools, open space, cultural landmarks like the Surfing Museum, and built infrastructure such as townhomes, inns, access points, trails and other amenities. The area has a median age in the late 30s and is majority White, with a significant Latino presence and a growing mix of income levels, though it remains relatively affluent compared to much of Santa Cruz.

However, this affluence also brings challenges. West Cliff faces growing tensions around housing affordability, coastal erosion, and accessibility due to the limited ADA accessibility for the beaches and their amenities. Some long-time residents express concerns about overdevelopment and the erosion of neighborhood character, while others advocate for inclusive planning and increased resilience to climate change. The neighborhood has shown a high level of civic engagement,

33.11 7
particularly around land use, coastal preservation, and housing policy. Groups such as “Save West Cliff” and homeowner associations play key roles in preserving access and shaping the neighborhood’s future.

West Cliff has been one of the most visible and heavily studied areas of the Santa Cruz shoreline.

The West Cliff Drive Adaptation and Management Plan established a 10–15 year framework of projects and policies to proactively manage erosion, sea level rise, and storm impacts along this iconic coastal roadway, balancing shoreline preservation, transportation and access improvements, habitat restoration, and recreation enhancements while embedding community input and monitoring. As a result of major damage during the 2023-2024 storms, the community and city leadership drove the development of The West Cliff 50-Year Vision was created to establish a shared vision and set of values or principles to guide development in the area, while the Five-Year Roadmap was developed to determine near-term projects that could be completed over five years.

These projects united community groups and planning efforts to build a phased pathway for managing one of the City’s most vulnerable and cherished corridors. Because of this focus, West Cliff has been in the spotlight during past resilience planning efforts and has a well-developed technical and engagement foundation to build upon.

Main/Cowell Beaches
The Main Beach and Cowell Beach neighborhood is a populous, mixed-income coastal area centered around two of Santa Cruz’s most iconic beaches. These beaches are among the most heavily visited in the region and used year-round by a wide range of people, including tourists, families, fisher people, students, surfers, and more. Assets in this area include natural features like sandy beaches, the San Lorenzo River mouth, marine habitats, and cultural and recreational landmarks such as the Boardwalk, the Wharf, and surf breaks. Built infrastructure includes beachfront hotels, commercial corridors along Beach Street and the Wharf, and multi-family residential housing.

The area surrounding Main and Cowell Beach is younger and more economically diverse than West Cliff or other coastal areas. The median age is around 30 according to the Census, with a racial and ethnic makeup that is majority White with a significant Latino and immigrant population, especially within the Beach Flats neighborhood. The Beach Flats neighborhood is a dense, working-class, majority renter community north of the Boardwalk with a high proportion of Spanish-speaking, Latino residents. While the Main/Cowell Beaches neighborhoods feature relatively high median household income, it also has a poverty rate on the higher end, indicating a sharp disparity between high-income residents, including short-term renters and property owners, and low-income service workers or renters living nearby. Tensions have emerged between these groups, particularly around housing affordability, tourist-related congestion, and equitable access to public resources.

33.12 8
Politically and socially, there is strong civic and community engagement around issues of equity, public access, environmental justice, and beach management. The City has adopted a Beach Management Plan for Main/Cowell that includes equity measures, such as multilingual signage and ADA accessible improvements, or a new ADA ramp and Mobi-Mat at Cowell Beach.

Community organizing in the Beach Flats has been particularly focused around equitable redevelopment, has demonstrated a strong tradition of civic engagement when outreach is linguistically inclusive and held at times that can accommodate service jobs. Analysis of recent storm events also showed that Main Beach took longer to recover its width compared to Seabright Beach, highlighting its growing vulnerability to the reduction of beachfront under sea level rise and stronger storms. Engagement for this area during Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 1.0 included surveys, workshops, and community events that incorporated input from residents of Beach Flats and other nearby parties interested in this area to ensure their priorities were included in adaptation planning.

East Cliff/Seabright Beach
The East Cliff/Seabright neighborhood is a mid-density neighborhood featuring easy access to Seabright Beach, which is known for its wide, sandy beach located between the Santa Cruz Harbor and the San Lorenzo River and is owned by California State Parks. The beach is characterized by its relaxed atmosphere and scenic views and is popular with locals and visitors alike, offering many amenities such as fire pits for bonfires, beach volleyball courts, direct harbor access for paddleboarding and sailing, and easy walk-in access from nearby residential streets and commercial areas, like Seabright Avenue and Soquel Avenue. The beach is backed by partially armored bluffs and East Cliff Drive, both of which are owned and maintained by the City. Many people use the area, including local families, boaters, UCSC students, surfers, dog walkers, and tourists.

The surrounding neighborhood features access to the Santa Cruz Harbor and strong connections to both residential streets and commercial corridors. Assets in the area include natural features like the Walton Lighthouse and west harbor jetty, public restrooms and showers, the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History, and a lively small business district. The harbor also anchors marinerelated activity and supports community events like sailboat races, which attract both locals and visitors.

The neighborhood has a median age in the late 30s to early 40s and is majority White with a small but present Latino population. Residents tend to be upper-middle-income, and homes in the area tend to be a mix of single-family homes, beach cottages, and multi-unit buildings, with both longterm homeowners and renters present. While the area has more affluence than others across Santa Cruz County, affordability is still a key concern for renters and lower-income residents working in nearby service or hospitality industries. The neighborhood is known for its laid-back, beach-town feel but experiences seasonal congestion and competition over limited parking and public beach access.

Recent planning efforts have focused on enhancing accessibility and coastal resilience. Seabright Beach now offers ADA beach wheelchairs and improved access points, while harbor and beach path infrastructure support walkability for a wide range of users. Residents seem to hold environmental concerns about coastal erosion along East Cliff Drive and beach width preservation,

33.13 9
but it is understood that dunes currently provide a degree of natural preservation, as can be seen by Seabright Beach’s recovery after the January 2023 storm event. The nonprofit that stewards the vegetated dunes regularly offers community workdays that continue to build understanding of coastal issues and the importance of this coastal feature. While the neighborhood has a somewhat lower profile in formal planning processes compared to the other neighborhoods within the project scope, it benefits from engaged residents, active small businesses, and partnerships with groups like Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks and Groundswell Coastal Ecology, the non-profit that stewards the dunes since 2011.

Communications and Engagement Goals
The Communications and Engagement goals for Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 are grounded in the values of building an open, inclusive, and trusted process. One of the key aims of this strategy is to create a process where the community’s knowledge, concerns, and priorities meaningfully shape the shoreline adaptation planning process and deliverables at key milestones in the project.

The purpose of this engagement strategy is to outline how Santa Cruz and the project team will inform, involve, and collaborate with the Santa Cruz community throughout the development of the SAMPs and Blueprints. Both items will combine technical analysis with locally grounded knowledge, ensuring that strategies not only preserve infrastructure and the environment, but also reflect the priorities and lived experiences of Santa Cruz residents. A key element of this approach is a dedicated commitment to providing all communities and interested parties with a shared baseline of knowledge and equitable access to information. Through clear communication and accessible educational materials, residents will be empowered to understand the complex challenges of coastal resilience, evaluate adaptation options, and make informed decisions about the long-term future of their coastline.

The goals outlined below are designed to carry forward the City’s overall commitment to equitable engagement, ensuring that residents across all three coastal neighborhoods are equipped with the same foundation of understanding and have clear opportunities to participate. • Build Understanding and Trust: Proactively communicating to create transparency about the project’s purpose, process, communication efforts.
• Ensure Equitable Engagement: Prioritize equitable engagement across the three key neighborhoods by ensuring all participants begin the outreach process with the same baseline knowledge, given that some have been more recently engaged on this topic than others. • Facilitate Informed Dialogue: Engage residents and all relevant stakeholder groups on the topic of coastal management, storms, and sea level rise with clear, accessible, and accurate information.
• Demonstrate Impact: Clearly communicate how public input is being used at each step of the process to shape draft and final plans.

Communications and Engagement Approach
The success of Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 depends on a process that is open, inclusive, and shaped by meaningful community participation. To achieve this, the project’s communications and

33.14 10
outreach strategy is designed to remove barriers, build trust, and ensure equitable access to information for all community members. The following section outlines the guiding themes, activities, and timeline that will structure how the project team reaches the community. Together, these efforts provide the framework for collecting input, sharing information, and building support for the decisions that will shape Santa Cruz’s coastal future. • Meet people where they are by tailoring engagement opportunities to community needs, including hosting events in accessible, familiar venues and providing multiple options for participation.
• Host community conversations in each subarea to ground discussions in local experiences and ensure place -concerns are represented and addressed. • Make technical information clear and engaging by translating complex language into accessible language using visuals, interactive tools, and storytelling that resonates with community members.
• Ensure inclusivity and accessibility by offering materials in Spanish and English and reaching out through trusted local networks and community partners. • Create common ground for understanding by aligning all participants on project goals, challenges, and options.

Working with Community Based Partners
Community-based organizations (CBOs) play a critical role in shaping how the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 project teaches and builds trust with residents and partners, especially those who have historically been underrepresented in coastal planning processes. Partnering with these groups ensures that the City’s outreach not only reaches a broader audience but does so through credible messengers who understand local needs and values.

The project team will identify and partner with CBOs that represent or work closely with organizations serving a variety of impacted communities including frontline communities, Spanishspeakers, low-income groups, visitors, and more. These partners will be invited to assist in developing culturally responsive communication materials, participate in event planning, and help recruit community members to participate.

One group the City of Santa Cruz plans to partner with to reach its spanish-speaking residents is the Promotoras, a network of Latina women who serve as trusted community leaders and connectors. The Promotoras specialize in helping Latino communities access information and participate in civic initiatives. Their involvement will be critical for reaching Spanish-speaking residents, ensuring their voices are represented throughout the planning process. In addition to reviewing project materials for accessibility, the Promotoras will help recruit participants, share information through their networks, and foster meaningful dialogue between Santa Cruz and the communities they represent.

Other CBOs will be equipped with ready-to-share outreach materials, and clear expectations about time commitments and participation. Through these collaborations, the project will strengthen its capacity to understand community perspectives, remove barriers to participation, and ensure that adaptation strategies reflect the lived experiences of those most impacted by coastal hazards.

33.15 11
Identifying CBO Partners
CBO partners were identified through a combination of stakeholder mapping, review of the City’s existing SAMPs stakeholder contact database, and consultation with local partners who work directly with underrepresented groups. The selection process prioritizes organizations with demonstrated community trust, local presence, and alignment with the project’s goals of equitable participation and climate resilience.

Other examples of potential partners include Community Bridges, Ecology Action, and Homeless Garden Project. The project team will confirm partnerships through direct outreach and discussion of potential collaboration methods, ensuring that engagement expectations and levels of involvement are transparent from the start.

Community Engagement Activities
To ensure a robust and inclusive public process, our engagement strategy makes use of multiple activity types to gather input from different segments of the community at varying levels of detail, ranging from high-level strategic guidance to deep, localized feedback. A timeline of when these activities will take place follows the description of activities.

Advisory Committee Meetings: Composed of a broad and diverse selection of interested parties, the Advisory Committee will convene for a total of four to five meetings across the project’s duration. Their role is to provide strategic guidance by reviewing public materials before they are shared with the public, assisting in the recruitment of community members for events, reviewing the feedback collected from the wider community, and providing input at different project milestones. Seeking a balanced set of perspectives across different user and interest groups, representatives from 44 different agencies and community groups were invited to join the advisory committee.
• Meeting 1: Week of October 28, 2025
• Meeting 2: Week of February 23, 2026
• Meeting 3: Week of April 13. 2026
• Meeting 4: Week of May 25, 2026
• Meeting 5: Week of September 14, 2026 (optional, if needed) Community Conversations: Three open house-style events designed to present information in an accessible, layperson-friendly, and site-specific forum and to provide an opportunity for residents, business owners, and other interested parties to engage in one-on-one conversations with the project team and City staff. Open houses will feature multiple outlets for community members to share their thoughts. Potential engagement activities include commenting on maps, dot voting for preferred resiliency options, and other activities to designed to collect feedback. Future meetings are expected to incorporate additional in-depth table-top activities to discuss tradeoffs, and may include use of immersive tools like a nature based Virtual Reality app. • First Round
o Meeting 1: West Cliff: Nov 5, 5:30–7:30 p.m., Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center

33.16 12
o Meeting 2: Main/Cowell Beaches: Nov 6, 5:30–7:30 p.m., Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center
o Meeting 3: East Cliff/Seabright Beach: Nov 13, 5:30–7:30 p.m., Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History
• Second Round: February 16 – March 10, 2026
Focus Groups: The project team will host six virtual focus groups with key stakeholder segments, such as surfers, Spanish-speaking residents, and geographically affected communities. The objective is to understand unique challenges and opportunities and to explore how Santa Cruz can collaboratively serve specific needs regarding coastal adaptation options. The focus groups are designed to ensure input from 1) the coastal recreation and surfer community members, 2) Seabright neighbors, 3) West Cliff businesses and neighbors, and 4) the Beach Flats neighbors (in Spanish).
• First Round: October 20 – November 21, 2025
• Second Round: March 16 – April 10, 2026
Public Opinion Polling: Polling community members will be a critical tool for gathering direct, quantifiable feedback and trying to verify the information collected through focus groups, community conversations, and surveys. Conducted by an experienced polling vendor, the Public Opinion Poll will provide statistically significant insights into community values, priorities, and concerns. This effort will help to ensure that the project team and community are aligned on the development of the Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans and Blueprints. • Summer/Fall 2026
Surveys: Surveys will complement public opinion polls by gathering more detailed, qualitative feedback from participants engaged through meetings, the project website, partner networks, and other channels. These surveys will allow community members to share personal experiences, local knowledge, and specific ideas about shoreline adaptation and coastal areas. • Completed during development of Adaptation Pathways
In addition to the activities mentioned above, the project will be presented to the Transportation and Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Sustainability and Resiliency Committee at key milestones noted in the infographic below. City staff will also seek opportunities to reach community members at local events such as Earth Day, First Fridays at the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History, Wharf events, and other opportunities.

33.17 PROJECT
PHASE

ENGAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES

COMMUNITY

LEVEL-SETTING
FALL 2025 –
WINTER 2026
REFINE

ADAPTATION

PATHWAYS
WINTER –
SUMMER 2026

COST & FUNDING

ANALYSIS
SUMMER 2026

SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT PLANS &

IMPLEMENTATION

BLUEPRINTS
FALL 2026 –
WINTER 2027
Focus
Groups
Advisory
Committee
Online
Survey
Online
Survey
Community
Conversations
City Council
& Commission
Meetings
Focus
Groups
Advisory
Committee
Advisory
Committee
Community
Conversations
City Council
& Commission Meetings
City Council
& Commission
Meetings
Advisory
Committee
City Council
& Commission
Meetings
GIS
StoryMap
GIS
StoryMap
Additional engagement opportunities for the project will be organized through via Earth Day festival, coastal events, etc.

A Youth Liaison will participate in every phase, concluding wih a survey or focus group with SC High School Youth.

Public Opinion
Polling

33.18 14
Documentation and Reporting
Feedback from these activities will be collected into a comment log to record and categorize input from meetings, surveys, and online platforms. Following each engagement round, summary reports will be produced to highlight key themes, report on key performance metrics and demonstrate how this feedback was integrated into the deliverables. Finally, a consolidated Equitable Engagement Summary Technical Brief will be prepared to present all findings to the City Council and for formal inclusion in the SAMPs.

Key Performance Indicators
Key performance indicators (KPIs) will be used to measure the reach and effectiveness of the project’s engagement efforts, ensuring that participation is broad, representative, and aligned with project goals.

These metrics will be tracked through a monthly log and summarized in a shared spreadsheet that documents the engagement method, number of attendees, purpose, and outcomes. This approach will provide a clear record of progress, highlight where additional outreach may be needed, and demonstrate accountability throughout the engagement process. • Number of participants and exit survey scores at Community Conversations • Representatives from historically underrepresented communities • Number of unique visitors to project webpage
• Number of survey responses received
• Engagement on social media
• Qualitative metrics regarding an increase in community understanding, as measured through the content of social media, input at community engagement activities and other methods.

Project Branding
To ensure that all public-facing materials are recognizable, accessible, and aligned with the City’s communications standards the project team will develop consistent visually branded elements for use on the website, flyers and other communications. Circlepoint will develop branded PowerPoint and exhibit board templates for Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0.

Communication Channels, Materials, and Messaging
Communications Channels and Materials
A variety of communication tools will be used to share project information, promote participation, and ensure consistent messaging across all outreach activities. These materials will help City staff and project partners reach diverse audiences with clear, accessible, and bilingual information.

Together, these tools will create multiple entry points for community members to stay informed, engage with the project, and provide feedback throughout the planning process.

City staff will work with the Communications team to develop these materials.

33.19 15
• Communications Toolkit: A guide for project partners and City staff to share consistent information with the public and promote upcoming outreach opportunities. • Fact Sheets and FAQs: Plain-language explanations of technical issues, available both in print and digital formats and in Spanish and English.
• Flyers and door hangers: One-page documents to provide quick information about the project and how to get involved in upcoming engagement opportunities • E-Blast/Email Newsletters: Distributed through City networks and partner organizations to inform community members of project updates and opportunities to get involved. • Press Releases/Media: Local press coverage to extend reach including the Lookout Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Local, and Sentinel.
• Project Webpage: Central hub for updates, resources, and opportunities to participate. • Social Media Channels: Informative posts and updates distributed via Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Nextdoor.

All materials will need to be translated at least one week prior to distribution. The California Ocean Protection Council’s contributions will be acknowledged in project materials, announcements, and at public events through disclaimer language and logo placement.

Messaging
Sample boilerplate language: This language can be adapted across multiple platforms, including press releases, social media, fact sheets, newsletters, and the project website to provide a general overview of the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 project. In press releases, it provides a consistent project description for media; on social media, it can be shortened into key messages or paired with visuals. For fact sheets, newsletters, and the website, the language can be expanded to offer more context and highlight ways to get involved. Across all uses, it serves as a foundation that can be tailored to different audiences while maintaining a clear and consistent project message. • The City of Santa Cruz is leading the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 initiative to prepare our community for the impacts of sea level rise, coastal erosion, and stronger storms. Through the development of Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans and Implementation Blueprints for West Cliff, Main/Cowell Beaches, and East Cliff/Seabright Beach, the City will work closely with residents, businesses, and community partners to identify strategies that address these challenges, preserve our coast and reflect community priorities. By combining technical expertise with local knowledge, the project will ensure that Santa Cruz is ready and resilient for the next 20-30 years.

Other messaging topics:

33.20 16
• Emphasize coastal management and storm preparedness, don’t lead with climate change • Acknowledge spectrum of community perspectives, build community understanding around challenge and adaptive measures to address sea level rise/storms/coastal erosion • Acknowledge and address key differences of opinions: move inland vs. hold the line • Emphasize goal to create clear, actionable plans
• Develop tailored messaging for specific stakeholder groups Community Engagement Implementation Table/Timeline
Note: Meeting timing is subject to change based on Advisory Committee meeting schedule.

Engagement Implementation Schedule
Engagement Activities Timing Details
Draft Equitable Engagement
Strategy
Submit by October 9 for
October 28 City Council
meeting
Prepare draft engagement strategy
Advisory Committee
Meetings (4-5)
• Meeting 1: Week of
October 28, 2025
• Meeting 2: Week of
February 23, 2026
• Meeting 3: Week of April

13. 2026
• Meeting 4: Week of May
25, 2026
• Meeting 5: Week of
September 14, 2026
(optional, if needed)
Meet with a subset of interested
parties to provide project overview
and project approach feedback on
engagement materials, and
deliverables
Community Conversations:

Round 1 (1 per subarea)
November 5, 6, and 13, 2025 Open house style meetings to provide project information, gain feedback at
key project milestones and ensure
place-based concerns are collected
and addressed.
• West Cliff: Nov 5, 5:30–7:30 p.m.,
Sanctuary Exploration Center
• Main/Cowell Beaches: Nov 6,
5:30–7:30 p.m., Sanctuary
Exploration Center

33.21 17
• East Cliff/Seabright Beach: Nov
13, 5:30–7:30 p.m., Museum of
Natural History
Focus Groups: Round 1
(1 per subarea)
October 20 – November 21,
2025
Discussions with targeted groups
Meeting time is subject to change.

Community Conversations:

Round 2 (3)
February 16 – March 13,
2026
• West Cliff: TBD
• Main/Cowell Beaches: TBD
• East Cliff/Seabright Beach: TBD
Public Opinion Polling Late spring/early summer
2026
Ground truth the validity of prior
engagement and project
recommendations
Focus Groups: Round 2 (3) March 16 – April 10, 2026 Discussions with targeted groups • Meeting time is subject to
change.

Community Surveys Completed during
Adaptation Pathways
development.

Series of questions and inquiries
used to gather qualitative feedback
from community members
Engagement Summary
Technical Brief
July 17, 2026 Summarize findings from meetings,
focus groups, polling, and surveys

33.22 18
Appendix A
Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans Interested Parties This list includes the organizations the City of Santa Cruz has identified as interested parties for the Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0 project. Members of this group were either invited to serve on the advisory committee or will be invited to participate in a focus group. All organizations will be notified about upcoming community engagement events
• Amah Mutsun Land Trust
• Association of Faith Communities
• Bike Santa Cruz County
• Black Surf Santa Cruz
• CA Division of Boating & Waterways
• CA Fish & Game Commission
• CalTrans
• California Coastal Commission
• California Marine Sanctuary Foundation
• California State Lands Commission
• California State Parks
• California State Water Board
• City of Capitola
• Coastal Watershed Council
• Community Action Board
• Community Bridges Beach Flats Community Center
• Costanoan Rumsen of Carmel Tribe
• County of Santa Cruz
• Dayenu Interfaith
• Diversity Center
• Dream Inn
• Ecology Action
• Ecology Action / Resilient Central Coast Equity Fellow • Friends of the Finger Bowl
• Future Forum
• Gault School
• Groundswell Coastal Ecology
• Homeless Garden Project
• Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
• Main Beach Volleyball Club
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary – Recreational Fishing • Monterey Bay Sanctuary Exploration Center
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• NOAA / MBNMS
• Ocean Protection Council
• Outrigger Santa Cruz
• Pearson Arrow Surf & Sport

33.23 19
• Promotoras
• Queer Youth Task Force
• Richard Schmidt Surf School, Inc.
• Rise Together
• Santa Cruz Beach Volleyball Club
• Santa Cruz Bird Club
• Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District
• Santa Cruz Harbor
• Santa Cruz Longboard Union
• Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History
• Save Our Shores
• Save the Waves
• Save West Cliff
• Seymour Center
• Shared Adventures
• Smart Coast CA
• Steamer Lane Supply
• Surfrider Foundation
• The Nature Conservancy
• UCSC Coastal Resilience Center
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Fish and Wildlife
• US Geological Survey
• Ventures
• Veteran Surf Alliance
• Wharf Tenants
• Youth Liaison

33.24 Resilient Coast Santa Cruz 2.0:

Shoreline Adaptation Blueprints
October 28, 2025
City Council Presentation
Tiffany Wise-West | Sustainability + Resiliency Officer Hilary Papendick | Senior Resilience Planner

33.25 Project Outcomes
Compliance with SB 272
Shoreline Adaptation
Management Plans
Implementation Blueprints
Local Coastal Program
Policy Recommendations

33.26 Project Overview
Phase 1:

Community
Level Setting
Fall 2025-
Winter 2026
Phase 2: Refine
Adaptation
Pathways
Winter-Summer
2026
Phase 3: Cost &
Funding
Analysis
Summer 2026
Phase 4:

Shoreline Plan
& Blueprints
Fall 2026 -
Winter 2027
Community engagement throughout each phase

33.27 Engagement Summary
• Informed by Equitable Community Engagement
principles
• 4-5 Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2 Community Conversations in each subarea
(total of 6)
• 2 Small Focus Groups in each subarea, plus
topic-specific (total of 10)
• Tribal Consultation
• Public Opinion Polling
• Council Presentations (total of 4)
Photo by Toby Roessingh 33.28
Upcoming Engagement Events
• Advisory Committee Meeting –
Thursday, October 30th, 2025
• Open Houses (5:30pm- 7:30pm)
• West Cliff Neighborhood – November 5
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Exploration Center
• Main/Cowell Beaches – November 6
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Exploration Center
• Seabright/East Cliff – November 13
• Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History
Outreach Completed
• Post card mailers
• Media advisory
• Social media posts
• City newsletter
• Flyers
• Website

33.29 Questions?

33.30 34.1